Morphogenetic Fields and Akasha
A conversation between Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, Dora Kunz,
Dr. Renee Weber, and Will Ross
(Originally published in The Theosophical Research Journal, vol. II, No. 1, March 1985
Introduction
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, author of A New Science of Life, explained the basic concept of his theory.
Besides the already known fields of science, such as the gravitational fields, Sheldrake has
hypothesized morphogenetic fields or M-fields. He says these fields are invisible organizing structures
that mould or shape things like crystals, plants and animals, and also have an organizing effect on
behaviour. In other words, this field becomes a kind of blueprint that regulates and organizes
subsequent units of the same type. Subsequent units “tune” into (or “resonate” with), and then
repeat, the previously created “archetype” which can operate across time and space. Stated another
way, as each new unit is formed and shaped, it reinforces the M-field and the “habit” is established.
This theory extends all the way from molecular crystals to complex living organisms. An important
point is that it becomes progressively easier and faster for subsequent units of whatever species we
are discussing to adopt the structure. Eventually, the structure appears inherent and virtually
changeless.
Sheldrake first discussed the conventional genetics programming and DNA doctrine. According to
this, the way in which organisms develop is somehow “programmed” into their DNA. He then argued
that DNA indeed codes the sequence for amino acids, which form protein. But from the M-field
standpoint, the form and organization of cells, tissues, organs, and organisms as a whole are
governed by a hierarchy of morphogenic fields that are not inherited chemically but are, instead,
given directly by morphic resonance from past organisms of the same species.
To clarify this idea Dr. Sheldrake used the analogy of a television set. Imagine a person who
knows nothing about electricity. He is shown a television set for the first time. He might at first think
that the set actually contains little people, whose images appear on the screen. But after looking
inside and finding only wires and transistors, he might hypothesize that the images somehow arise
from complicated interactions among the components of the set. This theory would seem particularly
plausible in light of the fact that the images become distorted or disappear when components are
removed. If it were then suggested that the images in fact depend upon invisible influences entering
the set from far away, he might reject it. His theory that nothing comes into the set from the outside
would be reinforced by the discovery that the set weighs the same whether turned “on” or “off”.
This point of view may resemble the conventional approach to biology, where wires, transistors,
etc., correspond to DNA protein molecules, etc. Sheldrake agrees that genetic changes can affect the
inheritance of form or instinct by altering the “tuning” or by introducing distortions into the
“reception”. But genetic factors by themselves cannot fully account for the inheritance of form and
instinct, any more than the particular pictures on the screen of a TV set can be explained in terms of
its wiring diagram alone.
Because, in Sheldrake’s view, the human nervous system is also governed by M-fields, the same
principle would hold true for human beings. This would have great implications for our
understanding of how and why people learn. Learning of this kind would thus be a kind of basic
species inheritance, more or less automatically “remembered”. It would not be located in the
2
individual brain at all, but given directly from species structure through morphic resonance. The
cumulative experiences of humankind would thus indeed include the archetypical forms described by
Jung.
AUSTHEOS.ORG.AU
