|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
The Presence of the Past
und über 1 Million weitere Bücher verfügbar für Amazon Kindle .
Erfahren Sie mehr
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wird oft zusammen gekauft
Produktinformation
|
Mehr über den Autor
Entdecken Sie Bücher, lesen Sie über Autoren und mehr
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Rupert Sheldrake auf Amazon
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Rupert Sheldrake auf Amazon
Produktbeschreibungen
From Library Journal
In his A New Science of Life ( LJ 5/15/82), Sheldrake put forward the hypothesis of "formative causation" to explain evolutionary development. In this book, he focuses on "morphic resonance," one aspect of the hypothesis, and describes how morphic fields influence organisms to develop in a given way. He contends that morphic fields shape the expression of genetic characteristics and the evolution of behavior and social structures, and discusses how field theories from physics, ideas about the "collective unconscious" in the social sciences, and evolutionary theories in the life sciences may relate to one another. A book for specialists, most appropriate for academic philosophy of science collections. Laurie Tynan, Montgomery Cty.
Norristown P.L., Pa.
Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc. -- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine andere Ausgabe: Gebundene Ausgabe .
Norristown P.L., Pa.
Copyright 1988 Reed Business Information, Inc. -- Dieser Text bezieht sich auf eine andere Ausgabe: Gebundene Ausgabe .
Pressestimmen
"So compelling that it sets the reader to underlining words and scribbling notes in the margin."
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
Tags(Was ist das?)Bei einem Tag handelt es sich um ein Schlagwort, das zum Produkt passt.
Tags erleichtern allen Kunden die Suche und die Sortierung ihrer Lieblingsprodukte. |
Kundenrezensionen
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen
0 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Format:Taschenbuch
"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.
2 von 5 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Format:Taschenbuch
"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.
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
12 Rezensionen
82 von 85 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Hmm? am i really the first to give 5 stars?
4. August 2002
Format:Taschenbuch
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.
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.
39 von 41 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
UNFORGETTABLE IDEAS
18. Januar 2004
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
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.
24 von 24 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
A Simple Idea Viewed from a New Perspective
6. Dezember 2005
Format:Taschenbuch
Legendary managment guru W. Edwards Deming spoke frequently of "profound knowledge." Basically, this is knowledge that profoundly changes the way you think and releases new creative energies. See his book The New Economics.
Rupert Sheldrake's ideas about "morphogenetic fields" and "morphic resonance" must surely be that kind of knowledge. He begins with a fairly simple scientific concept and brings it into another creative universe. Many of us are familiar with "fields". For example, there are electomagnetic fields, gravitational fields, and quantum matter fields.
We know from Science that we are immersed in a sea of electromagnetic fields of numerous frequencies. Waves of energy pass through each other without interfering with each other. Matter is condensed energy. We can see that form of energy, however there is a lot of energy we cannot see.
Based on mathematical calculations, we also know that an infinite spectrum of energy waves is theoretically possible. Waves in infinite variety might be passing through each other continuously without noticeably interacting. Perhaps, the world we know is just one spectrum connected to many other spectrums we haven't seen yet.
We'd have worlds have within worlds, in other words: "baby universes", ten dimensions in "space time", "superstrings", "universe splits", and so forth and so on.
Author and physcist David Bohn famously explained it this way. "Everything material is also mental, and everything mental is also material. But, there may be more infinitely subtle levels of matter than we are aware of." This is where Sheldrake's morphogentic fields come into the picture, or big picture, it seems to me. The forms and physical properties that we see resonating throughout existence are developed by some kind of know-how or knowledge. Could it be that there are fields in Biology and Chemistry like the fields we recognize in Physics?
If I've got it right, Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields are mental or maybe spiritual fields that spread know-how and knowledge throughout creation. Maybe I've skipped a rung of the inner and outer worlds of existence, but I feel like I'm getting pretty warm here.
Sheldrake doesn't want us to just take his word for this, however. Theories in Science need to be tested. And, Sheldrake's already working on that. He proposes several experiments in the last few chapters of the book. Browsing Amazon, I see there's another book or two in publication about these experiments.
You might want to read this book with Out of Control by Kevin Kelly and/or Living Systems by James Grier Miller, which is what I did. Several reviewers of this book have mentioned "metaphysics". If you'd like to go in that direction as well, you might enjoy What is Process Theology by Robert B. Mellert or Process Theology: A Basic Introduction by Robert Mesle.
Rupert Sheldrake's ideas about "morphogenetic fields" and "morphic resonance" must surely be that kind of knowledge. He begins with a fairly simple scientific concept and brings it into another creative universe. Many of us are familiar with "fields". For example, there are electomagnetic fields, gravitational fields, and quantum matter fields.
We know from Science that we are immersed in a sea of electromagnetic fields of numerous frequencies. Waves of energy pass through each other without interfering with each other. Matter is condensed energy. We can see that form of energy, however there is a lot of energy we cannot see.
Based on mathematical calculations, we also know that an infinite spectrum of energy waves is theoretically possible. Waves in infinite variety might be passing through each other continuously without noticeably interacting. Perhaps, the world we know is just one spectrum connected to many other spectrums we haven't seen yet.
We'd have worlds have within worlds, in other words: "baby universes", ten dimensions in "space time", "superstrings", "universe splits", and so forth and so on.
Author and physcist David Bohn famously explained it this way. "Everything material is also mental, and everything mental is also material. But, there may be more infinitely subtle levels of matter than we are aware of." This is where Sheldrake's morphogentic fields come into the picture, or big picture, it seems to me. The forms and physical properties that we see resonating throughout existence are developed by some kind of know-how or knowledge. Could it be that there are fields in Biology and Chemistry like the fields we recognize in Physics?
If I've got it right, Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields are mental or maybe spiritual fields that spread know-how and knowledge throughout creation. Maybe I've skipped a rung of the inner and outer worlds of existence, but I feel like I'm getting pretty warm here.
Sheldrake doesn't want us to just take his word for this, however. Theories in Science need to be tested. And, Sheldrake's already working on that. He proposes several experiments in the last few chapters of the book. Browsing Amazon, I see there's another book or two in publication about these experiments.
You might want to read this book with Out of Control by Kevin Kelly and/or Living Systems by James Grier Miller, which is what I did. Several reviewers of this book have mentioned "metaphysics". If you'd like to go in that direction as well, you might enjoy What is Process Theology by Robert B. Mellert or Process Theology: A Basic Introduction by Robert Mesle.
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich?
Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.
Kunden diskutieren
|
Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen Aktive Diskussionen in ähnlichen Foren
Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
|
Ähnliche Foren
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieblingslisten
Ähnliche Artikel finden
Anhand des Sachgebietes nach ähnlichen Produkten suchen:
Ihr Kommentar
Möchten Sie die Produktinformationen aktualisieren oder Feedback zu den Produktabbildungen geben?
|
