Insight on Conversation - Theodore Zeldin

Theodore Zeldin  is an English philosopher, sociologist, historian, writer and public speaker. He represents to me, the best of an almost bygone era, an optimist, rebel, a provocateur with an impish genius, he combines a passion for social and cultural change with an insatiable curiousity about human nature. He founded The Oxford Muse  described as a 'A Foundation to stimulate courage and invention in personal, professional and cultural life’, an aim with which I fully resonate!

The underrated thoroughly channel through which Zeldin pursues his passion for the betterment of humanity, is that of the medium of conversation. He has many insightful stimulating and wise statements on the subject and one of his critical aims is to engage the public together in meaningful discussions and significant dialogue. Through profound topics and questions, which explore themes such as 'What is most important to me?' he has the aim of using conversation to delve beneath much of the superficiality of modern life. He infers that such communication unearths the immense differentiation and universality of human experience, which can be laid bare through authentic and intimate social intercourse.

Below  an almost revelatory quote by Zeldin concerning the state of public discourse and impact of the polarisation caused by debate;

Unfortunately we are so steeped in debate, proving one’s point and challenging others, that alternative possibilities for interaction are often eclipsed from our view. It is interesting to notice that even when we say we want to dialogue we commonly end up in debate. We appear to have a longing to do something different but the vortex of habit confounds us. As a result our options for building mutual respect, deepening understanding among each other, and creating more beneficial outcomes than we experience currently are severely limited.

The ‘vortex of habit confounds’ is an exquisite turn of phrase and leads to this reader, wishing to apprehend and comprehend the beneficial outcomes that he indicates might occur should the conventions of argument and counterargument be set aside.

Should this topic interest you and the allure of creative conversation appeal, please read my blog on the topic here; 'The Forum for Creative Conversation'   or check out the related event on the GlobalNet 21 21st Century Meet Up website

Rupert Sheldrake Visionary Scientist

I went a talk given by Rupert Sheldrake presented by the Gaia Foundation at Burgh House in Hampstead on Wednesday night.

The event was held in a unique and intimate setting. A buffet meal and wine is served beforehand in a flat on the ground floor of the Gaia Foundation’s office and then the talk is held for one and half hours in Burgh Hall just across the road. This is then followed by more food and wine back at the flat afterwards. The talk was titled Morphic Resonance, Collective Memory and Habits of Nature.

I arrived early to network yet ended up in the garden and was invited by Rupert to sit on the available chair next to him. So I found out what he is currently doing and thought to publish some of this on this blog.

He is currently republishing his books ‘A New Science of Life’ and the ‘Presence of the Past’ and updating them in terms of his own experiments plus the latest developments in current science. Whilst these developments stop well short of proving his theories he feels they are headed in the right general direction. I noted to him that he was lot more active giving lectures and talks recently and he said he was doing this to emphasise the importance and significance of his work on Morphic Fields and Morphic Resonance as his books of late had focused a lot more on his experiments.

The talk he gave was both beguiling and riveting and as usual he put everything into a huge philosophical context, pointing out some of the erroneous assumptions upon which most of materialist science is based. The latter part of the talk was full of the scientific examples and anomalies that point to his theory of Morphic Resonance.

There are three further points that were of most interest to me;

1) Creativity
Toward the end of his talk Rupert added a postscript about creativity, explaining that his theory of Morphic Resonance really has little to say about creativity as it describes habits which have been repeated and that which is repeatable. Science is essentially a study of habit. He felt creativity occurred in nature when the existing habits are blocked and this almost forces creativity to occur but this could not really be studied or understood by science.

I questioned him further on this as I felt happenings such as the ‘big bang of plants’ must require a fuller explanation. His response was to say some of these things were beyond the mind and therefore we lacked the capacity to know or understand them, he was aware of these ‘punctuated bursts of evolution’ and his best explanation he said drew from the realms of philosophy and theology. In actual fact he saw these occurrences as interventions from the Holy Spirit.

2) Consciousness
My recollection of this component is quite indistinct as it was a small fragment right at the end of the talk. However Rupert was answering a question about the space of emptiness and that of potentiality, when he alluded to the fact that everything that is created that is matter, which is studied by the science is arising in some sense out of the past.

Consciousness in contrast was arising out of the future and was looking backward at the past. I may not be expressing this exactly he meant and was fleeting moment in time but I thought this nano moment revealed something significant and different about his view of consciousness.

3) A Wager

Rupert is shortly about to publicise in the Economist I think, a bet he has constructed with Lewis Wolpert one his most eminent scientific detractors with whom he has conducted several public debates. In a recent debate Wolpert stated he was fully confident that within 20 years science would have discovered the totality of information that governed the development of the human organism.

Rupert challenged Wolpert’s ‘faith’ in science (he is a rabid atheist!) to produce this result and subsequently Wolpert changed his prediction to 100 years. To cut a long story short since the debate and after a lot of bargaining down by Wolpert, they have wagered a case of the finest port (which will matured to it’s peak by May 1 2029 in twenty years) that science will have discovered everything that it needs to know about the development of the nematode worm the simplest animal life form within those twenty years. Rupert is obviously betting against the likelihood of this happening. I may not have the exact terminology right here but I hope you get the sense of the wager!

Overall an inspiring mindstretching and very valuable evening.