Morphogenic Family Fields (Part 2)

Summary

The transcript centers on a Psychedelic Salon episode hosted by Lorenzo, who opens with personal remarks about fatigue, recent social visits, and upcoming interviews related to psychedelic research. He notes that Charlie Grobe, Francisco Moreno, and a Johns Hopkins psilocybin researcher recently presented at the American Psychiatric Association meeting on the use of psilocybin in new treatment methods for illness, suggesting that psychedelic medicine is gaining mainstream attention. Lorenzo then transitions into the main archival content: a June 8, 1998 trilogue in Santa Cruz, California, featuring Rupert Sheldrake, Ralph Abraham, and Terence McKenna discussing Sheldrake’s hypothesis of morphic or family fields. A major portion of the discussion examines what kind of “field” best describes morphic resonance and related phenomena. The participants debate whether the term should be understood metaphorically or as an actual ontological structure. Sheldrake distinguishes his idea from classical electromagnetic fields and from the standard use of field in physics, while also exploring whether quantum field theory, Bohm’s quantum potential, or gravitation provide better analogies. The conversation repeatedly returns to the problem of nonlocality: entanglement, Bell’s theorem, the EPR paradox, and instantaneous correlation are invoked as possible models for distant but connected phenomena such as telepathy, a mother sensing a child, or a pigeon finding its way home. The speakers are cautious about importing quantum mechanics directly into psychology or sociology, but they also see quantum nonlocality as more suggestive than classical mechanical models. The trilogue also explores alternative metaphors for connection. Mechanical images such as springs, vibrating media, and acoustic resonance are contrasted with more abstract models like private fields, halos, and nimbic structures. Abraham and Sheldrake discuss whether a family field might be better imagined as a coordinate system or a hydrodynamic model, where the field is not a substance but a framework for describing relations among members of a system. Hydrodynamics, moving coordinate frames, and the restricted three-body problem are used to illustrate how a model can shift perspective while preserving useful structure. The conversation emphasizes that any useful mathematical model for family fields or psychic phenomena would need to be simple, data-driven, and flexible enough to accommodate multiple levels of description. The discussion broadens into the philosophy and sociology of science. The speakers note that psychology has long sought scientific respectability through mathematization, but that the most effective therapeutic work often depends on the “gifted therapist” rather than formal models. They argue that if family fields or social systems are to be modeled mathematically, researchers will need more empirical data from anthropology, ethology, and related fields. Sheldrake suggests that quantitative studies of birds, kinship structures, and cultural differences could help extend Hellinger’s work on family constellations and social fields. The conversation ends with the recognition that field modeling may be promising, but only if it is grounded in observation rather than forced into an ill-fitting physics vocabulary. After the archival trilogue, Lorenzo reflects that this particular conversation felt less energetic than earlier ones and speculates that the participants may have been running out of steam. He then shifts to listener mail and ethnobotanical updates. One thread concerns a plant he previously mentioned under the folk name “berry dreamflower,” which turns out to be geejabong, spelled Syzygium gidjibang, an Australian species reportedly found on remote rock ledges and described as having a fragrance that can induce a mild hypnotic or entheogenic effect when sniffed. Lorenzo reads responses from Nat Bletter and Eric, both of whom are interested in tracking down botanical references and sharing recordings from ethnobotanical conferences. He also mentions the Botanical Preservation Corps and the possibility of using listener-contributed recordings, while noting copyright concerns for commercially produced tapes. The final section addresses community, privacy, and psychedelic networking. Lorenzo reads appreciative emails from listeners who value the salon as a social and intellectual space, especially for those who feel isolated or are seeking psychedelic community. He reassures correspondents that he protects privacy and does not publish full names or email addresses. He discusses the difficulty of sharing ayahuasca contacts publicly because of the risk of overwhelming or endangering healers, and he recommends the Iquitos conference organized by Alan Shoemaker as a place to meet reputable practitioners. He also mentions Burning Man, the Planque Norte camp and lecture series, and a request from Alicia, who is involved in the Harbor UCLA psilocybin study with Charlie Grobe and Preet Chopra, for suggestions about music suitable for therapeutic psilocybin sessions. The episode closes with announcements about an upcoming interview with John Hanna, a reminder of the podcast’s Creative Commons license, and Lorenzo’s customary sign-off from “cyberdelic space.”