<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'>I’m responding to Wiegel’s quotation (below his name). Sir Ken Robinson defines creativity as “the process of having original ideas that have value.” He emphasizes the words “process,” “ideas,” and “value.” <BR>
<BR>
See <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtnRaa7AgLs">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtnRaa7AgLs</a> <BR>
<BR>
Not sure how this fits into “grand designs” but his ideas speak to me.--Diann McCabe, San Marcos, TX<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 5/22/12 9:55 AM, "James Wiegel" <<a href="jfwiegel@yahoo.com">jfwiegel@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'>I suppose the only thing that could get us in deeper doo doo as a species than the current rancorous controversies would be if we were to all, suddenly, come to some grand conclusion about things . . .<BR>
<BR>
There is an Italian from Nicaragua in the living room practicing on Judy's piano . . .<BR>
<BR>
Jim Wiegel<BR>
<BR>
Many have tried to define creativity, to quantify and qualify it . . . Some say it involves imagination; Whatever your definition of creativity or the creative process, marvelous creations abound to improve our lives and inspire us Kaneko Center<BR>
<BR>
401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401<BR>
+1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel<BR>
<a href="jfwiegel@yahoo.com">jfwiegel@yahoo.com</a> www.partnersinparticipation.com<BR>
<BR>
Upcoming public course opportunities:<BR>
ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012<BR>
ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012<BR>
The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012<BR>
Facilitation Mastery : Our Mastering the Technology of Participation program is available in Phoenix in 2012-3. Program begins on Aug 22-24, 2012. See website for further details. <BR>
AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses<BR>
<BR>
--- On <B>Mon, 5/21/12, <a href="PSchrijnen@aol.com">PSchrijnen@aol.com</a> <I><<a href="PSchrijnen@aol.com">PSchrijnen@aol.com</a>></I></B> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'><BR>
From: <a href="PSchrijnen@aol.com">PSchrijnen@aol.com</a> <<a href="PSchrijnen@aol.com">PSchrijnen@aol.com</a>><BR>
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design<BR>
To: <a href="dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><BR>
Date: Monday, May 21, 2012, 10:11 PM<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'><FONT FACE="Arial">Indeed John, <BR>
<BR>
You say that well. I think that was the point of the debate: To point out that these two academics operate in two parallel universes. Dawkins was surprisingly open and charming. he is usually more righteous. In this debate he behaved. The surroundings of the Sheldonian may have helped.<BR>
<BR>
Williams is retiring at the end of the year to become the master of a Cambridge college. He is a fine theologian, and has played a positive role as archbishop in civil life here. I am sure he will be glad to get out of that job though. I have enjoyed his book Silence and Honey Cakes frequently. A fine little book about the wisdom of the desert monastics. <BR>
<BR>
Paul<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 21/05/2012 22:52:36 GMT Daylight Time, <a href="jlepps@pc.jaring.my">jlepps@pc.jaring.my</a> writes:<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'><FONT FACE="Arial">Thanks Paul for this fascinating dialogue. It was far more civil than some of the exchanges of ideas that often occur on this side of the Atlantic. <BR>
<BR>
IMHO, Dr. Dawkins was quite modest in his claims to certainty about things, and Archbishop Williams was quite articulate in defining what he did and did not mean by "God." It seemed, though, that Dr. Dawkins was objecting to a notion of God that Archbishop Rowan did not advocate, and that is an example of what I find objectionable about Steven Hawking's book. Of course it would be silly to expect physicists to be experts in theology, as it would be for theologians to claim expertise in physics. The two can co-exist quite harmoniously with one dealing with value and meaning (why) and the other dealing with the nature of reality and its operations (what and how). <BR>
<BR>
John <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
At 12:40 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></SPAN><BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'><FONT FACE="Arial">I enjoyed the debate between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams on some of these questions:<BR>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfQk4NfW7g0</a><BR>
<BR>
Maybe it adds another dimension...?<BR>
<BR>
Paul<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 20/05/2012 19:18:12 GMT Daylight Time, <a href="LAURELCG@aol.com">LAURELCG@aol.com</a> writes:<BR>
Jack,<BR>
<BR>
The Ground of Being that WAS before the big bang, and the Evolutionary Impulse (Becoming) that started the big bang, is what we've called God. (This I've gleaned from Andrew Cohen.) I agree it is all intelligent, but our tiny brains cannot begin to understand it. IT is the All, in the phrases, "All that is, is good." and "I am One with All That Is." Science is about grappling to understand it. Good scientists are usually in awe of what they're discovering. What else would keep someone looking in a microscope all day every day for years, or whatever laborious process is required in their discipline? Scientists like Bryan Swimme and men of faith like Thomas Berry sometimes collaborate to come up with inspired works, like The Universe Story. This is all just my humble opinion, as is the belief that the church, the cutting edge today, is the evolutionary spirituality movement. Jean Houston is a recognized leader of it and almost invariably ends her internet sessions with "These are the times, we are the people."<BR>
<BR>
From the great central valley of California, the center of the Universe,<BR>
Jann <BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 5/20/2012 10:57:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, <a href="icabombay@igc.org">icabombay@igc.org</a> writes:<BR>
As to the "Grand Design", it is the contention of some that the creative process, that which underlies all, is inherently intelligent and that intelligence can be understood.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Dialogue mailing list<BR>
<a href="Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><BR>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a><BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Dialogue mailing list<BR>
<a href="Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><BR>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a> <BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'><FONT FACE="Arial"><BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Dialogue mailing list<BR>
<a href="Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a><BR>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a><BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
Dialogue mailing list<BR>
<a href="Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a> <<a href="/mc/compose?to=Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net">/mc/compose?to=Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net</a>> <BR>
<a href="http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net">http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net</a><BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14pt'><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><BR>
</FONT></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>