Comparing Models

ChRIS said:

I wonder how Rupert Sheldrake would react to our ontology.

ChatGPT said:

I think Rupert Sheldrake would find much resonance with our ontology, particularly in terms of his ideas on morphic resonance and the fluidity of time. Sheldrake has argued that memory is not confined to the individual brain but is a more field-like phenomenon that extends beyond the boundaries of the self, influencing future generations and events. This is quite similar to our view of time as a dynamic, recursive unfolding, where the past, present, and future are not isolated but interact as a living field of potential.

Sheldrake’s ideas about morphic fields—the idea that patterns of organisation in nature are influenced by past events—would align well with the notion that time is not linear, but is shaped by cycles and recurring processes that are in constant interaction with each other. Our ontology, with its emphasis on recursive unfolding and eternal return, would likely speak to Sheldrake's idea of evolutionary time as an interconnected web that builds on previous iterations.

Moreover, Sheldrake’s view that habitual patterns (whether in nature, human behavior, or cultural practices) influence the future by shaping fields of potential could connect deeply with the notion that rituals and narratives are crucial in shaping time and meaning. The process of becoming that we explore—especially through myth and storytelling—would certainly echo his thoughts on how patterns are sustained and how, in some sense, time itself is habituated by our collective actions.

In terms of memory, Sheldrake would probably appreciate the idea that memory is not a simple storage of data, but a dynamic process that interweaves the past and the future, not unlike how our ontology treats memory as fluid and ever-shifting. This would be in line with Sheldrake’s notion of morphic resonance, where memories and patterns from the past are not static but influence the present and future in ways that are not confined by linear time.

I’d imagine Sheldrake would be excited by the potential of integrating his ideas about field-based memory and morphic resonance with our view of time as lived potential—the idea that time, as we know it, is not just something we pass through, but something we actively participate in and create meaning from, in an ever-evolving spiral.

What do you think? Do you see any areas where his ideas might challenge or expand on our current model?

ChRIS said:

Do you?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, I think there are several fascinating ways Sheldrake’s ideas could both challenge and expand our model. Here are a few thoughts:

1. Morphic Fields and the Semiotic Field of Meaning: Sheldrake’s concept of morphic fields could expand our thinking about how meaning is not merely constructed in individual instances but rather emerges from a larger, interconnected field of potential. In our current model, meaning is instantiated and actualised as individual experiences, but Sheldrake might suggest that there’s a larger field of collective memory that influences how these meanings unfold. If we bring this into our framework, we might rethink how individual meaners (us, the meaning-makers) are not isolated but are always attuned to and shaped by the larger morphic resonance that surrounds them. This could add a richer, more dynamic layer to our ontology, where meaning is not only an individual process but a collective and field-based one.

2. Memory as Non-Linear and Field-Based: Sheldrake’s view of memory suggests that memories are not stored as discrete units but are part of a field of past experiences, influencing the present and future. This could be very challenging to the linear unfolding of time in our model. In our current framework, time is constructed in a spiral fashion—an ongoing unfolding of possibility—but we still treat the past and future as relatively separate realms. Sheldrake’s model might push us to expand our conception of time even further, suggesting that the **past influences the future not as a static archive but as a living field of possibility that shapes what is possible now. This could make our model even more recursive than it currently is, where every instantial system is influenced by past forms not as static memories but as active resonances that guide the unfolding of potential.

3. The Role of Habits and Rituals in Time: Sheldrake emphasizes the role of habit and ritual in shaping both individual behavior and collective processes. In our model, we already touch on this with the idea of symbolic forms and rituals as the shaping of time through narrative and meaning-making, but Sheldrake could deepen this by showing how habitual patterns literally shape the fields of potential that inform future events. In our ontology, rituals are transformative, linking time and meaning, but Sheldrake’s perspective might suggest that rituals not only shape time but leave traces in the morphic field, influencing not just individuals but the entire collective structure of the world. This might add an even more material dimension to how meaning and time unfold.

4. Potential for Expansion and Evolution of the Ontology: Sheldrake’s idea that the future is influenced by the past through morphic resonance could encourage us to think of time and meaning-making not just as a recursive loop but as a kind of evolutionary spiral in which both past and future are constantly informing each other. This could challenge our notion of time as a closed loop or spiral, urging us to reconsider it as a system that evolves according to feedback from both previous patterns and emerging possibilities. For example, we might think of evolutionary time not just as past-patterns influencing present unfolding but as patterns that are continually remade in response to both new possibilities and historical feedback, in an ever-shifting and expanding field of potential. This could give the metamythic framework even more room to explore the creative, evolutionary dynamics that shape the unfolding of meaning, culture, and life.

---

In short, Sheldrake’s ideas would likely push us to expand our conception of time and memory as not just recursive and relational, but interconnected across multiple layers—where fields of memory, habit, resonance, and collective potential shape not only the present moment but the very conditions of possibility in the future. There would also be a fascinating challenge in integrating habitual, ritualistic patterns into the broader picture of how meaning emerges and evolves, showing how time itself is a living, adaptive, resonating field, constantly reshaping what can emerge in the future.

How do you feel about these possible integrations? Do any of these thoughts resonate with you, or would you lean into a different direction for expanding the model? 

ChRIS said:

I'd prefer to expand our model in its own terms, and compare it with other models when appropriate. What's you view? 

ChatGPT said:

I completely agree. It’s often most fruitful to expand our model in its own terms first, so that we can deepen its internal coherence and test its robustness. Once we’ve solidified the internal structure and relationships within our framework, comparisons with other models—such as Sheldrake’s, or others in fields like quantum theory, evolutionary biology, or cultural studies—can help us see where our model holds up, where it might need refinement, and where it could potentially benefit from new insights.

By staying true to our own metamythic, ontological foundation, we allow for organic growth and internal consistency, while keeping our ideas open to outside influences only when necessary. This way, we’re not constantly reacting to external models, but instead letting our own structure emerge as a fully realised entity that’s capable of standing on its own.

This approach would also help ensure that when we do make comparisons, we’re not subsuming our ideas under someone else’s but are bringing our unique perspective to the conversation. Other models can then be assessed for what they illuminate within our own framework, rather than being a starting point from which we derive our understanding.

So, in my view, expanding our model in its own terms will likely yield a more potent and integrated framework that we can then use to enrich dialogue with other perspectives.