May 2012 - Dialogue - lists.wedgeblade.net

Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design
by David Walters 18 May '12

18 May '12

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design
by marilyncrocker＠juno.com 18 May '12

18 May '12

Hi John, Yes, I did notice that. I dutifully (because I deeply respect the thoughts of you, Jack, Randy and others so much) created a new folder in my e-mail account entitled, Grand Design Thread, intending to re-read carefully, think about, and then perhaps (if I had anything worth adding) to respond. I think some diverse voices (especially more women than just one -- THANK YOU JAN -- and also non-Western perspectives) will certainly enrich this conversation. For me, other immediate priorities intruded, the biggest of which has been the welcoming and bonding with our newest grandchildren -- twin girls, born to our son, Jonathan and his wife Jenna on May 4th -- one month early. Jon, Jenna, and their beautiful daughters, Caroline June and Fiona Evans are thriving, for which we give deep thanks. Grace, peace and love to you and Ann, Marilyn On Fri, 18 May 2012 13:37:37 -0600 "jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my" <jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my> writes: > Colleagues: > > Have any of you noticed the absence of diversity in this > conversation? So far all of us participants have been, as one > participant called our demographic, "pale, stale, and male." Do you > > suppose the subject is just not that interesting, or are there other > reasons? > > John E > > _______________________________________________ > Dialogue mailing list > Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > Dr. Marilyn R. Crocker 123 Sanborn Road West Newfield, ME 04095

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design
by jlepps＠pc.jaring.my 18 May '12

18 May '12

Indeed it does, Randy. Thanks for your story about the conflicting values. In fact, the dimension of meaning lies "beneath/within" everything (since all that is, is good). The trick is accessing that level, and this is what we've been doing as facilitators -- helping people and groups to access the level of meaning (value) in ordinary experiences. We've even developed a workshop in which we demonstrate some methods of doing so -- we just did a run of it in Halifax at the IAF. We call it "Facilitation from the Inside Out" taken after my paper of the same name. Anyway one of my favorite exercises is to invite people to list 5 ordinary, routine, everyday experiences they have. Then select one and record all the details you can recall about it. After a few minutes, we then invite them to take that experience and create an art form from it. It can be a song, story, poem, picture, dance, drama, or whatever -- the media is up to them. The results have been outstanding, both in the art produced, but even more in the transformation of perspective of the participant "artists." My creation, for example, is a limerick: I take a whole lot of pills For real and potential ills. I need to stay healthy And try to get wealthy Enough to pay pharmacy bills! Now my daily pill-taking is no longer a meaningless routine to me. It has meaning -- value of a sort, if just as a moment of humor. More seriously, we find the profession of facilitation to be really about helping people and groups to access that level. We may ostensibly be facilitating strategic planning, or customer service, or problem solving, or team building, but that's only the surface; what we're really doing is helping them in accessing value/meaning in work. Apparently increasing numbers of facilitators are aware of this "profound function," and are eager to find ways of doing so more effectively. Thanks for bringing this up. John E. At 06:02 AM 5/18/2012, you wrote: >My thought on the subject of values is that some >perception of reality precedes, and becomes the >context from which I select, what I consider to >be of value. A value is chosen based upon some >expected promise, and the question of the >validity of the value is, can it deliver on what >it promised to deliver, as I perceived it, when >I decided it was of value. (I do, by the way, >have to distinguish between "preferences" and >"values." Butter pecan over strawberry is a >preference, and I may choose one tonight and >another tomorrow night. On the other hand I >acknowledge that ice cream may be a value!) > >It is possible that the "value" of values is >somewhat relative, depending upon what I value >it for. If my perception of reality is that to >live one must procure and ingest food, then I >may value money for its ability to help me >procure food. In that instance it delivers and >I experience that my assignment of value to money to procure food is valid. > >On the other hand, I may perceive that the >reality is that there is depth meaning to be >found in life, and that the source of that >meaning is material acquisition. Therefore I >may come to value money for the promise that if >I have enough of it I can find the meaning of >life. I amass material wealth but find that >regardless how much I have I am unhappy and >unfulfilled to the point of chronic >depression. At some point, therefore, I may >conclude that money is not delivering what I >thought it promised and in this case it is >therefore not a "valid" value. This may cause >me to reexamine my perception of reality, change >my story and my values, and subsequently live my >life differently, with a new story of reality and corresponding new values. > >A dilemma occurs when two or more values which I >consider to be "valid" come into conflict with >each other, and I must choose one over the >others by making a "value judgment." (This, of >course, is what we dealt with in the Freedom >section of RS-1.) For a grounding example, four >and one-half years ago Mary Beth and I decided >we had had enough of city life and the daily >grind and decided to move to the lake country of >east Texas where we bought a nice little >waterfront cottage amidst the piney woods, >leaving our friends and associates behind. The >two conflicting values were the quiet serenity >of nature versus relationships with close >friends. We knew both to have value, but we >decided serenity was of more value in delivering >ultimate meaning in life than >relationships. Four and one-half years later, >after much reflection that you can sit on the >back porch gazing out over the water just so >long and take just so many nature treks, we sold >our waterfront cottage and moved back to a >suburban home with a small back yard in order to >reestablish our relationships. Several people >asked, "Are you crazy?" The question was asked from an assumption of value. > >Our conclusion is, that as far as depth meaning >in life is concerned, place and relationships >are both of value, but relationships are more >valuable than place. So we will live in the >city, surrounded by our friends and associates, >and we will find other ways to partake of and >participate in nature, which we also discern also to be of great value. > >I hope this adds something to the conversation about value. > >Randy > >"Listen to what is emerging from yourself to the >course of being in the world; not to be >supported by it, but to bring it to reality as it desires." >-Martin Buber (adapted) >From: James Wiegel <jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com> >To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> >Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 12:21 AM >Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design >This two sided conversation needs >broadening. Consider, for instance, Butter >Pecan -- home made, with fresh roasted pecans from the back yard . . . > >On another subject, I recall a moment in some >collegium or something when JWM was being a >philosopher and got talking about your principal >of reality and your principal of value and which >was prior to which. His point seemed to be if >you start with the principal of reality, then >"good" is a description of what is. If you >start with the principal of value, then you have >some notion of good by which you judge what >is. I was wandering around the Realistic Living >website and found these two comments there. > >My point, once again, is not that those ancient >people told literal stories and we are now smart >enough to take them symbolically, but that they >told them symbolically and we are now dumb >enough to take them literally. They knew what >they were doing; we don't." - John Dominic Crossan >The notion of depth is a valuation of >experiences and the real question is whether >such a value can be assigned to any experience >or complex of experiences in our secular >culture. Schliermacher's feeling of absolute >dependence or Tillich's ultimate concern would >qualify for a valuation of depth if we had such >experiences. Traditional concepts of revelation >cloaked in numinosity would qualify if we had >such experiences. A secular postmodern theology >begins with an acknowledgement of a lack of such >experiences in many of our lives and asks if any >such experience can be had or so transformed >such that it can be valued as real and important." - Charles E. Winquist > > >Jim Wiegel > >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 > >401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 >+1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel >jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com > >Upcoming public course opportunities: >ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 >ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 >The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 >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. >AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses > >--- On Thu, 5/17/12, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my <jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my> wrote: > >From: jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my <jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my> >Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design >To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> >Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 7:52 PM > >Just one more thought tonight, Jack. I think our >point of difference is in the matter of values >(of which we share many). You describe them >(beyond the ice cream) as "part of the fabric of >creation itself that are always present and >can't be negated." That sounds a lot like how >Hawking describes laws of science. But I assume >you mean something different. When I use the >term "values" I am pointing to a relationship >between two entities, usually me and the item >valued. The value is not a thing that can be >eternal, absolute, and unchanging. It's a >relationship I take to the entity, whether it be >life, being-itself, or strawberry ice cream >(actually I prefer mint-chocolate). I believe >the point of Christianity is that a positive >relationship to all of reality (animal, >vegetable, mineral, and whatever else is real) >makes for authentic humanness. We often fail to >attain that positive posture (speaking for >myself, at least), but that doesn't make the >point less valid. If that point is what you mean >by "absolute value", a structure of the cosmos, >then OK. But that's a faith statement, a >decision, and not a scientifically-provable one. >That position has been communicated in a large >number of scientific world-views, many of which >have been discarded -- though our expressions >meant to communicate that posture seem to lag >behind the changing world views by decades or >centuries. Your desire to create a grand union >of science and religion leaves me a little >uneasy. Clearly it does not now exist. But there >have been times when it did -- the Middle Ages, >for example. The science was a two-story >universe bridged by the hierarchy, both >religious and feudal. People were able >communicate the goodness of reality in that >universe of discourse. My guess is that there is >not a world view established enough to merge >seamlessly with faith statements, so I choose to >keep them separate. This leaves me at liberty to >enjoy reading Brian Green's Fabric of the >Cosmos without understanding much of it. >There are entire paragraphs that seem to be in >English -- at least the words do -- but I have >no idea what he's talking about. It's sort of an >exercise in humility. But it's also valuable to >keep up with what changes are taking place in >understanding the world. Thanks again for your >insights. John John At 06:24 PM 5/17/2012, you wrote: >>On May 17, 2012, at 6:06 PM, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my wrote: >> >>>Who said the list serve can't be a place for significant dialogue!!?! >> >>You're right about that. I'm getting some heat >>from Steve Herrington that we are talking in >>abstractions and I guess we need to include >>some groundings. So I hope he likes my comments on ice cream! >>> >>>Thanks Jack, Jim, and Randy for your comments. >>>Here are a couple of additional thoughts >>>mostly in response to Jack's latest (below). >>> >>>First of all, I thoroughly agree with Jack's >>>assertion about our being able to cooperate in >>>the ongoing creation of reality. We are able >>>to apprehend a dimension of awesomeness. >>> >>>Secondly, I don't agree with the idea that >>>creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) renders >>>all values void. In fact, creation from >>>nothing has been a Christian principle since >>>the second century. (Google it for more >>>details.) It does not render values void at >>>all. If anything, it increases the wonder of it all. >> >>John, it may be a "wonder" but where do the >>values come from? It is just our personal >>opinion, or are they indeed universal - present >>as part of the eternal. But if we have all of >>creation just coming at a particular point in >>time, some 21 billion years ago, then are >>values part of the "energy" set that began the >>whole thing, or they just creation of our >>minds? And as for creation out of nothing (ex >>nihilo) I agree, but let's be clear that when >>you say "no-thing" your saying that it is >>coming from the void, which is not a thing, or >>place, or a time, it is a repository of all. >>> >>>Thirdly, if "All that is, is good" -- HR >>>Niebuhr), then the idea of absolutes gets a >>>good kick in the shin! If everything is good, >>>what more is needed? That would also mean that >>>whatever science discovers about reality, that's good too. >> >>I'm not to clear about what you're saying with >>this. Are you saying there are no >>absolutes?? Not to be picky, but wouldn't a >>statement that there are no absolutes be an >>absolute? Certainly whatever science discovers >>about this world is good and valid. It is just >>not complete nor the final word. I'm glad >>someone discovered medicines, engines and a few >>other helpful things! Hell, I even have a few patents myself! >>> >>>Fourth, I don't quite understand your >>>statement that unless some version of science >>>is valid, then nothing is valuable. It seems >>>to me that there are things and people I >>>value, regardless of whether or not there is a >>>superior intelligence that also values them. >>>In fact if there is, then (s)he/it has good >>>taste! But whether or not there is, I still >>>value you, the people reading this, our common >>>past experiences, music, and much more. Their >>>value to me does not depend on some scientific view of reality. >> >>I hope I didn't say that, and if I did, I >>misspoke. Of course much of science is great, >>sound and highly beneficial. But I think we're >>not talking about just any values. I like >>vanilla ice-cream and you value strawberry. It >>may be relative and/or subjective. We live >>with those difference in values every day. The >>question is; are there a set of universal >>values, part of the fabric of creation itself >>that are always present and can't be >>negated. And are these values something we can >>intuit, access and live. If so, how did they >>emerge from nothing (as in a Big Bang) or are they inventions of our minds? >>> >>> >>>I'd like to pose a position: I do not think >>>faith depends on any scientific world view. >>>Time after time, scientists have made >>>discoveries that the religious regarded as >>>incompatible with faith, and proceeded to hold >>>back progress for ages. I believe that the two >>>speak of different dimensions: the surface >>>(science) and the depth (faith). Whatever >>>science allows to be the case, I am quite >>>prepared to accept. If they are questionable, >>>it will be disproven on their own terms. >> >>This question you raise is at the heart of the >>matter. Are we destined to live forever in two >>realms, science and faith? Or, is there a way >>that enables the integration of both into one >>system, that validates both and allows both to >>communicate with a discipline? The point I'm >>trying to make is that "surface" and "depth" >>are not two things, they are one thing. Isn't >>that what our insight and breakthrough is when >>we say NSV/NRM are the same thing seen in two different lights? >>> >>>I'm not a scientist! But I am quite >>>interested in what they have to say about >>>reality and looking for implications. Some of >>>it seems pretty far-fetched -- like the notion >>>of an infinite number of universes, which, if >>>true, would mean that somewhere in some other >>>universe there is another carbon copy of me >>>writing another carbon copy of you! The >>>reasoning seems to be that since you and I and >>>our surroundings are all composed of a finite >>>number of atoms (or strings or whatever), in >>>an infinite number of universes, there would >>>have to be duplication! I can appreciate the >>>shock of discovering that Earth is not the >>>center of the universe, but the notion that >>>you and I are not necessarily unique and un-repeatable seems a bit much! >> >>Amen to that! >>> >>> >>>Thanks again for your comments, and let's hear from others. >>> >>>Grace & Peace >>>John >>> >>>At 11:49 AM 5/17/2012, you wrote: >>>>John, >>>> >>>>That (where did they come from?) is one of >>>>the issues regarding values as well. If it >>>>all started as "nothing" then there is no >>>>reason to say there are any absolutes >>>>regarding values. Nothing has value, >>>>including us. That is why they can talk about a "selfish gene". >>>> >>>>But there are more serious problems with the >>>>the scientific theory as it is presently >>>>modeled. For one, they speak of space and >>>>time as a continuum separate from the >>>>creative process. It is stated that >>>>everything started from a "place" of infinite >>>>density and singularity of space. A theory >>>>that can never be proven but only is a >>>>mathematical equation. The same thing for >>>>"time". To speak of what "started" something >>>>is to see time (like space) as something >>>>independent of matter, like "Everything >>>>exists in a space and time continuum". So if >>>>we exist "in space" and space is expanding >>>>(like a balloon), like the Big Bang says we >>>>are all growing away from each other, then >>>>why aren't the parts we can see like atoms >>>>etc. (which also exist in this independent space time continuum) expanding? >>>> >>>>The third problem area is >>>>"causality". Something outside (of what?) >>>>must have caused things to happen if it >>>>wasn't the Big Bang, an intelligence, which >>>>if followed to infinite regression leads to no answer. >>>> >>>>So we are left with the scientist saying >>>>"accept the Big Bang" and YOU deal with all >>>>the questions that arise. But think for a >>>>moment of what you're being asked to take on >>>>"faith" (science would say "almost confirmed >>>>theory"). It all started from singularity, >>>>(and we can tell you within a billion years >>>>of so) of "when" that was, that every morsel >>>>of "stuff" was somehow compacted in some way >>>>so that it all fit in basically no space at >>>>all, and, oh by the way, there is also 95% of >>>>it we can't see, identify, detect only by >>>>inference or indirectly, but our model tells >>>>us exists and we'll call that "dark matter". Talk about a leap of faith!!! >>>> >>>>No, there was no "beginning" and there is no >>>>"end". The creative process is inherent in >>>>the universe and is present everywhere (and >>>>nowhere). Space and time are an integral >>>>part of the creative process. All "things" >>>>exist in space and time, but they also exist >>>>in the void that transcends space and >>>>time. That is what the quantum reality >>>>is. GOD is not "outside" of anything, >>>>because there is no outside, but there is a >>>>void, which is just another aspect of what >>>>is. If you only base all your knowledge on >>>>the ability of left side of the brain to >>>>"understand", that is, language and >>>>mathematics, you get these contorted >>>>expressions of explanations that require >>>>alternative universes, 10-11 dimensions of >>>>reality, and stories that everything came >>>>from nothing. But we have access to another >>>>side of the brain, the intuitive side, one >>>>that is capable of direct knowledge of the void. >>>> >>>>People from the beginning of civilization >>>>have struggled with understanding the purpose >>>>of it all, the Mystery, the wonder, the awe >>>>of life. And it cannot be reduced to "Oh, we >>>>just haven't had enough time to figure it >>>>out, or the mathematics to confirm". "If you >>>>only knew the "facts" then the "unknown >>>>unknown" as a friend once put it in a poem, >>>>would be known and understood". No!! GOD is >>>>not that which we haven't quite figured out >>>>yet. To be "made in God's image" means that >>>>we have the inherent capacity to directly >>>>know, to access the Void and to be part of >>>>the one and only creative process. Indeed, >>>>that one creative process, like a fractal, >>>>can be seen and understood to be a system >>>>that operates at any level you want to focus >>>>on; the atom, the cell, the body, the >>>>community, the organization, the biosphere, >>>>the earth, the solar system or the galaxy. >>>> >>>>It is so easy for people like Bill Maher to >>>>destroy religious statements or beliefs. But >>>>if you want to counter his stupid put downs, >>>>you have to play only on the field of his >>>>(and scientists) definition; objective, >>>>explicit causality. But there are >>>>alternatives to this field, which take into >>>>account both objective and subjective, >>>>explicit and implicit reality and allows one >>>>to understand how the creative process unfolds. >>>> >>>>That is why our work on The Other World (in >>>>the midst of This World) is of such earth >>>>shaking importance. We are not talking about >>>>how we found some words to hold awesome >>>>experiences and that can really be >>>>helpful. No, we (and many others) stumbled >>>>upon a reality that was hidden from us for >>>>centuries because of giving credence and >>>>truth only to objective, explicit and >>>>verifiable dimensions of reality. Everything >>>>else was just waiting its turn to be >>>>understood and figured out. The Universe is >>>>just a gigantic bake shop and us muffins are >>>>just random products of a rather wild cooking >>>>process. No recipe, no cook, just rather >>>>marvelously looking and behaving "accidents" >>>>of a whirling soup. Get over your >>>>importance, your sense of purpose, your sense >>>>of awe and wonder. These are just >>>>psychological inventions we have created to >>>>deal with that which we don't know and they >>>>really don't exist except as helpful coping concepts. >>>> >>>>I won't go on, this is far to much >>>>already. But let me conclude with the >>>>following. Most physicists and >>>>mathematicians would have you believe that >>>>the Big Bang theory is the only real game in >>>>town. But if you Google "Alternatives to the >>>>Big Bang Theory" you'll see there are many >>>>other answers. I think most are still trying >>>>to play on the Objective, Explicit playing >>>>field (because that is the boundary science >>>>has put on understanding reality) but it >>>>ain't quite the consensus that you would be led to believe from most people. >>>> >>>>Peace brother, >>>> >>>>Jack >>>>On May 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my wrote: >>>> >>>>>Thanks Jack. >>>>> >>>>>I don't think the book characterizes reality >>>>>as the result of mindless randomness. But >>>>>here's a question: if the universe is an >>>>>"intelligent system," how did it get >>>>>started? Was the big bang caused by >>>>>something else? This can lead to infinite regression. >>>>> >>>>>My argument with scientists is not with what >>>>>they do or how they do it. It's when they >>>>>step outside their own discipline and >>>>>attempt to argue theology which is >>>>>difference from science. Us theologians also >>>>>need to be careful in evaluating science! Galileo found that out the hard way! >>>>> >>>>>Saying "God created heaven and earth" is not >>>>>a statement about science. it's a faith >>>>>statement that accords value to all of creation, whatever it looks like. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks again for your comments. >>>>> >>>>>John >>>>> >>>>>At 08:30 PM 5/16/2012, you wrote: >>>>>>John, >>>>>> >>>>>>I appreciate your insights regarding the >>>>>>book. I have no real interest in debating >>>>>>string theory or Theory M. There are those >>>>>>whom I respect who have profound questions >>>>>>regarding them and certainly they struggle >>>>>>with any ability to confirm the theory in >>>>>>practice, instead relying on mathematics to "prove" their points. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is easy for secular scientist to pooh >>>>>>pooh the intelligent design arguments as >>>>>>they are, for the most part, presented by >>>>>>those who are more literalist in their >>>>>>theology. They tend to externalize God >>>>>>which is just another form of the two story >>>>>>universe. But for me, the intelligent >>>>>>design is really about the entire universe >>>>>>as an intelligent system. It is not a >>>>>>mindless result of random collisions. I >>>>>>won't go into the depth that is required to >>>>>>present the alternative, but it is there. >>>>>> >>>>>>The more interesting point is that mindless >>>>>>randomness means there is no basis for the >>>>>>emergence of values. In deed, there is no >>>>>>meaning nor purpose for anything. But our >>>>>>personal experience tells us something >>>>>>else. And is not simply a way for us to >>>>>>live with meaninglessness of reality. I >>>>>>won't expand on this because this is not >>>>>>the forum for a long discussion. But we >>>>>>shouldn't allow the scientist to set all >>>>>>the rules for how to debate these questions. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks for the review! >>>>>> >>>>>>Jack >>>>>>On May 16, 2012, at 5:52 PM, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Some thoughts you might enjoy: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Reflections on âThe Grand Design[1]â May 2012 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinov have >>>>>>>undertaken to challenge the âIntelligent >>>>>>>Designâ theory of creation with the >>>>>>>latest science from Quantum Physics and >>>>>>>the M-Theory. In my opinion, they deserve >>>>>>>each other. One says an intelligent being >>>>>>>created and runs the cosmos. The other >>>>>>>says no such being is necessary to account >>>>>>>for reality as we know it scientifically. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Neither âsideâ seems aware of the >>>>>>>distinction between faith statements as >>>>>>>expressive vs. faith statements as >>>>>>>explanatory. The former occurs in rituals, >>>>>>>creeds, worship, and hymns and is >>>>>>>primarily intended to express oneâs >>>>>>>interior posture of affirmation. They are >>>>>>>poetic and not intended to be taken as >>>>>>>literal. The latter can be found in >>>>>>>theological formulations that attempt to >>>>>>>provide a rational understanding of that >>>>>>>posture. Theological formulations are >>>>>>>intended to be taken literally and tend to >>>>>>>provide a viable model of reality >>>>>>>(âmodel-dependent realismâ is the mode >>>>>>>of Hawking and Mlodinov) which is >>>>>>>compatible with contemporary scientific understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The Intelligent design movement misses >>>>>>>this distinction and tends to take >>>>>>>expressive statements as literal, >>>>>>>sometimes even missing the deep truth they >>>>>>>express. The scientists also miss the >>>>>>>distinction and wind up creating a straw >>>>>>>man which they demolish with considerable relish and humor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The book, however, is a useful history of >>>>>>>scientific achievement, and filled with >>>>>>>informative and entertaining graphics. >>>>>>>When compared with the works of Brian >>>>>>>Greene[2], the book seems a bit >>>>>>>simplistic; still itâs a useful introduction to the present state of physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Particularly interesting is its >>>>>>>perspective of âmodel-dependent >>>>>>>realism.â Instead of attempting to >>>>>>>establish the external reality of anything >>>>>>>outside of the viewer, it says that what >>>>>>>we perceive is shaped by the brain which >>>>>>>uses a model to coordinate and make sense >>>>>>>of our perceptions. Whether or not the >>>>>>>model accords with some external reality >>>>>>>is beyond the possibility of establishing. >>>>>>>Instead one establishes the usefulness of >>>>>>>the model in accounting for experience. >>>>>>>There are four criteria a model must meet >>>>>>>to be regarded as accurate: 1) elegance; >>>>>>>2) contains few arbitrary or adjustable >>>>>>>elements; 3) agrees with and explains all >>>>>>>existing observations; and 4) makes >>>>>>>detailed predictions about future >>>>>>>observations that can disprove or falsify >>>>>>>the model if they are not borne out >>>>>>>(p.51). Unfortunately the book does not >>>>>>>show how intelligent design fails to meet >>>>>>>those same criteria for validity. Still, >>>>>>>the authors insist that no God hypothesis >>>>>>>is required to account for all we observe, >>>>>>>including creation ex nihilo (which, >>>>>>>though we do not observe it, seems to be the way things got started). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It may be that the book is most useful if >>>>>>>the reader dispenses with the theological >>>>>>>issues the authors purport to raise. It is >>>>>>>indeed a useful capsule of string theory >>>>>>>and M-theory along with quantum physics, >>>>>>>and provides a useful look into a model of >>>>>>>reality that may hold possibility for the >>>>>>>future. Maybe the theology was just a >>>>>>>gimmick to attract readers to a subject >>>>>>>that is covered more adequately elsewhere, >>>>>>>and is essentially uninteresting to most. >>>>>>>It seems to have succeeded as a marketing >>>>>>>effort since the book is currently on the >>>>>>>NY Times best seller list at #18 of 20. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[1] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, >>>>>>>The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2012) >>>>>>>[2] See his The Elegant Universe (New >>>>>>>York: Vintage Books, 2000), The Fabric of >>>>>>>the Cosmos (New York: Vintage Books, >>>>>>>2004), The Hidden Reality (New York: >>>>>>>Penguin, 2011). He also has fascinating >>>>>>>presentations on TV, the Discovery Channel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Your responses are more welcome. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>John >>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>>>>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>>>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Dialogue mailing list >>>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Dialogue mailing list >>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >><http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >> > >-----Inline Attachment Follows----- > >_______________________________________________Dialogue >mailing >listDialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > >_______________________________________________Dialogue >mailing >list<mailto:Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net<http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > >_______________________________________________ >Dialogue mailing list >Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

3 5

Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design
by jlepps＠pc.jaring.my 18 May '12

18 May '12

These are good, Jim. Thanks. The Winquist quote reminded me of something from CS-1: the sacred has shifted from edge experiences to central onest. It's no longer the lovely sunset or the stunning music that is the source of awe; these days that experience comes in doing the dishes...something like that.. John At 11:21 PM 5/17/2012, you wrote: >This two sided conversation needs >broadening. Consider, for instance, Butter >Pecan -- home made, with fresh roasted pecans from the back yard . . . > >On another subject, I recall a moment in some >collegium or something when JWM was being a >philosopher and got talking about your principal >of reality and your principal of value and which >was prior to which. His point seemed to be if >you start with the principal of reality, then >"good" is a description of what is. If you >start with the principal of value, then you have >some notion of good by which you judge what >is. I was wandering around the Realistic Living >website and found these two comments there. > >My point, once again, is not that those ancient >people told literal stories and we are now smart >enough to take them symbolically, but that they >told them symbolically and we are now dumb >enough to take them literally. They knew what >they were doing; we don't." - John Dominic Crossan >The notion of depth is a valuation of >experiences and the real question is whether >such a value can be assigned to any experience >or complex of experiences in our secular >culture. Schliermacher's feeling of absolute >dependence or Tillich's ultimate concern would >qualify for a valuation of depth if we had such >experiences. Traditional concepts of revelation >cloaked in numinosity would qualify if we had >such experiences. A secular postmodern theology >begins with an acknowledgement of a lack of such >experiences in many of our lives and asks if any >such experience can be had or so transformed >such that it can be valued as real and important." - Charles E. Winquist > > >Jim Wiegel > >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 > >401 North Beverly Way, Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401 >+1 623-363-3277 skype: jfredwiegel >jfwiegel(a)yahoo.com www.partnersinparticipation.com > >Upcoming public course opportunities: >ToP Facilitation Methods: Feb 7-8, May 15-16, Sept 11-12, 2012 >ToP Strategic Planning: Oct 9-10, 2012 >The Arizona ToP Community of Practice meets the 1st Friday- Feb 3, 2012 >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. >AICP Planners: 14.5 CM for all ToP courses > >--- On Thu, 5/17/12, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my <jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my> wrote: > >From: jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my <jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my> >Subject: Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design >To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> >Date: Thursday, May 17, 2012, 7:52 PM > >Just one more thought tonight, Jack. > >I think our point of difference is in the matter >of values (of which we share many). You describe >them (beyond the ice cream) as "part of the >fabric of creation itself that are always >present and can't be negated." That sounds a lot >like how Hawking describes laws of science. But >I assume you mean something different. > >When I use the term "values" I am pointing to a >relationship between two entities, usually me >and the item valued. The value is not a thing >that can be eternal, absolute, and unchanging. >It's a relationship I take to the entity, >whether it be life, being-itself, or strawberry >ice cream (actually I prefer mint-chocolate). I >believe the point of Christianity is that a >positive relationship to all of reality (animal, >vegetable, mineral, and whatever else is real) >makes for authentic humanness. We often fail to >attain that positive posture (speaking for >myself, at least), but that doesn't make the >point less valid. If that point is what you mean >by "absolute value", a structure of the cosmos, >then OK. But that's a faith statement, a >decision, and not a scientifically-provable one. > >That position has been communicated in a large >number of scientific world-views, many of which >have been discarded -- though our expressions >meant to communicate that posture seem to lag >behind the changing world views by decades or centuries. > >Your desire to create a grand union of science >and religion leaves me a little uneasy. Clearly >it does not now exist. But there have been times >when it did -- the Middle Ages, for example. The >science was a two-story universe bridged by the >hierarchy, both religious and feudal. People >were able communicate the goodness of reality in that universe of discourse. > >My guess is that there is not a world view >established enough to merge seamlessly with >faith statements, so I choose to keep them >separate. This leaves me at liberty to enjoy >reading Brian Green's Fabric of the >Cosmos without understanding much of it. >There are entire paragraphs that seem to be in >English -- at least the words do -- but I have >no idea what he's talking about. It's sort of an >exercise in humility. But it's also valuable to >keep up with what changes are taking place in understanding the world. > >Thanks again for your insights. > >John > >John > > >At 06:24 PM 5/17/2012, you wrote: > >>On May 17, 2012, at 6:06 PM, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my wrote: >> >>>Who said the list serve can't be a place for significant dialogue!!?! >> >>You're right about that. I'm getting some heat >>from Steve Herrington that we are talking in >>abstractions and I guess we need to include >>some groundings. So I hope he likes my comments on ice cream! >>> >>>Thanks Jack, Jim, and Randy for your comments. >>>Here are a couple of additional thoughts >>>mostly in response to Jack's latest (below). >>> >>>First of all, I thoroughly agree with Jack's >>>assertion about our being able to cooperate in >>>the ongoing creation of reality. We are able >>>to apprehend a dimension of awesomeness. >>> >>>Secondly, I don't agree with the idea that >>>creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) renders >>>all values void. In fact, creation from >>>nothing has been a Christian principle since >>>the second century. (Google it for more >>>details.) It does not render values void at >>>all. If anything, it increases the wonder of it all. >> >>John, it may be a "wonder" but where do the >>values come from? It is just our personal >>opinion, or are they indeed universal - present >>as part of the eternal. But if we have all of >>creation just coming at a particular point in >>time, some 21 billion years ago, then are >>values part of the "energy" set that began the >>whole thing, or they just creation of our >>minds? And as for creation out of nothing (ex >>nihilo) I agree, but let's be clear that when >>you say "no-thing" your saying that it is >>coming from the void, which is not a thing, or >>place, or a time, it is a repository of all. >>> >>>Thirdly, if "All that is, is good" -- HR >>>Niebuhr), then the idea of absolutes gets a >>>good kick in the shin! If everything is good, >>>what more is needed? That would also mean that >>>whatever science discovers about reality, that's good too. >> >>I'm not to clear about what you're saying with >>this. Are you saying there are no >>absolutes?? Not to be picky, but wouldn't a >>statement that there are no absolutes be an >>absolute? Certainly whatever science discovers >>about this world is good and valid. It is just >>not complete nor the final word. I'm glad >>someone discovered medicines, engines and a few >>other helpful things! Hell, I even have a few patents myself! >>> >>>Fourth, I don't quite understand your >>>statement that unless some version of science >>>is valid, then nothing is valuable. It seems >>>to me that there are things and people I >>>value, regardless of whether or not there is a >>>superior intelligence that also values them. >>>In fact if there is, then (s)he/it has good >>>taste! But whether or not there is, I still >>>value you, the people reading this, our common >>>past experiences, music, and much more. Their >>>value to me does not depend on some scientific view of reality. >> >>I hope I didn't say that, and if I did, I >>misspoke. Of course much of science is great, >>sound and highly beneficial. But I think we're >>not talking about just any values. I like >>vanilla ice-cream and you value strawberry. It >>may be relative and/or subjective. We live >>with those difference in values every day. The >>question is; are there a set of universal >>values, part of the fabric of creation itself >>that are always present and can't be >>negated. And are these values something we can >>intuit, access and live. If so, how did they >>emerge from nothing (as in a Big Bang) or are they inventions of our minds? >>> >>> >>>I'd like to pose a position: I do not think >>>faith depends on any scientific world view. >>>Time after time, scientists have made >>>discoveries that the religious regarded as >>>incompatible with faith, and proceeded to hold >>>back progress for ages. I believe that the two >>>speak of different dimensions: the surface >>>(science) and the depth (faith). Whatever >>>science allows to be the case, I am quite >>>prepared to accept. If they are questionable, >>>it will be disproven on their own terms. >> >>This question you raise is at the heart of the >>matter. Are we destined to live forever in two >>realms, science and faith? Or, is there a way >>that enables the integration of both into one >>system, that validates both and allows both to >>communicate with a discipline? The point I'm >>trying to make is that "surface" and "depth" >>are not two things, they are one thing. Isn't >>that what our insight and breakthrough is when >>we say NSV/NRM are the same thing seen in two different lights? >>> >>>I'm not a scientist! But I am quite >>>interested in what they have to say about >>>reality and looking for implications. Some of >>>it seems pretty far-fetched -- like the notion >>>of an infinite number of universes, which, if >>>true, would mean that somewhere in some other >>>universe there is another carbon copy of me >>>writing another carbon copy of you! The >>>reasoning seems to be that since you and I and >>>our surroundings are all composed of a finite >>>number of atoms (or strings or whatever), in >>>an infinite number of universes, there would >>>have to be duplication! I can appreciate the >>>shock of discovering that Earth is not the >>>center of the universe, but the notion that >>>you and I are not necessarily unique and un-repeatable seems a bit much! >> >>Amen to that! >>> >>> >>>Thanks again for your comments, and let's hear from others. >>> >>>Grace & Peace >>>John >>> >>>At 11:49 AM 5/17/2012, you wrote: >>>>John, >>>> >>>>That (where did they come from?) is one of >>>>the issues regarding values as well. If it >>>>all started as "nothing" then there is no >>>>reason to say there are any absolutes >>>>regarding values. Nothing has value, >>>>including us. That is why they can talk about a "selfish gene". >>>> >>>>But there are more serious problems with the >>>>the scientific theory as it is presently >>>>modeled. For one, they speak of space and >>>>time as a continuum separate from the >>>>creative process. It is stated that >>>>everything started from a "place" of infinite >>>>density and singularity of space. A theory >>>>that can never be proven but only is a >>>>mathematical equation. The same thing for >>>>"time". To speak of what "started" something >>>>is to see time (like space) as something >>>>independent of matter, like "Everything >>>>exists in a space and time continuum". So if >>>>we exist "in space" and space is expanding >>>>(like a balloon), like the Big Bang says we >>>>are all growing away from each other, then >>>>why aren't the parts we can see like atoms >>>>etc. (which also exist in this independent space time continuum) expanding? >>>> >>>>The third problem area is >>>>"causality". Something outside (of what?) >>>>must have caused things to happen if it >>>>wasn't the Big Bang, an intelligence, which >>>>if followed to infinite regression leads to no answer. >>>> >>>>So we are left with the scientist saying >>>>"accept the Big Bang" and YOU deal with all >>>>the questions that arise. But think for a >>>>moment of what you're being asked to take on >>>>"faith" (science would say "almost confirmed >>>>theory"). It all started from singularity, >>>>(and we can tell you within a billion years >>>>of so) of "when" that was, that every morsel >>>>of "stuff" was somehow compacted in some way >>>>so that it all fit in basically no space at >>>>all, and, oh by the way, there is also 95% of >>>>it we can't see, identify, detect only by >>>>inference or indirectly, but our model tells >>>>us exists and we'll call that "dark matter". Talk about a leap of faith!!! >>>> >>>>No, there was no "beginning" and there is no >>>>"end". The creative process is inherent in >>>>the universe and is present everywhere (and >>>>nowhere). Space and time are an integral >>>>part of the creative process. All "things" >>>>exist in space and time, but they also exist >>>>in the void that transcends space and >>>>time. That is what the quantum reality >>>>is. GOD is not "outside" of anything, >>>>because there is no outside, but there is a >>>>void, which is just another aspect of what >>>>is. If you only base all your knowledge on >>>>the ability of left side of the brain to >>>>"understand", that is, language and >>>>mathematics, you get these contorted >>>>expressions of explanations that require >>>>alternative universes, 10-11 dimensions of >>>>reality, and stories that everything came >>>>from nothing. But we have access to another >>>>side of the brain, the intuitive side, one >>>>that is capable of direct knowledge of the void. >>>> >>>>People from the beginning of civilization >>>>have struggled with understanding the purpose >>>>of it all, the Mystery, the wonder, the awe >>>>of life. And it cannot be reduced to "Oh, we >>>>just haven't had enough time to figure it >>>>out, or the mathematics to confirm". "If you >>>>only knew the "facts" then the "unknown >>>>unknown" as a friend once put it in a poem, >>>>would be known and understood". No!! GOD is >>>>not that which we haven't quite figured out >>>>yet. To be "made in God's image" means that >>>>we have the inherent capacity to directly >>>>know, to access the Void and to be part of >>>>the one and only creative process. Indeed, >>>>that one creative process, like a fractal, >>>>can be seen and understood to be a system >>>>that operates at any level you want to focus >>>>on; the atom, the cell, the body, the >>>>community, the organization, the biosphere, >>>>the earth, the solar system or the galaxy. >>>> >>>>It is so easy for people like Bill Maher to >>>>destroy religious statements or beliefs. But >>>>if you want to counter his stupid put downs, >>>>you have to play only on the field of his >>>>(and scientists) definition; objective, >>>>explicit causality. But there are >>>>alternatives to this field, which take into >>>>account both objective and subjective, >>>>explicit and implicit reality and allows one >>>>to understand how the creative process unfolds. >>>> >>>>That is why our work on The Other World (in >>>>the midst of This World) is of such earth >>>>shaking importance. We are not talking about >>>>how we found some words to hold awesome >>>>experiences and that can really be >>>>helpful. No, we (and many others) stumbled >>>>upon a reality that was hidden from us for >>>>centuries because of giving credence and >>>>truth only to objective, explicit and >>>>verifiable dimensions of reality. Everything >>>>else was just waiting its turn to be >>>>understood and figured out. The Universe is >>>>just a gigantic bake shop and us muffins are >>>>just random products of a rather wild cooking >>>>process. No recipe, no cook, just rather >>>>marvelously looking and behaving "accidents" >>>>of a whirling soup. Get over your >>>>importance, your sense of purpose, your sense >>>>of awe and wonder. These are just >>>>psychological inventions we have created to >>>>deal with that which we don't know and they >>>>really don't exist except as helpful coping concepts. >>>> >>>>I won't go on, this is far to much >>>>already. But let me conclude with the >>>>following. Most physicists and >>>>mathematicians would have you believe that >>>>the Big Bang theory is the only real game in >>>>town. But if you Google "Alternatives to the >>>>Big Bang Theory" you'll see there are many >>>>other answers. I think most are still trying >>>>to play on the Objective, Explicit playing >>>>field (because that is the boundary science >>>>has put on understanding reality) but it >>>>ain't quite the consensus that you would be led to believe from most people. >>>> >>>>Peace brother, >>>> >>>>Jack >>>>On May 17, 2012, at 10:34 AM, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my wrote: >>>> >>>>>Thanks Jack. >>>>> >>>>>I don't think the book characterizes reality >>>>>as the result of mindless randomness. But >>>>>here's a question: if the universe is an >>>>>"intelligent system," how did it get >>>>>started? Was the big bang caused by >>>>>something else? This can lead to infinite regression. >>>>> >>>>>My argument with scientists is not with what >>>>>they do or how they do it. It's when they >>>>>step outside their own discipline and >>>>>attempt to argue theology which is >>>>>difference from science. Us theologians also >>>>>need to be careful in evaluating science! Galileo found that out the hard way! >>>>> >>>>>Saying "God created heaven and earth" is not >>>>>a statement about science. it's a faith >>>>>statement that accords value to all of creation, whatever it looks like. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks again for your comments. >>>>> >>>>>John >>>>> >>>>>At 08:30 PM 5/16/2012, you wrote: >>>>>>John, >>>>>> >>>>>>I appreciate your insights regarding the >>>>>>book. I have no real interest in debating >>>>>>string theory or Theory M. There are those >>>>>>whom I respect who have profound questions >>>>>>regarding them and certainly they struggle >>>>>>with any ability to confirm the theory in >>>>>>practice, instead relying on mathematics to "prove" their points. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is easy for secular scientist to pooh >>>>>>pooh the intelligent design arguments as >>>>>>they are, for the most part, presented by >>>>>>those who are more literalist in their >>>>>>theology. They tend to externalize God >>>>>>which is just another form of the two story >>>>>>universe. But for me, the intelligent >>>>>>design is really about the entire universe >>>>>>as an intelligent system. It is not a >>>>>>mindless result of random collisions. I >>>>>>won't go into the depth that is required to >>>>>>present the alternative, but it is there. >>>>>> >>>>>>The more interesting point is that mindless >>>>>>randomness means there is no basis for the >>>>>>emergence of values. In deed, there is no >>>>>>meaning nor purpose for anything. But our >>>>>>personal experience tells us something >>>>>>else. And is not simply a way for us to >>>>>>live with meaninglessness of reality. I >>>>>>won't expand on this because this is not >>>>>>the forum for a long discussion. But we >>>>>>shouldn't allow the scientist to set all >>>>>>the rules for how to debate these questions. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks for the review! >>>>>> >>>>>>Jack >>>>>>On May 16, 2012, at 5:52 PM, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Some thoughts you might enjoy: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Reflections on âThe Grand Design[1]â >>>>>>> >>>>>>>May 2012 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinov have >>>>>>>undertaken to challenge the âIntelligent >>>>>>>Designâ theory of creation with the >>>>>>>latest science from Quantum Physics and >>>>>>>the M-Theory. In my opinion, they deserve >>>>>>>each other. One says an intelligent being >>>>>>>created and runs the cosmos. The other >>>>>>>says no such being is necessary to account >>>>>>>for reality as we know it scientifically. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Neither âsideâ seems aware of the >>>>>>>distinction between faith statements as >>>>>>>expressive vs. faith statements as >>>>>>>explanatory. The former occurs in rituals, >>>>>>>creeds, worship, and hymns and is >>>>>>>primarily intended to express oneâs >>>>>>>interior posture of affirmation. They are >>>>>>>poetic and not intended to be taken as >>>>>>>literal. The latter can be found in >>>>>>>theological formulations that attempt to >>>>>>>provide a rational understanding of that >>>>>>>posture. Theological formulations are >>>>>>>intended to be taken literally and tend to >>>>>>>provide a viable model of reality >>>>>>>(âmodel-dependent realismâ is the mode >>>>>>>of Hawking and Mlodinov) which is >>>>>>>compatible with contemporary scientific understanding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The Intelligent design movement misses >>>>>>>this distinction and tends to take >>>>>>>expressive statements as literal, >>>>>>>sometimes even missing the deep truth they >>>>>>>express. The scientists also miss the >>>>>>>distinction and wind up creating a straw >>>>>>>man which they demolish with considerable relish and humor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The book, however, is a useful history of >>>>>>>scientific achievement, and filled with >>>>>>>informative and entertaining graphics. >>>>>>>When compared with the works of Brian >>>>>>>Greene[2], the book seems a bit >>>>>>>simplistic; still itâs a useful introduction to the present state of physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Particularly interesting is its >>>>>>>perspective of âmodel-dependent >>>>>>>realism.â Instead of attempting to >>>>>>>establish the external reality of anything >>>>>>>outside of the viewer, it says that what >>>>>>>we perceive is shaped by the brain which >>>>>>>uses a model to coordinate and make sense >>>>>>>of our perceptions. Whether or not the >>>>>>>model accords with some external reality >>>>>>>is beyond the possibility of establishing. >>>>>>>Instead one establishes the usefulness of >>>>>>>the model in accounting for experience. >>>>>>>There are four criteria a model must meet >>>>>>>to be regarded as accurate: 1) elegance; >>>>>>>2) contains few arbitrary or adjustable >>>>>>>elements; 3) agrees with and explains all >>>>>>>existing observations; and 4) makes >>>>>>>detailed predictions about future >>>>>>>observations that can disprove or falsify >>>>>>>the model if they are not borne out >>>>>>>(p.51). Unfortunately the book does not >>>>>>>show how intelligent design fails to meet >>>>>>>those same criteria for validity. Still, >>>>>>>the authors insist that no God hypothesis >>>>>>>is required to account for all we observe, >>>>>>>including creation ex nihilo (which, >>>>>>>though we do not observe it, seems to be the way things got started). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It may be that the book is most useful if >>>>>>>the reader dispenses with the theological >>>>>>>issues the authors purport to raise. It is >>>>>>>indeed a useful capsule of string theory >>>>>>>and M-theory along with quantum physics, >>>>>>>and provides a useful look into a model of >>>>>>>reality that may hold possibility for the >>>>>>>future. Maybe the theology was just a >>>>>>>gimmick to attract readers to a subject >>>>>>>that is covered more adequately elsewhere, >>>>>>>and is essentially uninteresting to most. >>>>>>>It seems to have succeeded as a marketing >>>>>>>effort since the book is currently on the >>>>>>>NY Times best seller list at #18 of 20. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[1] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, >>>>>>>The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2012) >>>>>>>[2] See his The Elegant Universe (New >>>>>>>York: Vintage Books, 2000), The Fabric of >>>>>>>the Cosmos (New York: Vintage Books, >>>>>>>2004), The Hidden Reality (New York: >>>>>>>Penguin, 2011). He also has fascinating >>>>>>>presentations on TV, the Discovery Channel. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Your responses are more welcome. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>John >>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>>>>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>>>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>Dialogue mailing list >>>>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Dialogue mailing list >>>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >>>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Dialogue mailing list >>Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >><http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net >> > >-----Inline Attachment Follows----- > >_______________________________________________ >Dialogue mailing list >Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net > >_______________________________________________ >Dialogue mailing list >Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0

The Grand Design
by jlepps＠pc.jaring.my 18 May '12

18 May '12

Some thoughts you might enjoy: Reflections on "The Grand Design[1]" May 2012 Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinov have undertaken to challenge the "Intelligent Design" theory of creation with the latest science from Quantum Physics and the M-Theory. In my opinion, they deserve each other. One says an intelligent being created and runs the cosmos. The other says no such being is necessary to account for reality as we know it scientifically. Neither "side" seems aware of the distinction between faith statements as expressive vs. faith statements as explanatory. The former occurs in rituals, creeds, worship, and hymns and is primarily intended to express one's interior posture of affirmation. They are poetic and not intended to be taken as literal. The latter can be found in theological formulations that attempt to provide a rational understanding of that posture. Theological formulations are intended to be taken literally and tend to provide a viable model of reality ("model-dependent realism" is the mode of Hawking and Mlodinov) which is compatible with contemporary scientific understanding. The Intelligent design movement misses this distinction and tends to take expressive statements as literal, sometimes even missing the deep truth they express. The scientists also miss the distinction and wind up creating a straw man which they demolish with considerable relish and humor. The book, however, is a useful history of scientific achievement, and filled with informative and entertaining graphics. When compared with the works of Brian Greene[2], the book seems a bit simplistic; still it's a useful introduction to the present state of physics. Particularly interesting is its perspective of "model-dependent realism." Instead of attempting to establish the external reality of anything outside of the viewer, it says that what we perceive is shaped by the brain which uses a model to coordinate and make sense of our perceptions. Whether or not the model accords with some external reality is beyond the possibility of establishing. Instead one establishes the usefulness of the model in accounting for experience. There are four criteria a model must meet to be regarded as accurate: 1) elegance; 2) contains few arbitrary or adjustable elements; 3) agrees with and explains all existing observations; and 4) makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not borne out (p.51). Unfortunately the book does not show how intelligent design fails to meet those same criteria for validity. Still, the authors insist that no God hypothesis is required to account for all we observe, including creation ex nihilo (which, though we do not observe it, seems to be the way things got started). It may be that the book is most useful if the reader dispenses with the theological issues the authors purport to raise. It is indeed a useful capsule of string theory and M-theory along with quantum physics, and provides a useful look into a model of reality that may hold possibility for the future. Maybe the theology was just a gimmick to attract readers to a subject that is covered more adequately elsewhere, and is essentially uninteresting to most. It seems to have succeeded as a marketing effort since the book is currently on the NY Times best seller list at #18 of 20. [1] Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2012) [2] See his The Elegant Universe (New York: Vintage Books, 2000), The Fabric of the Cosmos (New York: Vintage Books, 2004), The Hidden Reality (New York: Penguin, 2011). He also has fascinating presentations on TV, the Discovery Channel. Your responses are more welcome. John

6 12

The Grand Design and Revolutionary Action
by steve har 18 May '12

18 May '12

Interesting points: Epps, Williams, Wiegal et all and especially Gilles It sees to me Gilles at heart is raising the "what do I" Q re the so called "secular revolution" and a dispute between ideological extremes: Scientism & Religionism. Where does a "man" of faith stand regarding scientific claims and what can I do about it or as a "man" of science where do I stand re religion and what do I do about un provable "faith claims" If you aren't in the game [of science or religion] booing and cheering might be interesting and lively but it isn't going to have much impact on the way the game is played anymore that a guy in the stands of Wrigley Field booing and cheering with urgent passion is going to change the way Cubby players actually play the game. Been there, did that. Seems like there is a kind inauthentic awareness that creeps into things when you speak from the stands continuously and you are not engaged in the field of play. Your words - boos, cheers opinions all generate a kind of false consciousness that Kierkegaard particularly warned against that is at root nihilistic. He thought the rise of journalism and journalists -professional in-the-stands speakers were dangerous because their opinionating is a race to the bottom where people experience themselves and express themselves. To my taste Fox so-called-news people create a kind of "Limbaughism" a continuous complaint narrative that sells soap suds by convincing people they are not free but resentful victims. In the 1980s at Rick & Elizabeth Laudermilk recommended the Minneapolis house do a collegium series on the book After Virtue by Alisdar Macintyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue http://www.culturism.us/booksummaries/AfterVirtue.htm Macintyre asserted that Western Civilization's "Enlightenment Project" failed and the only refuge really was something like the monastic example of St. Benedict or maybe the protestant stance of freedom like Bonhoeffer. According to MacIntyre, to live [in the then] 20th C was to find a way experience yourself and be in the culture around you -- "After Virtue" -- So you actually had to actively construct values not in abstraction but values in action like the little guy stick figure in CS1 with dreams above his head, rocks at his feet and on the road ahead with only a grid -a stick chart with which to navigate. I found this little stick figure character in Kaye Hayes CS1 Sartre paper notes in the new Archives index and found the file 10 feet away. I'd carried the image of that little guy with the "Revolutionary Stance" around for years wondering where it came from. [see some screen shots I took of the files here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_-KsRBxPBrgtNlu5rKEG4vwFb8fF647aPDn…] The Minneapolis House collegium was a lively and provocative discourse on who leads, who follows where do you stand in a community, what do you practice when you practice leadership as, in the example of the times leading a LENS seminar at Honeywell corporation or at a State of Minnesota government agency like Jack Gilles did long ago and far away. If I had a chance to participate in a new collegium besides After Virtue and the CS1 Sartre paper I'd add these: -a new book onMacIntyre's themes for revolutionary action - being a revolutionary not a spectator-journalist vs being fully engaged and is either ToPs facilitation or ML King-OWS siti-ins as revolutionary action. -Maliwada Integrity - having integrity so words live in action and real actions live in words like words and actions are connected. Joe Mathews's Maliwada Integrity paper and it's 21 C version being taught at Harvard B school and elsewhere by Werner Erhardt [who got integrity from Matthews in Maliwada and still talks about it according to Gordon Harper] -Other World-This World Engagement -what happens when you go on a trek, when you engage that no longer-not yet space - and enter the creative zone between this world of ordinary and the other world of extraordinary -Jenkins 9 Disciplines Chapter 12 on prayer, aka being at cause in the matter at hand]. In the Jenkins reformulation: having intention, entering a field of engagement, acting to cause a positive outcome [from JWM's Prayer, Obedience Action states of being in the new religious mode] -giving tools to new leaders not old farts - ask Terry Bergdall and Jim Addington to articulate a a new vision of revolutionary action aimed at 20 year-olds starting with the ICA-USA Service Learning program like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is_Ld7ll9FY and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ1K1rt7opQ Seems timely to weave some threads together in a new cloth - as Wiegel says when he talks about that mysterious loom of his that weaves archive threads together for the future... I don't think going to the balpark of spectator-opinion is the same thing as playing ball and making your self available new ball players how to be in the real game. It is interesting to me that as I read what Kaye Hayes/Kaze Gadway is up to on her blog; mostly she spends time mentoring kids, fitting them to a new future is the way the General used to say it. Sure beats the heck out of practicing being a spectator with an opinion on everything and everybody, watching Fox cable "news" and being a spear carrier in Rupert Murdocks "revolutionary soap suds sales programs" -- Steve Harrington

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design
by David Walters 18 May '12

18 May '12

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] The Grand Design
by LAURELCG＠aol.com 18 May '12

18 May '12

I've assumed that the great creation stories of the world WERE the scientific world view at the time they were formulated and that science and religion only split around the time of Galileo. Jann McGuire In a message dated 5/17/2012 7:53:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my writes: Your desire to create a grand union of science and religion leaves me a little uneasy. Clearly it does not now exist. But there have been times when it did -- the Middle Ages, for example. The science was a two-story universe bridged by the hierarchy, both religious and feudal. People were able communicate the goodness of reality in that universe of discourse.

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] The Occupy Crowd Meets the ToP Crowd: a Short Video
by David Walters 17 May '12

17 May '12

1 0

Re: [Dialogue] 5/17/12, Spong: Conflicting Emotion: Pride in the President, Shame at the Response of Many Church Leaders
by David Walters 17 May '12

17 May '12

This the second post today from lhpiercedds(a)gmail.com with no message. W@hat going on here? -David Walters --- lhpiercedds(a)gmail.com wrote: From: lhpiercedds(a)gmail.com To: "Colleague Dialogue" <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] 5/17/12, Spong: Conflicting Emotion: Pride in the President, Shame at the Response of Many Church Leaders Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 18:29:19 +0000 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Ellie Stock <elliestock(a)aol.com> Sender: dialogue-bounces(a)lists.wedgeblade.netDate: Thu, 17 May 2012 11:17:19 To: <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net>; <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Reply-To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Subject: [Dialogue] 5/17/12, Spong: Conflicting Emotion: Pride in the President, Shame at the Response of Many Church Leaders _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

1 0