morphic fields co-ordinate bonded group behaviour?

YouTube - Rupert Sheldrake: The Morphogenetic Universe - 4/6 (and see the other videos in the series)

MHarris, tacitus and Jasmin have remarked previously on the spookier side of pheromone use.

It’s fascinating and he is quite the speaker. I’m not sure that I actually would agree with it however.

What’s your take on it PQ?

I’ve been a fan of Rupert Sheldrake since his appearance on Art Bell about a decade ago. I can’t say whether he’s correct, but I do think his ideas are interesting and plausible. Thanks for posting!

If you can dig up any links or remember any thread titles, I’d love to read the spooky reports from MHarris, tacitus, and Jasmin.

Me too! :stuck_out_tongue:

Having read a bit more of Sheldrake’s work, I can highly recommend it - in particular “The Presence of the Past”.

His descriptions of behavioural fields relate very well to some of the stereotyped responses by people who respond to our wearing synthetic pheromones.

His work also explains why people might respond to pheromone wearers at distances very much greater than plausible for it to be driven by them smelling the molecules.

It raises questions about what happens as more and more people start to wear synthetic pheromones, and whether the responses we see in initial reports amongst first users will necessarily be stable as they become more popular. It also suggests that the response of first-users may mysteriously lay down patterns that shape the experiences of future users.

I don’t quite yet understand enough to say more. But it explains quite a lot of the spookier stuff many longer-time and more sensitive users have found regarding 'mone use; also why some mones and combinations become more effective with time.

Drat, the video is gone.

Rupert Sheldrake - The Morphogenetic Universe

The Extended Mind - Recent Experimental Evidence