A Spiritual Paradigm Shift For Healing And Wholeness: Biology Revisited
By Dr George N Malek, May 2006
Is our biological lay-out an imprint of the spirit, forms and shapes of human spirituality, made visible for the purpose of identifications and distinctions in the dimensions of the material realities of the universe? It would seem so if Rupert Sheldrake, who erupted on the scientific world with a new "biology", is read with a theological eye. Or, is Sheldrake re-visiting orthodoxy anew through his study of biology? There is no doubt, whatever the case may be, that his attempts are endeavours to bridge between the two worlds the spiritual and the material to join them in one, whole system for the purpose of healing the "eternal division" between the divine (theology) and the human (the natural). He also attempts to bridge the gap between the supernatural (quantumphysics), the creationist and the scientist (religion and science), and to inform us that the spiritual world is not only "real", and manifests itself in tangible patterns, but that its imprints are also achievable, possible and observable. He endeavours to do all that through scientific, observable, measurable and demonstrative approaches to the spiritual - by rethinking and restudying the behaviour of organisms as inherent, coded patterns in the world of our biology.
In this paper we shall attempt a theoretical critique, and then link Sheldrake's theory in biology with spirituality and the search for meaning. It is our hypothesis that following the biological model of Sheldrake, which is purposed and patterned, a new spirituality for healing and wholeness can be modeled between peoples and groups of peoples: businesses, workplaces, family systems, schools, learning institutions, etc.
An Analytical Conceptual Summary
Beyond metaphoric conceptualization, Sheldrake is involved with "actual invisible connections". These invisible connections are the substance of the connectedness between patterned and patented memories, a resonance which is inherent in the socio-biological nature of the Universe, of our biology, psychology and sociology. Sheldrake, therefore, gravitates to Jung's concept of the collective unconscious, Kuhn's changeable paradigms of reality in time and history, and Gestalt psychology. Behind it all, Sheldrake has embarked on demonstrating to science that communications the ones that produce sustainable, duplicative patterns, shapes and designs - do occur with and/or without any sensory avenues. It amounts to what we theologians call the realms of the spirit. Sheldrake does not "spiritualise" biology but attempts to make the imprint of the spirit visible in the world of materialistic reality. He does this by defying materialism itself as the measure and measuring instrument of the reality of life. It is not for his own failure but possibility for the failure of a deficiency in human communicative languages themselves that he "reductionally" calls spirituality "telepathy". This might be also due to his own field of concentration on the functionality (and use) of his theory in mainly emotional and social bonds, and bonds of positive atmospheres, i.e., "friends, colleagues, husbands and wives, parents and children, brothers and sisters", etc.
To attempt to advance Sheldrake's theory from telepathy to spirituality, we shall attempt to introduce a new possibility, namely how Sheldrake might look at the theo-philosophy of the nature of the paradox, since spirituality by definition does not rest only on positive elements, per se, of phenomena, but insists on an inherent power that penetrates the seemingly negative elements to reveal the hidden mysteries of the positive.
Not shunning the negative elements of life, therefore, spirituality transforms and reveals the hidden mysteries of our nature. It is the concept of being healed by "stripes": suffering love that is sacrificial in nature, which we believe is Sheldrake's ultimate goal in what he is doing. This would also explain how Sheldrake's own, brilliant career was thought of initially as suspect by the scientific world, and for which, had it not been for his spirituality (as one studies the life of the man), ill intentions would have prevailed depriving the world of both the good he is in attempt of doing and his brilliance.
The spiritual, in the short-term, is not defeated because it is "wrong", but because its truth is dangerous to a status quo in power, which is false, and of which the architect is pride. What negates the error of the concept of duality is not falsehood, but politics, the ability in man to create a counterfeit, not an opposite, as meanings are created by a "light" given to those who have suffered, not to those who have not. It could very well be that it is for this that our biology struggles desperately with the spirit that forms our biology into shapes and patterns, giving it all meaning, coherence and wholeness. The struggle in which Sheldrake is involved is as old as the very evolution of man himself, the only creature capable of transcending his own nature. The operative instinct that saves an animal in danger is not what connects it with the positive, but is an inherent, built-in pattern of de-coding signals of danger and learning to overcome and defeat them. This requires a particular connectedness with the negative. We suggest this in order to advance Sheldrake's theoretical concepts of his positive connectedness (telepathy) and make it workable, at least, in the field of spirituality, in the areas of the negative patterns of the life of our biology as well.
Sheldrake's personal experience suggests the necessity of the above and informs us of the need for holism. Holism must incorporate the encounter of our negatives of life if holism is to include the spiritual. Left without dealing with the negatives, holism would remain in the (positivist) psychological arenas of life. The concept of holism, therefore, is not simply for the purpose of creating a positive atmosphere, but is one that necessitates an initial encounter with the negatives, a wrestling with life as life really is to change our modus operandi. Indeed, it was Sheldrake's own negative experiences that drove him to link with the spirituality of biology, namely, the emotional (negative) impact which the killing of animals had on him, as he dissected them to study them, and which initiated him into the calling in which he found himself. His work, described and documented in academic and scientific attempts, negating conventional views of mechanistic theories of biology and life, is the type that is similar in form and content of one who is spiritually called, one who has a calling. He admits he studied biology because he loved animals, but found himself, on account of this love, to be killing them. Possibly, Sheldrake's spirituality is encapsulated in the thought that as love can neither be initiated nor healed by study, it yet gives life to the matter being studied. The spirit cannot be studied nor can it be healed by a study of "spirituality". It was for this spirituality and this calling that Sheldrake was branded "the best candidate for burning", a statement in which we believe that the man himself was insinuated, not simply his writing, in the British journal Nature, referring to his book A New Science of Life. It is for this that Sheldrake can be partially viewed as a "theologian", not only a scientist.
Because of the above, can it be that Sheldrake sees the universe itself as a "gigantic, cosmic embryo", which has habits, not laws, for nature, and what makes the universe alive is spirit? If so, then Rupert Sheldrake can be considered a theologian and a spiritual man, who has erupted on the field of science, succeeding in what theologians themselves have failed in, namely the advancement of theology to meet a desperately needy world for meaning and spirituality because theology lacked, and was void of, new tools, which are applicable in today's world, replacing its archaic language. The scientist may fill a gap because he is equipped with tools and language to meet the world of today. Sheldrake, known or unbeknown to him, has given theology a dimension of the spiritual that can dialogue with the scientific world, a world that has so well succeeded in mechanising theology itself, causing theology, in turn, to lose the spirit. On the other hand, Sheldrake encounters science forcefully and courageously by indicting science of its inability to tell us what creates things, and things of the spirit.
To Sheldrake, what creates form is a field of cumulative memory in which what has happened to the species in the past likewise influences the course of the species to come, and which he calls morphic resonance, replacing what scientists had called morphogenesis. Hereditary, then, to Sheldrake, depends not only on DNA, but on morphic resonance also. So now that genetic heredity accounts for the inheritance of proteins through DNA's control of protein synthesis, the second form of heredity is based on and governed by morphic fields of resonance, which are non-genetic and which are inherited directly from past members of the species. The non-genetic, morphic resonance form of heredity deals with organisation, form and behaviour of the species.
Spirituality Exposed: A Paradox
Sheldrake's theory in Biology of a living universe, though essentially comprising habitual fields, is a theory, the fields of which are not static or mechanical; they are the habits of a living organism, whose fields are what were historically called "soul". That is, in the face of the previously advanced theories of a mechanical understanding of nature and the universe, theories that had accepted at face value what is apparent in nature as fact but which in reality is not, Sheldrake, in our opinion, relies on theological premises for the exposition of biological realities. Sheldrake is also engaged with human consciousness' means, and the ability of the scientist, to perceive and quantify these "unseen" realities. These are realities of relationships between that which in fact is existent in the universe and a world which is not so apparent or readily accessible to the general observation of science and scientists by their mechanical understanding of the universe. This way theology is able to engage much more productively with science, making science and the nature of reality as science perceives reality to be, also more understandable to the theologian. Because humans, from among all other creatures, have archetypal, universal memory, of which Sheldrake speaks, theology would then be able to creatively engage with Sheldrake's "creative principles" of the universe. It is the element of surprise in his theory, which is an eruption from a "scientific no-where", that makes science extremely inviting and accessible to theology and the theologian because it is suggestive of the notion of an ex nihilo act in the creation of the universe. The element of surprise also points to the possibility of having a joyous, happy and pleasing spirit behind the works of creation, as it would to the attitude of scientists in their study of a mysterious, caring universe that humans ought to care for. All this would also make the theory amicable to ethics.
Because Sheldrake's theory directs its concern primarily to human biology (as it also relates to life in general), it is fundamentally a moral theory. And human spirituality, differentiated from all other created creatures, in the universe, is a moral spirituality. It is moral because man makes moral decisions, and moral decisions are never made because things are either (perfectly) black or (perfectly) white. Moral decisions for life are make in the twilight of life, the areas of uncertainties, where life is a paradox. The spirituality of the paradox is a paradoxical spirituality due to the nature of man, which is distinguished from all other creatures, as the reality of life itself is a paradox. And the spirituality of the paradox is never in demand of or insistent on an answer to its questions. Questions, to spirituality, are reductionistic conceptualities of ultimate meanings that we never derive from life anyway. Hence, the life of spirituality demands that life is to be lived by faith, stretching the very limits of our unanswerable questions. And in the struggle of life and its quandary, surprisingly our questions stretch us to an erect stance, treading underfoot the very marks of our questions from which we originally began our question(s) become a surprise! The point underlying our question marks (of life) becomes itself indicative of our joyous findings in the journey of life. Meanings are not made from answers to our questions, but from having lived and wrestled with/in life by faith. It is here where Sheldrake's theory of biology is suggestive of a moral tendency in his understanding of human behaviour, not only as a by-product of a biological and/or an archetypal memory. This is, also, where his theory is best applicable to human relations and the drive for the "good" in humans.
Because humans are able to make decisions, for and against their very nature, the spiritual life of humans cannot be considered simply as an outcome of a habitual morphic resonance. However, the theory of morphic resonance suggests that our biology is driven by a force that does not necessarily negate spirituality. When we speak of human spirituality in paradoxical terminology, we are saying that human spirituality acts both in the positives as well as in the negatives of life. Only the human being can make a decision to turn against his own biological make-up to destroy it. Suicide, the very paradox of life, is innately a "spiritual" experience, not simply a psychological one. It may be an irresistible, incessant drive toward a "calling" that is heard, and against its echo all sounds fade and cease to be heard by the soul. Transcending the inherent drive of our biological life by a decision, man responds to the call by a leap into despair. Paradoxically, Sheldrake pushes us to respond by a leap of faith. A leap of faith is always beyond the ethical domain, a leap by man far beyond man himself. It is here where Sheldrake's creative principle of his theory needs to be further explored in relationship to Kierkegaardian existentialism. Both Sheldrake and Kierkegaard bring us to the point of surprise, beyond ethics.
The above requires the development of a new philosophy and a theology of nature. Philosophical, for the purpose of a review of our mechanical philosophies of life, and theological, because of the metaphysical elements that are beginning to make some sense in the dialogue between science and theology. Then, because man is a moral creature, man becomes aware that he is a creature who is, and at the same time is not. Man is a shadow as he is a paradox: today he is; tomorrow he is not. Like the grass, he sprouts in the morning and at night withers and fades away and there is no remembrance of him under the sun. If there is a memory of him, it is a mere deposit in a collectivity that erodes all individuals and individualities. But while man is at it, here, at this side of things, he continues to alternate between the positive "is" and the negative "is not". The paradoxical tension of spirituality in its understanding of man must find coherence between the scientific view of the ever-increasing collectiveness of the cosmic memory that erodes us as individuals and the insistence of religion and faith that each human being is a complete universe within himself. We are irreplaceable. Ground-level experience teaches us that. Sheldrake's counsel for goodness, closeness, compassion and care, would suggest the inclination to the religious that upholds the uniqueness of individuals, as it is a call for morality and spirituality in science. For Sheldrake to achieve all this via the concept of "telepathy", we are certain it would be a task beyond the abilities of all human sciences and endeavours. It is a call for the spiritual in man. Who can save man from his own nature? All religions have failed in this very task. Neither has science, with its entire endeavour, succeeded in the task at hand. Love and care are left for both science and theology as a possibility. But how is love conceived amongst scientists beyond care? It would be presumptuous to attempt an answer from Sheldrake's theory on the matter, since we have not found sufficient literature in his theory that speaks of his definition of love and care except by inference, of course.
From the above, it would seem clear that human spirituality is paradoxical because it renders man capable of transcending his very biological nature, as he is capable of making his own history and charting his own way taking decisions that are and can be against his very nature because man is free. But again, man's very freedom is couched between the parentheses of his existence against which he has no choice. Man is born and he dies. By his theory's habit principle , Sheldrake is not much distinguishable from other deterministic theorists of both science and theology. It is his creative principle that gives theology a platform to dialogue with science and grace, and the opportunity for theology to inform science of the nature of the creative force behind the universe that is gracious and caring. All this while rendering man to still be free in the space he is allotted between the parentheses of his existence.
Another issue alongside love that needs to be developed, and which is also a major drive of both anxiety and spirituality in man, is the reality of death, the ultimate reality that renders all life paradoxical. Why does man die? Theology postulates that man dies to limit his evil and what he perceives to be good, no matter the attempt of science and the scientist. How does death then, in the morphic fields, that are essentially habitual, become a habit, a "formative principle based on what's happened before"? Sheldrake deals with life and habits, and it would, in our opinion, enlarge his theory's applicability to the human predicament as it is to the human behaviour if he deals with death in light of his theory of morphic resonance. The closest of his endeavours we were able to pick up in his dealing with the paradox, as it relates to spirituality, is his explications of the relationship between light and darkness. In theology, darkness has been both a metaphor and a reality, the reality of the human condition in sin and death. And if there is anything, anything at all, that is proven; it is these two realities of sin and death. They are two realities that are observable, measurable and defy any denial, attempts of denial or falsification as they also defy any explanations.
The issue of finitude in spirituality is, therefore, a matter that needs to be developed in the theory of morphic resonance. This is because man is also a creature who is inclined to forget, reminded possibly only by his biology, which erupts on him as a ghost in the "nightmare" of his living. Forgetfulness is the mother of pride as pride is conceived in the womb of the spirit. And pride is the sin of man when man has become (so he thinks) in control. It is for this pride, that theology postulates a command that is obeyed by all nature and man himself, the command to die, that transcends all the work and endeavours of man for life: God meeting us from the other side on the road, "cutting us to the size of wooden boxes, as the mourners go out in the streets".
"Man's ability to transcend renders man forgetful. He forgets his absolute dependence on God and the nature of his being, a compounded bundle of natural necessities and needs. Mortality is birthed, brought about in man, by a memory, a remembrance that he is subject to his limitations and the order of God who limits his days by cancer, HIV/AIDS, kidney failure, heart attacks, etc... But man is unable to carry the burden, pleads to medicine, theology and all to soften the blow. Man is vulnerable; man is weak."
Rationalism is the godmother of mechanistic science, as it is the forerunner of optimism in both theological thought and its political applications. Sooner or later, as discussed, the euphoria of optimism is worn out as it encounters the demands of nature and faith. Once in a great while, a beam of light flashes on the darkened horizons in the world of rationalism. Sheldrake is such a light, we believe.
Implications and Applications
In a mechanized civilisation the value of humanity is depressed, measured and measurable by productionism and consumerism, making human relations themselves subject and subjugated to market values. In such culture, pleasure and joy are perceived to be derived and linked to the notion of success and material accumulation. The effect of this on human relations has taken its toll in divorce, use and abuse of drugs, and the escape into meaninglessness, let alone the explosions of crime, violence, and the normalization of the bizarre. All of these have become the order of the day. The fear is that we are unable to see any change in sight, only an increase in the trend a trend in which humanity seems to be thrust and a sense of powerlessness as to how to step out of the movement if it cannot be stopped. This is a particular new brand of suffering, a suffering of mind and spirit which is a byproduct of an economy that devalued the human element. What can we do? Sheldrake's bold theory, no doubt, is an attempt to counteract this trend, deal with the basic errors of the dehumanization of humanity in the structure of organizations and the mechanization of the universe in scientific circles, before the trend kills us all and our universe with it. As we said, man is the only creature that is capable of turning against his own nature to destroy it or to restructure it anew. Sheldrake is in an attempt to restructure, re-orient, and correct the mindset of science, and to free us to think holistically, wholesomely and productively.
What the theory, therefore, implies is a demand for a change in the way we live, think, work and lead in the face of the paradoxical forces of life, not only the clashing ones. That is, how can the positive be exploited and harnessed, to save humanity and nature from forces that, if left unchecked will destroy the good that remains within our nature. In the marketplace, human beings are explored and exploited for the sake of human greed. In the business world, speed and sustainability have caused, at times, unrecoverable burn-outs, patterns of locking-in, decay of moral values, and alienation in family structures. The prevailing effect of mechanistic theories is an intolerable sense of alienation of humanity. The need to change the way we do business, live life, as well as the way leaders and managers are formed, personally and organisationally, is obvious. This is because more and more doing business is more and more dependent on relationships, driven by intangible resources and human actions in relationships than it is by mechanistic management. World economy is becoming dependent on formal and informal social networks, mental role-models, and the formation of patterns of interdependent cohesiveness. Matters are more and more measured and measurable by intentions, interpretations, and relationships the intangible variables of human social behaviour.
The above pushes for a reality that cannot for much longer be seen as static laws, unchangeable patterns, as the need is for a reality that is a living, evolving flow. Life is made from the bottom up, as it is that the whole exceeds the total sum of the parts of a system. What holds a system together is not the function of each element independently, but an interrelationship that produces unity. Unity is the ad-extra, the wholeness that the parts can never produce mechanistically, independently or collectively. What produces unity is the element of being in touch with the intangible qualities that gravitate the parts, uniting them and causing them to be "happy" in their particular placement in space and time. Space and time are of utmost importance in such a system as they influence productive thinking for learning, yearning and earning. The individual and the team in such a system are more important than the functions of the system itself, as they are integrators and coordinators of the function of the system. They are not to be taken care of by "legal" systems and formal mechanizations. This calls for and demands that individuals are to be given opportunity and access to make contribution from their own experiences, which will, in turn, produce higher levels of cognitive participation and awareness. The opportunity for participation, contribution and for the individual to be appreciated, results in a happy individual who is made to feel biologically alive, psychologically alert, and spiritually whole. In contradistinction, the mechanistic theories have invited egotistic narcissists and the invitation for pathological individuals in positions of management that produce destructive competitiveness in relationships.
Why is it that in the field of technology and business the world has become intensely interconnected, while the lives of people who run both business and technology have lamentably become disconnected, with a sense of deep alienation? We are informed by psychologists and social scientists that what slows down the exchange of ideas that make people relate and interrelate, is precisely the demand of business and technology to speed up. The human brain does not speed up, we are told. It is human greed that is on the increase, demanding to accumulate more in the container which can only hold the sum of three scores and ten and which at the end is completely emptied.
All of the above point to spirituality as the dynamic force behind all living systems. Spirituality may or may not be a sustainable, authentic and profound journey of an existential self. Neither is spirituality's primary business a search for the self (narcissism), for truth (fundamentalism), social justice (liberalism) and community (social action). Spirituality may contain elements that may or may not touch on each or all of the above. All this would better serve the definition of a self who is anxious and who searches for meanings. Meanings can also be made-up, fabrications of the mind. For, indeed, without a dream a nation perishes. Every evil done under the sun is also given a "meaning" for it to be done. The same thing has different meanings for different peoples, until meanings are reduced to self-serving Narcissus at play again! Though a meaning is of profound necessity, especially when the soul is existentially perplexed and betwixt, it is always the individual's experience that informs the subject of a meaning. Hence, we can not render spirituality simply to individualism. Some of the highest ethos of the American judicial and its governmental constitutional products are a case in point. In the frameworks of Sheldrake we believe his works point to a far larger spirituality than individualistic spirituality; it is a universal phenomena, a spring from which every living organism drinks, which sustains life in a living universe and of which human beings are only one element.
In this spirit of the universe, the individual finds rest, peace, a place of safety: trust. It was Augustine of Hippo who coined the concept of "rest" in spirituality. Said he, "Our souls are restless until we find our rest in Thee!". Meanings are necessary in an existentially restless journey, in which the soul might find satisfaction, but not necessarily find rest. Nor does a soul find rest in a truth, as truth can be most devastating and dividing after which, if healing has not found its way to the soul, the soul remains unrested. Truth might be necessary for justice - social or otherwise - and which in reality does not find residence in a world-condition such as ours, and not in the long run anyway. Somehow, we are created by spirit and we shall not rest until we rest in spirit. Unable to attain rest, man sought mysticism, meditations, prayer, and all. Not finding rest in all of his attempts, man harbours on despair in his existence and may even perceive death as a gate-way to spirituality and rest. The history of ideas and religious thought is saturated with ample examples. In the history of ideas and religious thought, death has been linked to a perceived notion of and a longing for rest. Unfortunately, some religions would want to raise the dead, who have escaped our control, only to give them another experience of death for having escaped our "justice". Regardless of different religious traditions, death is viewed as a point of departure from which any talk of spirituality must begin forward or backward. Hence, the spiritual person is a person who lives in the medium of his death, a man whose Omega informs his Alfa, because he has outlived his own life. How, then, will such a person exist among the living, work and live in a mechanistic society?
The spiritual person is a person whose spirit is informed by the reality of the nature of the house in which he resides, who at once knows that his residence is temporary, and that he abides in contingency. The house is not of his own making, and though his years are numbered, he knows not the end from the beginning. He is a creature of/in time and nature, subject to his need for food and physical necessities, necessities for which the spirit anguishes in its attempt to co-exist in such subjugation. The brevity of his years and the knowledge of his own death gives the spirit in him the capacity of hope, transcendence and freedom from temporality. Man is spiritual because he can transcend, yet at once, is dead in his living. Man is the only creature that knows he will die, but knows not his death. There is a deep lingering anguish for man to know his death, and which at times drives him to the very death he dreads. The sense of spirituality in man is a sense of reflective melancholy, not a depressive one, a sense of peace, rest in the anticipation of death and a knowledge that is neither granted to animate or any inanimate nature. It is this particular knowledge in man, which he partially draws from his observations of nature, that the grass flourishes in the morning, and in the evening withers and is cut down, that lingers in man as an existential anxiety. Nature teaches man that which nature does not know. It is a particular knowledge, available only to the spirit of man. Man carries his years as a burden and brings his life to an end as a tale that is told. Then man vanishes: dust to dust and breath to the wind, as the sparks go upward! Man is spiritual because he is finite. It is God alone who is Spirit.
When and if the above is applied to the place of work, it paradoxically shifts formerly patterned behaviours to new paradigms and produces people who work because they have grasped a sense of meaning and heard a "calling". They work harder for they know and are in touch with the brevity of their time, that "night is coming". Whatever the hands of these people find, they do it with all their might. They are servants, not masters, yet are never exploited or exploitable. They abhor "slavery", no matter the price offered for their faith. They do not easily surrender their faith.
The above persons appeal to the higher qualities in humanity of which Sheldrake speaks : the goodness in man. When the good in us is joined with the desire to give, not only receive, spirituality pushes man to the highest quality attainable by the spirit: love. A system that is not the works of love in any place or time, under strict analysis, does not amount much more than being a system of rules with a bit of magicalism assigned to it if it were to deceive those whom the system exploits. "Love, however, is possible only when the self is given to another as a gift to enable the other to escape the very anxiety the giver himself experiences, namely, to save the other from extinction from that which the self [of the giver] dreads, avoids and escapes".
What, then, is Sheldrake trying to do by his theory in the workplace, in organisations and systems as an outcome of his discovery of the spirit of the matter in his study of biology?
The loss of faith is always due to dishonesty and deception, not simply ignorance. Having not yet been formulated in consciousness as an outright lie, deception effects and affects this loss of faith. When one is deceived he loses faith, hope and love. Opportunistic systems are mechanised systems, systems that are built in the mechanics of pride, as pride is a sense of a pseudo-transcendence. Pseudo-transcendent managers, who have acquired positions on account of an innate cruelty of mind and conscience, are cases in point. Sooner or later this system becomes dysfunctional in the face of the reality and complexity of the nature of faith and the demands of human relationships for faith and trust. This could be worked out as a possibility in Sheldrake's theory, since his theory is amicable to the elements of morality and spirituality that would bring a sense of friendship, collegiality, bonds and affection in organisational settings. All of these are spiritual characteristics that were there before man began to think of himself as separate from nature, developing consciousness that is apart from nature. Sheldrake makes clear that his system does not work well between strangers, and that there has to be an emotional or social bond for his system to work. The challenging phase, for the advancement of Sheldrake's theory, is in its encounter with the negatives, and how through spirituality, humans and organisations are transformed. We believe this can be done through the practice and application of his theory, but which is not methodologically and procedurally explicit.
Dr. George Malek is Director of the Ecumenical Pastoral Institute in Cape Town, South Africa ( www.ecumenical-pastoral-institute-cape-town-org ) and is currently spending a Sabbatical in the United Kingdom at the Ashridge Business School. ( www.ashridge.com)
He works with Dr. Albert Zandvoort, Director of the School's Leadership Centre on issues of Leadership and Spirituality and is involved in the design of a Master Class for Senior leaders on this topic.
The work draws heavily on Rupert Sheldrake's work on Morphic fields and has attracted great interest among leaders in both commercial and non-commercial organisations.