Revision as of 05:12, 20 April 2006 edit209.135.108.189 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:58, 20 April 2006 edit undoGoethean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users40,563 edits replyNext edit → | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
But if any of the text seems so unbelievable to you or others, why don't you email Sheldrake and verify if any of the written is true or not. | But if any of the text seems so unbelievable to you or others, why don't you email Sheldrake and verify if any of the written is true or not. | ||
Probably there are other relevant things to be added on morphic fields, but my text is certainly not irelevant, and not some 'nonsense'.Ndru01 | Probably there are other relevant things to be added on morphic fields, but my text is certainly not irelevant, and not some 'nonsense'.Ndru01 | ||
:Page number. Give me a page number where Sheldrake talks about Akashic Records. Otherwise, your text is going to be removed. See ]. — ] ] 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:58, 20 April 2006
This article needs to be merged with Morphogenetic field (which means the same). Ben Finn 15:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While some people use Morphogenetic Field and Morphic Field interchangably, some do not, namely Rupert Sheldrake. Additionaly, the terms are cognates. And the distinction in the cognates reflects the distinction in their meaning. A Morphic Field is a Form Field. A Morphogenetic Field is a Form-Generating Field. The Morphic Field is pretty general. It includes the field that sustains the electron as existing as an electron. The Morphogenetic Field guides eggs turning into chicks. The Morphogentic Field is the Field that governs the Generation of Form. Ostensibly, the Morphogenetic Field would not sustain the electron as existing as an electron. Conversely, the Morphic Field would be general enough to guides eggs turning into chicks. The Morphogenetic Field can/should/would/could be thought of as a special kind of Morphic Field.
_____________________
Regarding the idea of merging this entry with morphogenetic fields, I am definitely against it, since morphic fields are a broader term, and essentially different (not synonimous at all) from the morphogenetic fields, being the subset of morphic fields and concerning only organic forms, while morphic fields relate to both organic and abstract (brain-generated/used) forms. Ndru01 00:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If you change the text of the article, please explain why... Ndru01 18:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- The morphic field/hyperplane of a form contains the actual data relevant for that form.
- "Morphic field/hyperplane"? The above constitutes original research. You are making stuff up and putting it in the article. You can't do that. — goethean ॐ 16:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is similar to the scientifically accepted unified field theory, the substratum of the physical world.
- Who says it's similar — you? Unless you have a quotation from a book by Rupert Sheldrake saying so, you can't put it in the article. — goethean ॐ 16:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That sentence about substratum isn't mine. That was one of the few sentences before I added my text, and I left that sentence too (since I respect other people unlike many others here). I also don't feel that sentence is very clear and necessary, so you can remove it if you like. And ok that one use of '/hyperplane' (under dual expression field/hyperplane) I'll remove. I agree the term shouldn't be used freely in the article like I did. But the comment about Rakovic in brackets shouldn't be problematic. Why not add something that is fairly relevant information, in brackets.Ndru01 16:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Are there any page numbers in your text? — goethean ॐ 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
What page numbers? For what?Ndru01 16:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Please read Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. — goethean ॐ 16:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
ok, I included 1 citation that I think is useful. I believe there are no problems with the article now, but agree that it can be always improved some more. Ndru01 17:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Since it appears to be problems with the last 2 paragraphs, I would kindly ask whoever has problems with it to specify what exactly is found so problematic in them. Thank you.Ndru01 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that you are simply making things up and putting them in the article. You cannot do that. Akashic records? On what page of what book does Sheldrake discuss Akashic records?
- Thoughts are elemental abstract forms
- Where does Sheldrake say that?
- One's past, a complex abstract form, is a group of abstract/energetic forms (representing thoughts) that are (energetically) similar in some way since they are all generated and/or processed by the same brain, with their collective morphic field known as an Akashic Record, one's default (and 'private') mental morphic field consisting of all the experiences and memories of one mind through its physical lifetime.
- This doesn't even make any sense, and has nothing to do with Sheldrake's theory. If you cannot distinguish between Sheldrake's ideas and those of others — including yourself — you should not be contributing to Misplaced Pages. Everything that you add to this or any article has to be cited. — goethean ॐ 21:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I certainly didn't 'make up' anything. Everything I said is either from Sheldrake's written material, or his interviews and lectures. And the morphic field issue is larger than Sheldrake himself, this topic isn't only exclusively about Sheldrake's word on morphic fields, but the subject of morphic fields itself. On Amazon someone says that Sheldrake didn't mention the Akashic records which is simply untrue. If indeed in none of the books are mentioned, he certainly did mention them several times related to morphic fields (exactly like I presented, as morphic fields of one's past, and I'm sure the descriptive word 'private' was also mentioned in some occasion) either in some interview on lecture, he mentioned them for sure, at least in answering a question about them, since they are related to morphic fields. Just typing in on Google 'Sheldrake Akashic' one can see for himself that it gives 636 hits and 'morphic akashic' 465 hits, so it is obvious that these 2 are in strong relation. And Sheldrake did say that thoughts are the simplest mental forms (or abstract, he did use that word that I'm also certain, not just the word 'mental, and I used the term 'elemental', which might not be the most fortunate), that thought are the basic ones for the more complex abstract/mental forms like skills and languages, explaining learning process in some occasion. That aslo I didn't just make up. But again I cannot be sure where exactly, in some of his texts, or interviews or lectures. It isn't in the "Presence of the Past" (which is from 1988), where there is a word of mental fields of 'habitual activities', behavioural patterns etc., but 'thoughts' as abstract forms probably came later when he moved more towards the field of telepathy where he is now. But if any of the text seems so unbelievable to you or others, why don't you email Sheldrake and verify if any of the written is true or not. Probably there are other relevant things to be added on morphic fields, but my text is certainly not irelevant, and not some 'nonsense'.Ndru01
- Page number. Give me a page number where Sheldrake talks about Akashic Records. Otherwise, your text is going to be removed. See WP:Verifiability. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)