C.H. Waddington’s concepts of ‘chreods’ (canalized paths of development) and ‘homeorhesis’ (the tendency to return to a path), each associated with ‘morphogenetic fields’, were conceived by him as a contribution to complexity theory. Subsequent developments in complexity theory have largely ignored Waddington’s work and efforts to advance it. Waddington explained the development of the concept of chreod as the influence on his work of Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy, notably, the concept of concrescence as a self-causing process. Processes were recognized (...) as having their own dynamics, rather than being explicable through their components or external agents. Whitehead recognized the tendency to think only in terms of such ‘substances’ as a bias of European thought, claiming in his own philosophy ‘to approximate more to some strains of Indian, or Chinese, thought, than to western Asiatic, or European, thought.’ Significantly, the theoretical biologist who comes closest to advancing Waddington’s research program, also marginalized, is Mae-Wan Ho. Noting this bias, and embracing Whitehead’s and Waddington’s efforts to free biology from assumptions dominating Western thought to advance an ontology of creative causal processes, I will show how later developments of complexity theory, most importantly, Goodwin’s work on oscillations, temporality and morphogenesis, Vitiello’s dissipative quantum brain dynamics, Salthe’s work on hierarchy theory, biosemiotics inspired by Peirce and von Uexküll, Robert Rosen’s work on anticipatory systems, together with category theory and biomathics, can augment while being augmented by Waddington’s work, while further advancing Mae-Wan Ho’s radical research program with its quest to understand the reality of consciousness. (shrink)

Abstract -/- Cancer has traditionally been framed as a genetic mutation-driven disease, with instability at the molecular level leading to uncontrolled cellular proliferation. Yet this paradigm fails to account for several longstanding anomalies: genetically identical cells in the same environment may behave divergently; some tumors remain dormant for decades, while others regress without treatment. These contradictions suggest a deeper organizing principle is at play. -/- This paper introduces a new model grounded in the CODES framework (Chirality of Dynamic Emergent Systems), (...) which reframes cancer as a disorder of structured resonance coherence rather than solely a genetic malfunction. We propose that healthy cellular function depends on phase-locked resonance fields that regulate gene expression, metabolic behavior, and intercellular signaling. Cancer arises when these coherence fields collapse—leading to systemic phase decoherence, metabolic misalignment, and signal fragmentation. -/- We outline a triadic therapeutic approach to restore biological coherence across genomic, metabolic, and bioelectromagnetic layers, leveraging: -/- Electromagnetic Biofield Therapy -/- Targeted frequency modulation to re-establish coherence in malignant tissues, restoring phase alignment with surrounding healthy systems. -/- Metabolic Re-Synchronization -/- Correcting Warburg effect-driven dissonance through structured nutrient cycling, oxygenation pulses, and mitochondrial tuning. -/- Structured RNA Interventions -/- Delivering coherence-weighted RNA signals to recalibrate gene expression and phase-lock cellular behavior with prime-structured resonance patterns. -/- This framework redefines cancer not as an invasive error, but as a resonance failure—a reversible departure from the coherence that sustains healthy life. It offers a paradigm shift toward non-toxic, phase-restorative therapies that treat cancer at its systemic root. (shrink)

Modern science originated in Western Europe, but its astonishing successes have forced every other civilization in the world to acknowledge and embrace its achievements. It is at the core of modernity and of the globalization of civilization. Consequently, efforts to show that non-Western traditions of thought should be taken seriously within the paradigm of science itself will inevitably provoke skepticism. However, science itself is riven not only by major problems and rival research programs, but by different conceptions about what is (...) science and what are its goals. These have generated such confusion, even within such advanced fields of science as physics, that more and more scientists are examining non-Western traditions of thought to provide a sufficiently broad perspective to overcome this confusion, to identify the core problems within science and to redefine it and its goals. This special edition brings into focus such work in a historical-epistemological perspective. (shrink)