[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Essentialism and such (was a bunch of previous subject lines)
First off I apologize for my last message. I was writing too quickly
and ended up responding more to a different post than to yours, which of
course wasn't fair. I should have slowed down and read more carefully.
Again, my apologies.
Are you asking that I clarify the difference between Goodwin and
Webster's conception of morphogenetic fields and Sheldrake's?
From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu] On Behalf
Of David Marjanovic
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Essentialism and such (was a bunch of previous subject
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl" <Carl@dondwiggins.com>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 6:18 PM
> Again, their conception of morphogenetic fields is quite distinct from
> Sheldrake, and the term has been around quite a while.
> Even a cursory glance at the book would clear up most of the above,
Then please explain this, on- or offlist. You're right I haven't read
the book; two university studies don't leave me enough time. I have
barely started reading the 3rd supplement of Glut's encyclopedia, and
still not finished Mesozoic Vertebrate Life or the Jehol Biota book with
the large <drool> photos I bought at the congress in summer -- and then
I'm supposed to read a philosophical book in the typical boring style*
* Judging from the quotes you kindly provided. But I don't see a reason
to expect the rest to be different.