|
Morphogenetic Magick I
What does it mean?
Scot Rhoads
Metaphysics uses metaphors, such as the Kabbalah and the Tarot, to explain the
ineffable. Science uses metaphors, too. Atomic models are metaphors for something that is
otherwise beyond comprehension. These metaphors have direct applications, as well: when
using the Wand in ritual, or when analyzing behavior according to the Id, Ego and Super
Ego. But we live in a scientific world, rooted in the mechanistic paradigm. We understand
our metaphors to be such, or we are so immersed in them that we are completely unaware. In
this world, magickal metaphors make no sense. People ask, "Do you really believe that
stuff?" The answer is both yes and no. These are metaphors. It's like asking Ernest
Rutherford if he really believed that an atom was a tiny glob of positively charged
pudding with negatively charged raisins floating in it.
If we are aware that these explanations are metaphors, we can translate them from one
paradigm to another. This is very useful in removing blocks. Those of us immersed in a
scientific paradigm can thus expand it to include understandings that are otherwise
meaningless. This makes available knowledge locked in paradigms which might ordinarily be
mutually exclusive.
As science expands its understanding beyond the narrow paradigms established by Newton,
it becomes easier to see underlying similarities with the occult. Through Einsteinian and
quantum physical paradigms, science explains many things in ways that can readily relate
to ancient teachings. One of the most dramatic paradigms to gain scientific respectability
is the Gaia hypothesis (see Rose & Quill, vol.1, no.3). Through this paradigm we can
justify treating the earth as a living being to that part of our mind which balks at the
thought. The hypothesis of formative causation (HFC) offers even greater potential and on
a fundamental level. This hypothesis has yet to achieve scientific acceptance, but it is
quite plausible. Though it may not yet have won any converts to the magickal paradigm, it
can be a useful crutch for those of us who wish to overcome "scientific blocks"
in our understanding and use of new paradigms.
The hypothesis of formative causation, as described in Rupert Sheldrake's
A New Science of Life, states that each form influences building blocks (in a
non-spacial, non-temporal, non-energetic way) to constitute similar forms, to the degree
that the building blocks are similar to the form's constituents. The mere existence of a
thing helps to cause the creation of similar things. This influence is called a
morphogenetic field (morpho: form, genetic: creating, field: influence). Metaphysically,
one could say that the Universe has a memory.
Modern (mechanistic) science insists that random motion of particles is the fundamental
process that creates forms. In crystal formation, molecules orient themselves randomly
relative to their neighbors. When they get it "right," they tend to
"stick" (or when they tend to "stick," we call that "getting it
right"). As more and more stick together in the same relationship, a crystal forms.
This random motion is the basis for all generation of forms. A random event, in this
context, is a change that can result in two or more distinct states (or situations) which
are of an identical energy level. "Energy level" is the amount of energy
necessary to create a given state (or "trapped within" a given state), measured
from an arbitrary reference state. Water molecules in an ice crystal are stable (they
"stick") because they are in a low energy state. Even starting from the freezing
point, it takes a surprising amount of energy to get them moving enough to disrupt the
crystal. Once you've done so (and created water), they are in a high-energy state, and are
much less stable. They can't even retain their own form as a whole; they take whatever
form you pour them into.
Consider the illustration of rocks rolling down a round hill to a flat plain. Each
motion of a rock is driven downward by gravity, but any lateral motion is random. The
rocks collect at the bottom of the hill (obviously), and they distribute themselves around
it randomly. Since the bottom of the hill is a plane, there are many points that are of
identical energy levels—360 worth of them. These energy levels are potential energy,
measured by the distance of an object from the center of the earth (an arbitrary point).
Each rock travels a path of progressively lower energy levels (choosing randomly among
equally low successive states) until it lies at the bottom—the lowest energy state
available.
Turn the rolling rocks into a metaphor for the generation of forms. Each falling rock
represents the random processes that build up something we recognize as a kind of shape,
or spatial relationship. The place that each rock comes to rest (north, east, etc.) we
recognize as forms. We see them as different to the degree that they are distant from one
another. In the mechanistic universe, each rock in this model would fall randomly. The
only way the fall of one rock could affect another is through contact. Similarly, forms
can only influence one another physically (from seed crystals to bashing forms together).
But what if the fall of one rock wears a channel in the hill? That channel could affect
another rock's path. This sounds mechanistic, but remember that it illustrates a
non-mechanistic principle. The "hill" is the fabric of the universe itself, it
is not "supposed" to be affected in any way by the passage of a rock.
In the formative causation universe, the presence of a rock at any point (representing
a specific form) leaves an "indentation" in the hill. This indentation is a
morphogenetic field. (It is not the same thing as affecting the slope of the hill, but
that distinction is artificial in this illustration—sorry). Rocks gravitate toward
the nearest indentation. This represents objects favoring an earlier form among all
possible forms at a given energy level—this is what a morphogenetic field does.
Assume that no rock has ever rolled down our perfectly round hill—there is no
influence from previous events. If you drop rocks on the top and observe them to
distribute themselves randomly 360? Around the hill, this is the result you expect in a
mechanistic universe. All the different forms that are energetically equal will manifest
at random. In crystallization of a new chemical, you would get equal numbers of
"north," "south," "east" and "west" crystals. If,
by chance, more rocks fall to the north than any other direction, the hypothesis of
formative causation dictates a different outcome. At first, there would be a 25% chance
for a rock to roll toward the north (vs. east, south, or west). In the formative causation
universe, the slight furrow created by each falling rock affects the fall of subsequent
rocks. If the first four rocks would roll to the north (.4% chance in the mechanistic
universe, not too unlikely), then the slight channel they produced would create a greater
than 25% chance for future rocks rolling toward the north. (Remember: that means things
are aligning in a certain form, such as "north" crystals, rather than other
forms that should be equally likely.) As subsequent rocks reinforced this, the chance
could eventually become so skewed that it would be rare to see a rock roll anywhere else.
This would be a form that was inexplicably favored in nature.
This example is purely random; it refers to the most basic levels of form such as
crystals. In crystal formation, the molecules are just molecules until they form into the
crystal. There are just two states: molecule and crystal. On a higher level of
organization, there are many related forms. In ontogeny, for instance, there are many
intermediate states between egg and adult, each of which has its own form, interrelated
but distinct. Let us slightly modify our "hill" to fit. The principle is the
same, but the level of organization is now higher.
Suppose the rocks eventually wore a gully down the north side, thus channeling new
rocks in that direction. This would be a physical model of a "chreode." That is
a probabilistic path of forms (a series of morphogenetic fields) that lead to a certain
state—in this case, lying at the bottom of the hill's north face. Lying on the north
face would be akin to an egg eventually taking the form a certain species within a genus,
or genus within a family, etc. (This is distinct from the influence of the biochemical
information contained in the DNA! That is a different principle that cannot explain the
whole story of ontogeny.)
The depth of the gully represents the probability of the events. A wide, shallow gully
would allow rocks to meander down the mountain, there would be a good deal of variety
(randomness) in related forms, as with people. A narrow, deep gully would force each rock
to travel nearly the same path—related forms would tend to be difficult to
distinguish, as with "peas in a pod." The hill is a highly symbolic metaphor.
Here are some concrete applications:
One puzzle that the hypothesis of formative causation can explain deals with crystal
formation. About 1950 a company grew crystals of anhydrous ethylene diamine tartrate from
a water solution. A year after the plant opened, crystals of monohydrate ethylene diamine
tartrate began corrupting the growth of original crystals. Eventually the new crystals
spread to the distant cutting and polishing factory. These monohydrated crystals had not
appeared during the three years of research and development or the first year of
manufacture. Why did they suddenly become painfully common?
The best mechanistic answer so far is micro seed crystals floating around in the
atmosphere. Formative causation suggests a different reason: to continue the example, each
rock occupying a position makes the indentation (morphogenetic field) there deeper. The
anhydrous crystals had their own deep indentation established. The new monohydrated
crystals were, at first, rare formations. But each time that type of crystal formed, it
was like another rock leaving its indentation in this new place. Eventually the new
indentation grew deep enough that it became common for a rock to roll there—the new
crystal became common.
Crystal structures are straight forward, but the hypothesis of formative causation can
also explain some "interesting" observations in behavior. Scientists in the
1920's began maze-running experiments on rats. Over the course of 32 generations, the
maze-running ability of the rats increased, irrespective of genetic influence. Another
experimenter, trying to avoid some of the criticisms of the first experiment, ran a
variation of it. The new rats mysteriously learned the maze as quickly as the final
generation in the previous experiment. A final, more thorough experiment addressed
complaints about earlier methodology. There was no doubt that the rats began the
experiment learning the maze much faster than the initial rats. There was also no doubt
that their learning times improved irrespective of genetic influence. The scientific
community ignored these mysterious results because they did not fit in their mechanistic
paradigm. According to the HFC, however, the "pioneer" rats made it easier for
subsequent rats to learn. This is similar to the hundredth monkey effect.
In the 50's, scientists were feeding sweet potatoes to monkeys on a Japanese island.
Younger monkeys gradually learned to wash the sand off their potatoes in the sea. One day,
all but the very old and very young were washing their potatoes. In addition, monkeys on
other islands had somehow learned the behavior. It seemed that the number of potato
washing monkeys reached a critical number and suddenly the behavior became universal. The
critical number was arbitrarily called one hundred; thus "the hundredth monkey
effect."
The following explains Rupert Sheldrake's hypothesis quoted from pages
115<196>118 of A New Science of Life. The first paragraph following the number is
the quotation. The paragraph following that is a translation into the vernacular (as much
as possible). The third paragraph is a metaphysical version. The first set is the above
format using a familiar example.
Gravity
A massive body will exert a force on another mass in the direction of the body's center
of mass, proportional to the body's mass and inversely proportion to the similarity of
position of (distance between) the two centers of mass. It will do this without any
physical means of transferring energy. This innate characteristic of matter can be
described as a field in space surrounding each massive body.
Masses have gravitational fields proportionate to the amount of mass. Objects
experience this field as a "pull" which decreases as the square of the distance
from the center of mass increases.
Matter wants to be with other matter, or `matter loves matter.'
Summary of
the Hypothesis of Formative Causation.
I) In addition to the types of energetic causation known to physics, and in addition to
the causation due to structures of known physical fields, a further type of causation is
responsible for the forms of all material morphic units (subatomic particles, atoms,
molecules, crystals, quasi-crystalline aggregates, organelles, cells, tissues, organs,
organisms). Form, in the sense used here, includes not only the shape of the outer surface
of the morphic unit but also its internal structure. This causation, called formative
causation, imposes spatial order on changes brought about by energetic causation. It is
not energetic, nor is it reducible to the causation brought about by physical fields.
The HFC proposes a new influence in the universe, unrelated to those now recognized in
physics, which affects the organization of matter into forms.
The Universe remembers forms and will try to recreate them.
II) Formative causation depends on morphogenetic fields, structures with morphogenetic
effects on material systems. Each kind of morphic unit has its own characteristic
morphogenetic field. In the morphogenesis of a particular morphic unit, one or more of its
characteristic parts—referred to as the morphogenetic germ—becomes surrounded
by, or embedded within, the morphogenetic field of the morphic unit. This field contains
the morphic unit's virtual form, which is actualized as appropriate component parts come
within its range of influence and fit into their appropriate relative positions. The
fitting into position of the parts of a morphic unit is accompanied by a release of
energy, usually as heat, and is thermodynamically spontaneous; from an energetic point of
view, the structures of morphic units appear as minima or `wells' of potential energy.
This influence takes the form of morphogenetic fields, which is an influential pattern
that each form sets up as a part of its existence. When matter assumes a form, some
particle will take its place in the field, and then others will take their places relative
to it, impelled by physical laws.
The Universe's memory takes the form of archetypes, which each form in the Universe
must have. Subunits in a chaotic state will form a seed in the appropriate archetype,
around which the entire form will build.
III) Most inorganic morphogenesis is rapid, but biological morphogenesis is relatively
slow and passes through a succession of intermediate stages. A given type of morphogenesis
usually follows a particular developmental pathway; such a canalized pathway of change is
called a chreode. Nevertheless, morphogenesis may also proceed towards the final form from
different morphogenetic germs and by different pathways, as in the phenomena of regulation
and regeneration. In the cycles of cell growth and cell division and in the development of
the differentiated structures of multicellular organisms, a succession of morphogenetic
processes take place under the influence of a succession of morphogenetic fields.
Living things (which develop over time) set up continua of morphogenetic fields. A
specific set of continua (e.g., for one species) is called a chreode, which causes a given
developmental form to proceed to its subsequent form. Different chreodes can lead to the
same form.
A chain of linked archetypes (e.g., Maiden to Mother to Crone) will shape development
in a particular direction. Different paths can lead to the same destination.
IV) The forms of previous similar systems that act upon it across time and space
determine the characteristic form of a given morphic unit by a process called morphic
resonance.
This influence takes place through the morphogenetic field and depends on the systems'
three-dimensional structures and patterns of vibration. Morphic resonance is analogous to
energetic resonance in its specificity, but it is not explicable in terms of any known
type of resonance, nor does it involve transmission of energy.
Forms influence future forms (over space and time) to the degree that they are similar.
This influence is similar in character to sympathetic vibration (e.g., when a vibrating
piano string causes nearby strings tuned to the same note to vibrate), but it is a
principle completely new to physics.
Things influence future things to the degree that they "resonate."
V) All similar past systems act upon a subsequent similar system by morphic resonance.
This action is provisionally assumed not to be attenuated by space or time, and to
continue indefinitely; however the relative effect of a given system declines as the
number of similar systems contributing to morphic resonance increases.
All similar forms contribute to their morphogenetic field; thus the proportion of a
given form's influence depends on how diluted it is by the quantity similar forms. Until
we know better, we will assume that morphogenetic fields are unaffected by space or time.
All things contribute to their archetypes. As an archetype becomes stronger, each
individual contribution is weaker relative to the archetype itself, thus influencing the
archetype proportionately less. (We channeled that archetypes transcend space and time.)
VI) The hypothesis of formative causation accounts for the repetition of forms, but
does not explain how the first example of any given form originally came into being. This
unique event can be ascribed to chance, or to creativity inherent in matter, or to a
transcendent creative agency. A decision between these alternatives can be made only on
metaphysical grounds and lies outside the scope of the hypothesis.
The HFC deals with things as they are now, not prime causes. We don't even want to talk
about that.
(Maybe there's a god or something, we don't know. You figure it out, we can't do
everything.)
VII) Morphic resonance from the intermediate stages of previous similar processes of
morphogenesis tends to canalize subsequent similar morphogenetic processes into the same
chreodes.
Not only is there a chreode established by something changing from form A to form Z,
but also in the change from B to Z, C to Z, to Z, etc. All these separate chreodes
strengthen the overall chreode, thus providing an increasingly more potent influence to
proceed along the established developmental path.
Once you get into an established track, you develop momentum that becomes progressively
harder to overcome. This influences your future actions and your present state to a
progressively greater degree.
viii) Morphic resonance from past systems with a characteristic polarity can only occur
effectively after the morphogenetic germ of a subsequent system has been suitably
polarized. Systems that are asymmetrical in all three dimensions and exist in right or
left `handed' forms influence subsequent similar systems by morphic resonance irrespective
of handedness.
To resonate properly, a morphogenetic germ must share its morphogenetic field's
particular axes of symmetry (e.g., head/tail, back/front, and left/right). If there is no
axis of symmetry, a field will influence a form and its mirror image equally. Fields do
not themselves exhibit `handedness.'
(To resonate, you have to do it right. Sometimes there are things you can ignore.)
ix) Morphogenetic fields are adjustable in absolute size and can be `scaled up' or
`scaled down' within limits. Thus previous systems influence subsequent systems of similar
form by morphic resonance even though their sizes may differ.
Size is not a factor in morphic resonance. (It's not the size that counts.)
( . . . one more thing you can ignore.)
x) Even after adjustment for size, the many previous systems influencing a subsequent
system by morphic resonance are not identical, but only similar in form. Therefore their
forms are not precisely superimposed within the morphogenetic field. The most frequent
type of previous form makes the greatest contribution by morphic resonance, the least
frequent the least: morphogenetic fields are not precisely defined but are represented by
probability structures which depend on the statistical distribution of previous similar
forms. The probability distributions of electronic orbitals described by solutions of the
Schrdinger equation are examples of such probability structures, and are similar in kind
to the probability structures of the morphogenetic fields of morphic units at higher
levels.
Because of random variations in forms contributing to a morphogenetic field, the fields
are inexact. They influence structure rather than define it. Similarly, physicists'
"electron clouds" around atomic nuclei do not define where each electron must
be, but where they probably are.
Everything is an individual expression of its archetypes. Archetypes are generalized
forms. "As above so below, but according to its own nature."
XI) The morphogenetic fields of morphic units influence morphogenesis by acting upon
the morphogenetic fields of their constituent parts. Thus the fields of tissues influence
the fields of cells; those of cells, organelles; those of crystals, molecules; those of
molecules, atoms; and so on. These actions depend on the influence of higher-level
probability structures on lower-level probability structures and are thus probabilistic.
The constituent parts of a complex system each create interrelated fields. Remember
that this is all just probabilities.
Archetypes form hierarchies, from an "archetype" for each individual form
through those we commonly recognize as archetypical and perhaps leading to
"God."
ix) Once the final form of a morphic unit is actualized, the continued action of
morphic resonance from similar past forms stabilizes and maintains it. If the form
persists, the morphic resonance acting upon it will include a contribution from its own
past states. In so far as the system resembles its own past states more closely than those
of other systems, this morphic resonance will be highly specific, and may be of
considerable importance in maintaining the system's identity.
The form most similar to a given form is the form itself (as the number closest to `10'
is not `10.001,' but `10'). Thus, barring changes, an individual form's morphogenetic
field affects itself more than anything else does. This may be why things tend to stay the
same.
The longer you wait the tougher it is to get out of a rut.
ix) The hypothesis of formative causation is capable of being tested experimentally.
We can check this stuff out.
We can tell if this is consistent with the global mind set. (If so, every person who
looks can find this to be true for him.) This is a Law.
The hypothesis of formative causation can explain things that may be inexplicable
mechanistically (e.g., memory, instinct and the items mentioned above). If you find this
condensation less than compelling, remember it is taken from 200 pages of explanation,
illustration and support. Though dense and challenging, Rupert Sheldrake's A New Science
of Life is understandable. (Perhaps this is why it has little respect in its field.) This
book is a "must have" in a metaphysical library (it is the only irreplaceable
book I can think of). But, though testable, the HFC has yet to be tested and the extent of
its application is far from clear. Never the less, its compelling nature argues in favor
of an open-minded consideration of non-mechanistic paradigms. The existence of a coherent,
inclusive, non-mechanistic explanation of the Universe opens the door for people to
believe what they choose. This can free us from the trap that the mechanistic paradigm
creates—even in a mechanistic universe.
The next issue will address the relationship of metaphysics and the hypothesis of
formative causation.
| 
