While I don't have definitive proof of a direct conversation or published statement where Erich von Däniken explicitly acknowledges Rupert Sheldrake and morphological fields, we can infer some likelihood based on the timelines and common themes they explored:
* **Timelines:** von Däniken's *Chariots of the Gods?* was published in 1968, gaining significant popularity in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Sheldrake's *A New Science of Life*, which introduced the concept of morphological fields, was published in 1981. It's therefore plausible that von Däniken became aware of Sheldrake's work sometime in the 1980s or later, especially if he continued to follow developments in fringe science or alternative theories.
* **Common Themes:** Both von Däniken and Sheldrake touch on ideas that challenge mainstream scientific perspectives. Von Däniken proposed ancient astronauts influencing human civilization, implying knowledge and abilities beyond our current understanding. Sheldrake proposes that things inherit a memory from previous things of their kind, this memory influences how they grow.
**Similarities Between Sheldrake's Morphological Fields and Burr's L-Fields:**
Yes, there are notable similarities and historical connections between Sheldrake's morphological fields and Harold S. Burr's L-fields (Life-fields). Here's a breakdown:
* **Underlying Field Concept:** Both concepts propose that an invisible, organizing field underlies and influences the form, behavior, and development of living organisms. These fields are seen as more than just the sum of their physical parts; they provide a template or guiding force.
* **Holistic View:** Both L-fields and
morphological fields represent a holistic view of biology, suggesting that living systems are interconnected and influenced by factors beyond purely mechanistic processes.
* **Influence on Form and Behavior:** Both concepts propose that these fields play a role in determining the shape, structure, and even behavior of organisms.
* **Memory and Inheritance:** While the specific mechanisms differ, both ideas suggest a form of non-material inheritance. Sheldrake's morphological fields involve "morphic resonance," where past forms influence future ones. Burr's L-fields, while less explicitly about "memory," imply that the field structure is somehow transmitted or maintained over generations.
* **Connection to Consciousness:** Some interpretations of both L-fields and morphological fields suggest a potential link to consciousness or non-local phenomena.
* **Rejection by Mainstream Science:** Both Burr's L-fields and Sheldrake's morphological fields have faced skepticism and resistance from mainstream scientific communities due to their perceived lack of empirical evidence and deviation from established paradigms.
**Differences:**
* **Methodology:** Burr primarily used biophysical measurements of electrical potentials in living organisms to study L-fields. Sheldrake relies more on theoretical arguments, experimental designs to test for "morphic resonance" (often involving behavioral experiments), and anecdotal evidence.
* **Emphasis:** Burr focused more on the measurable electrical aspects of the L-field, while Sheldrake emphasizes the informational and organizing role of morphological fields in shaping form and behavior.
* **Specificity:** Sheldrake's concept of "morphic resonance" suggests that each type of organism or behavior has its own specific morphological field, while Burr's L-field concept is somewhat more general, referring to a field associated with life in general.
In essence, Sheldrake's work can be seen as a more developed and refined (albeit still controversial) version of the basic idea that Burr pioneered with L-fields. Sheldrake himself acknowledges Burr's work as a precursor to his own.
**In Summary:**
* It is plausible that von Daniken was aware of Sheldrake, but no definitive proof.
* Sheldrake's morphological fields are conceptually similar to Burr's L-fields, both proposing that an underlying organizing field influences living organisms. Sheldrake's work can be seen as a development of Burr's ideas. Both concepts have faced criticism from mainstream science.
4
Responses