Dr. Rupert Sheldrake has a good email Newsletter

#1
Dr. Rubert Sheldrake does interesting work on esoteric Christianity.

He publishes an email newsletter that is infrequent and good. Sign up here for free...

https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/newsletter

Most recent edition:

From Rupert Sheldrake
London, September 29, 2020
www.sheldrake.org
Happy Michaelmas!

Today, the Feast of St Michael and All Angels, is one of my favourite festivals, a time to remember our relationship to the many kinds of intelligence in the universe. On this day in 1992, I had a dialogue on the angels with my teacher Father Bede Griffiths at the Benedictine Abbey of St Boniface in Munich, Germany. Fr Bede, who was a Benedictine monk, lived in India at Shantivanam Ashram in Tamil Nadu, but both he and I were visiting Munich at the time of this festival. He was staying at the Abbey and the monks asked us to talk together in their church. It was the Feast of the Angels, so we talked about angels. I had forgotten that that our dialogue had been recorded, and I was delighted to find the cassette a few months ago. This dialogue is published today for the first time as a podcast and on YouTube

I recently gave an online talk on New Directions in Agriculture at Schumacher College, of which I am a fellow. I worked in agricultural research in India as Principal Plant Physiologist at the international institute ICRISAT, near Hyderabad. I have given several several technical seminars on agricultural research, but this is the first public talk I have given on this subject. I discuss, among other things, the importance of mixed cropping, the soil microbiome, new ways of using rather than wasting human wastes, and the potential for family orchards.

My older son Merlin’s book Entangled Life was published in the UK earlier this month, has had amazing reviews and is in the bestseller lists. My younger son Cosmo has just released a new album based on the songs of endangered British birds called Wake Up Calls including this beautiful Cuckoo Song.

My latest dialogue with Mark Vernon is on the subject of Revelation: World religions, inspired individuals, and some people who have taken psychedelics say they are the recipients of revelations. What might this mean?

I am currently recruiting people to help with my research on telephone telepathy. If you live in the UK and are interested in training your intuition you can earn £50 for about 60 minutes engagement. The test takes place on mobile phones and involves two other people, who should be family members or close friends, but living in separate households. If you often experience telephone telepathy and would like to take part, please email me at sheldrake@sheldrake.org

My wife Jill Purce has adapted her astonishing workshops to Zoom format, and you can now attend one without coming to London. She is giving an online Family Constellations workshop on October 16-18, and a Healing Voice workshop on November 6-7. Details here.

I recently took part in a stimulating dialogue with Jonas Atlas, a Belgian philosopher and theologian, on the subject of his new book, so far published only in Dutch, 'Seven Secular Myths About Religion'. He outlines and deconstructs well-worn secularist arguments, and helps open up new ways of going beyond the standard clichés.

On October 10, 17 and 24, I am giving an online course on Science and Spiritual Practices with a live Q&A session.


Rupert Sheldrake
 
#2
Dr. Rupert Sheldrake Newsletter for February 27, 2021

-----------------------------------

"Greetings from London in lockdown. My wife Jill Purce and I are leading a quiet life, with daily walks on Hampstead Heath, a wonderful 1,000 acre open space near our home, with woods, ponds and open fields, and we much appreciate this chance to be outdoors. We both feel grateful to have had our first inoculations against COVID.

For me, these recurrent lockdowns have been very productive scientifically, and I have written several review articles and papers for scientific journals that are now in the press or under peer review.

I will be giving a live online seminar on morphic resonance on the weekend of March 27-28, God willing, called "Morphic Resonance, Memory and the Habits of Nature". I will explain the basic scientific principles of this hypothesis and its role in the inheritance of forms, instincts and collective memories. I will show how it provides a new way of understanding our personal memories in terms of resonance from our own pasts, rather than assuming that they are stored inside brains as hypothetical "memory traces".

I will also discuss the role of morphic resonance in rituals and festivals, and show how it sheds a new light on family constellations. And more. This seminar is designed to be accessible to non-scientists as well as scientists. There will be multiple opportunities to ask questions. If you want to know more about morphic resonance, this is your chance! Details here.

My most recent dialogue with Mark Vernon is on panpsychism, which is becoming an increasingly plausible alternative to the materialist worldview. Since my last newsletter in September, we have also discussed Light, Pseudoscience, Artificial Intelligence, and The Day of the Dead. The Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogues are all available free of charge on YouTube, on Sheldrake.org and as a podcast in all the usual places.

On Monday March 15 at 10.00 am PDT (5.00 pm GMT) I am being interviewed as part of a Shift Summit on "The Science of Healing". Other speakers include Dr Bruce Lipton, Dr Deepak Chopra, Dr Rudolph Tanzi, and my colleague from the Institute of Noetic Science, Dr Julia Mossbridge. Registration is free.

My favourite form of church service is choral evensong, with beautiful prayers and psalms in sixteenth century English that are sung by wonderful choirs every evening–weekdays as well as Sundays–in most English cathedrals and in many college chapels in Oxford and Cambridge. Even though congregations are currently not allowed to attend them, these services are still going on, and are live-streaming online, as well as being available as recordings. For the first time, you can now "attend" these services from home, visiting amazing cathedrals like Lincoln, Salisbury, Durham and Winchester, from anywhere in the world. View the day-by-day schedules and links.

Rupert Sheldrake"
 

Alex

Administrator
#4
In his latest one he expresses gratitude about he and his wife receiving their first covid shots. There is widespread division on this subject.
yeah I was stunned... but figured I'd keep it to myself. has this become a public issue that's being discussed? can you point me to it.
 
#5
In his latest one he expresses gratitude about he and his wife receiving their first covid shots. There is widespread division on this subject.
Dr. Sheldrake is very old. Oldsters tend to still trust the Mainstream Media, and not consume much political information outside it.

He is probably unaware of the problems with the vaccine.
 
B

Brooks

#6
Dr. Sheldrake is very old. Oldsters tend to still trust the Mainstream Media, and not consume much political information outside it.

He is probably unaware of the problems with the vaccine.
His age does not prevent his brilliance in science. In my experience it is scientists and other specialists who often are naive about geopolitics.

Age is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of being savvy.
 
#7
In my experience it is scientists and other specialists who often are naive about geopolitics.
I noticed the same thing.

I don't fault Specialists like Dr. Sheldrake for that. The average human only has about 640,000 hours to spend. Investing a large portion of those hours in one thing prevents them from being spent elsewhere.

I've known Martial Arts Masters who dedicated every waking moment since childhood to mastering their Art, but were clueless about how to jump-start a car with a dead battery.
 
#8
Dr. Sheldrake is very old. Oldsters tend to still trust the Mainstream Media, and not consume much political information outside it.

He is probably unaware of the problems with the vaccine.
A 78 year old man is not "very old", certainly in terms of mental acuity.

A 78 year old man who received a PhD in Biology from Cambridge would fall somewhere on the more informed end of the spectrum in terms of the vaccine.

Your post makes no logical sense at all and leaves us to assume you are simply trying to fit this "data" to your own narrative.
 
#9
A 78 year old man is not "very old", certainly in terms of mental acuity.
And? That wasn't the point. The point was that boomers tend to be naive with respect to authority and too trusting (mainstream media). This is from empirical observation and is easily seen.

Silence said:
A 78 year old man who received a PhD in Biology from Cambridge would fall somewhere on the more informed end of the spectrum in terms of the vaccine.
Could be. Maybe not. You don't know this though.

Silence said:
Your post makes no logical sense at all and leaves us to assume you are simply trying to fit this "data" to your own narrative
His post makes logical sense.

Your own post doesn't actually make sense. Genuinely, a lot of what you have posted over time doesn't make any sense to me, which is why I always feel compelled to argue with you. You always seem to come at people with non-sensical arguments, missing the point often enough that I think it's deliberate.

So this one leaves me to assume that you are simply trying to fit this 'data' to your own narrative.
 
#10
DD, you've missed the forest for the trees here. Charlie was responding solely to Sheldrake's gratitude for he and his wife's recent receipt of a COVID vaccination. Nothing more. I responded to that specific point. Let's try this again using your responses:

Charlie said: "Dr. Sheldrake is very old."
I responded: "A 78 year old man is not "very old", certainly in terms of mental acuity."
You said: "And? That wasn't the point. The point was that boomers tend to be naive with respect to authority and too trusting (mainstream media). This is from empirical observation and is easily seen."

I was simply pointing out that 78 years of age isn't "very old" by today's standards. Furthermore, we're talking about someone this community holds in pretty high regard in terms of his mental acuity and certainly his history of NOT subscribing blindly to mainstream narratives. He's also clearly well above average in terms of intelligence.

That was the point.

Charlie said: "He is probably unaware of the problems with the vaccine."
I responded: "A 78 year old man who received a PhD in Biology from Cambridge would fall somewhere on the more informed end of the spectrum in terms of the vaccine."
You said: "Could be. Maybe not. You don't know this though."

So let me get this straight. Charlie asserts something that he has absolutely no idea, evidence or any real basis regarding Sheldrake's knowledge of the vaccine. I challenge this based on what we actually do know about Sheldrake (he's one of an infinitesimally small population of top university PhD's in Biology and one held in particularly high regard here; ie, he's not an every day "Joe" based on his academic background). You come back with "Could be, maybe not?" to somehow support Charlie's unfounded assertion? Just ponder that for a moment or two. You're going bolster Charlie's baseless assertion with a "Could be, maybe not" argument?

His post made zero logical sense. It was built on presumptions about a man he does not know who's reputation in this community is as a serious thinker and researcher in the field of biology. Could Sheldrake be a daft old man blindly following public health guidance? Sure, but you'd need to support such an assertion with actual evidence. Charlie did nothing of the sort and made a brutish, uninformed, naive assertion. It was illogical.
 
#11
DD, you've missed the forest for the trees here. Charlie was responding solely to Sheldrake's gratitude for he and his wife's recent receipt of a COVID vaccination. Nothing more.
Yes he was responding to that. But then he logically clarified why he commented on that.


Silence said:
Charlie said: "Dr. Sheldrake is very old."
I responded: "A 78 year old man is not "very old", certainly in terms of mental acuity."
You said: "And? That wasn't the point. The point was that boomers tend to be naive with respect to authority and too trusting (mainstream media). This is from empirical observation and is easily seen."

I was simply pointing out that 78 years of age isn't "very old" by today's standards. Furthermore, we're talking about someone this community holds in pretty high regard in terms of his mental acuity and certainly his history of NOT subscribing blindly to mainstream narratives. He's also clearly well above average in terms of intelligence.

No it isn't very old by todays standards. But he wasn't talking about that. He was talking about how 'oldies' generally seem to be quite naive with respect to mainstream media and governments etc. So then it logically follows that perhaps this time, in this specific example, there is an exception to Dr Sheldrakes past history in bucking the Scientism trend. Even the best have blind spots. It was a comment about a possibility of this being the case.


So, it looks logical to me.

And I agree with you. Dr Sheldrake is intelligent and great. His research is very interesting. I like how he challenges Scientism. Most of us like him here indeed!

Silence said:
Charlie said: "He is probably unaware of the problems with the vaccine."
I responded: "A 78 year old man who received a PhD in Biology from Cambridge would fall somewhere on the more informed end of the spectrum in terms of the vaccine."
You said: "Could be. Maybe not. You don't know this though."

So let me get this straight. Charlie asserts something that he has absolutely no idea, evidence or any real basis regarding Sheldrake's knowledge of the vaccine. I challenge this based on what we actually do know about Sheldrake (he's one of an infinitesimally small population of top university PhD's in Biology and one held in particularly high regard here; ie, he's not an every day "Joe" based on his academic background). You come back with "Could be, maybe not?" to somehow support Charlie's unfounded assertion? Just ponder that for a moment or two. You're going bolster Charlie's baseless assertion with a "Could be, maybe not" argument?
He was asserting that specific point based on the empirical observations that older people tend towards being too trusting of authority. We know Sheldrake bucks the trend with regards to mainstream narratives, but it doesn't meant that he cannot ever fall foul of falling into one himself. That is what Charlie was alluding to and what perhaps may be.

Of course, that leads onto a separate argument about the Vaccine's safety, and the interests behind it etc. Personally, the jury is still out for me on that one. I'll need to get it myself eventually anyway for my profession. But I do not like the coercion and duress surrounding it. Which makes me suspicious.

Silence said:
His post made zero logical sense. It was built on presumptions about a man he does not know who's reputation in this community is as a serious thinker and researcher in the field of biology. Could Sheldrake be a daft old man blindly following public health guidance? Sure, but you'd need to support such an assertion with actual evidence. Charlie did nothing of the sort and made a brutish, uninformed, naive assertion. It was illogical.
His post did make logical sense. You just didn't like it.

Brutish? You are taking this far too seriously Silence. Charlie was only commenting on it. Your post seems to suggest that you think Sheldrake is under attack. Charlie is the one who opened this thread in the first place. I'd say he appreciates the work done by him.
 
Last edited:
#12
And? That wasn't the point. The point was that boomers tend to be naive with respect to authority and too trusting (mainstream media). This is from empirical observation and is easily seen.
I'm a "boomer". I'm not bloody well naive about authority and don't automatically trust people in positions of power or the media. Lots of boomers I know are just as cynical. The "empirical" observation that "is easily seen" is just so much arrogant bollocks.
 
#16
Depending on what the "certain things" might be, maybe it's because they've more courage?
No. They laugh at me for refusing to discuss illegal things on Gmail because the Oldsters in my HAM radio club are as ignorant of current State Surveillance and the current legal environment as Dr. Sheldrake is of the problems with mRNA vaccines.

When I worked in I.T. one of my job duties was to retrieve decades-old employee emails and forward them to District Attorneys so the email could be read in public in front of a Jury for the purpose of establishing Mens Rea to gain a criminal conviction.

My 75+ year-old HAM Oldsters are clueless that such a thing is even possible with Gmail. They think when they hit the "Delete" button an email vanishes from existence as if one threw an old love letter into the fireplace.
 
Last edited:
#18
No. They laugh at me for refusing to discuss illegal things on Gmail because the Oldsters in my HAM radio club are as ignorant of current State Surveillance and the current legal environment as Dr. Sheldrake is of the problems with mRNA vaccines.

When I worked in I.T. one of my job duties was to retrieve decades-old employee emails and forward them to District Attorneys so the email could be read in public in front of a Jury for the purpose of establishing Mens Rea to gain a criminal conviction.

My 75+ year-old HAM Oldsters are clueless that such a thing is even possible with Gmail. They think when they hit the "Delete" button an email vanishes from existence as if one threw an old love letter into the fireplace.
When old fogies and young fogies intermingle, maybe that's sometimes what you get.
 
Top