Thursday 31 January 2013

Post- Formal thought and Social reasoning (psychology notes)

Post- Formal thought and Social reasoning:  Social problems arise out of necessary subjectivity in which there are different views of a situation and “reality” is in part created by the knower (Sinnott, 1984, p 250).  Immature thinkers are more egocentric and less able to detach emotionally from a problem.  Older, more mature thinkers are aware of the subjectivity involved in problem issues and recommend solutions based on understanding and mutual respect for the parties involved.  Sometimes crises situations prompts a shift to more advanced post-formal thought patterns when the world no longer makes “sense” as it has previously.
Sinnot’s (1984) criteria for post-formal thought:
1.  Shifting gears - seeing from another point of view.
2.  Multiple causality, multiple solutions.
3.  Pragmatism - how practical is this? Can we do it? And
4.  Awareness of Paradox – ironies.   

Wednesday 30 January 2013

From a Creative writing course expedition

My last Expedition

Well, my final expedition.   I am down at the Harbor Front.  I was supposed to meet with friends and skate.
However, I am typing away and am not paying much attention to my friends as much as I should.  Oh, well. I am outside the cafeteria facing the lakeshore.  I am wearing a heavy white wool pullover, one of many that my mom made for me years ago.  My coat is resting beside me on this picnic table that has seen too many seasons.  I sun feels warn against the cool breeze which stings my whole being.  The sky is bright and light with various shades of white and light blue.  I can see Toronto Island across from me, defined by bare trees surrounding the South side of Lake Ontario.  Tiny dark blue and white waves move quickly in an easterly direction, anxiously demanding spring.  A helicopter flies over me, but I cannot see what type it is because of the blinding sun.  People keep talking to me, some are my friends encouraging me to forget work (they call this work) and skate.  Now a man demands my attention, "Are you going to skate?" he asks smiling.  "No." I reply realizing that I do not know him.  "Hard to skate with a lap top." he continues with a bright smile".  "Especially the way I skate." I reply.  He is not my type I realize as I quickly and habitually give him a quick look over.   I notice a red cap over a shaven head.  He is wearing a beige jacket and blue jeans and I realize that other people I know are now talking to him.  Perhaps they know him, perhaps not.  I look over at his left side and see another man more my type seated on a bench.  He has hair and carries himself well.  Dressed in blue from his baseball cap to his jeans.  He has seriousness about him.  He opens a copy of The Toronto Sun and I realize that I am not the only one here not skating.
                The skating rink looks smooth, though some parts are flooded.  People of all ages glide naturally on the ice.  One of my friends, Bruno is complaining that the ice is rough and full of slush.  It makes me feel that I am lucky to be typing.  Bruno suggests I give up the laptop and go skating.  He threatens to throw the laptop onto the rink if I do not skate.  I let him know how much it would cost him.  Errol, another dear guy informs me not to write badly about people.  I tell him I do not do that and then remember what I said about the guy who is not my type.  I focus on the people skating.  Some people are wrapped warmly in lively colors;  others dressed in layers have very little on.  The sun has returned to Toronto.  I do not normally skate here preferring City Hall.  But, perhaps I have judged too hastily.  I listen to the rocking beat of Macraema in the background of a nearby shelter.  I am truly an observer and not a participant.  My eyes wander to a male seated at a picnic table to my right.  He is watching me from behind yellow and black sunglasses.  My eyes move toward the blond woman seated beside him and I immediately lose interest.  One of the women screams out.  She has spotted a hockey player.

       "Who is he?" I ask.
       "Doug Gilmour."
       "Leave the poor guy alone."  I plead.
       "Why?"  she asks.
       "Because it must be difficult to be a celebrity."
  She mingles with the group for a bit and then runs off to find the hockey player.  Simone is a vibrant soul, full of laughter.  I hope she does not find the poor man. 
               
I marvel at the oversized quart of milk by the side of the rink.  Skimmed milk it boasts with a lovely picture of a man and boy casually spending time on a deck.  Their short sleeves suggests a warm day full of pomise ….drink milk and you will feel this nice summer day in the woods, surrounded by nature…..milk…..mmmmm……Actually, I mever liked milk since I discovered it came from a cow.  In my small mind everything came from a factory…..coke, milk, meat…….
                Another man has come to our vicinity.  He is wearing a hockey outfit and is introduced to me.  I do not thinik it is Doug Gilmour and I look out at the rink.  Sea gulls are souring above us in search of food.  I am feeling cooler and decide to put my coat on.
                There is an announcement "Attention all skaters"  the rest is incoherent but people leave the rink.  I smell something nice but I cannot quite identify it.  Is it a pipe or cigar?  It smells nice.  "What is that smell?" I ask.  "Food." is the reply.  I look around and only see people eating ice cream in prepackaged cones. 
Simone has returned without the hockey player.  I point out the man in the hockey suit and suggest he might do just as well just focus on the uniform, I suggest.  " S I l v a"  they pronounce as if scolding a child. 
Another pal complains that it is getting cooler, while Simone repeats several times that it is a lovely day.  A lovely day it is.  It is interesting trying to type and socialize at the same time.  People from adjoining tables stare at us.  How would I describe us?  We are presently a group of about.  15 and we are a mix of different backgournds.  I think we are interesting.  Of course, I am biased.  People are staring at us because we are happy and perhaps a bit loud.  I am quiet because I am typing.
 "Are you a sportscaster?" someone asks me.  It is amazing what comes to the minds of people when they see a person typing away.

"Have you got your skates on yet?  I look up and see Bruno.  Bruno is a real nice guy.  He is big and bold and kind.  I would love to have a brother like him.  "Will you get me a coffee?" I ask.  He gets me one.  Another guy I know comes along and puts his face in my lap screen.  His name is Tony.  "What are you doing? " he asks casually.  " My creative writing course."  I respond.  "Stick around and I will write about you."  He disappears.  Tony lives computers.  He freelances lately after giving up a hectic job with a bank.  Overall, a generally nice guy.  His hair is peppered and he is medium shaped and sized.  Errol is now sitting beside me.  He places his french fries on the table and leaves.  I steal a fry.  He returns and offers me a fry.   Another member of our group begins to discuss…







  

Saturday 26 January 2013

Culture Night at my old school

     When I began my Masters Program at UofT in January rather than September, I didn’t know anyone.  I found myself leaning against a wall at my first function.  It was Culture night.  People would approach me and introduce themselves and everyone made me feel quite at home.  I had brought Apple Pie, as part of my culture contribution.  Is it really part of my culture?  It is if I love it so.   I think that later years I brought Panetone, an Italian delight, normally sold at Christmas. 
     After graduating, I was still invited and so last night I returned after picking up my favourite Professor and taking him to the function.  This 80 year old man has a quick spirit and mind.  His body however is a walking miracle.  At least that is how he refers to his still being alive.  With all the ailments this man has, it must be his amazing brain that keeps him going.  And so he should, because he has so much to offer students.  This man worked me to death and life was never my own when I took one of his courses.  He is a legend.  I then took another course with him and wondered if I was a masochist.  I learned so much from this man.  And so I do not mind hanging out with him on culture night and I even find it an honour to be in his company.  His wit never fails and I appreciate that keen sense of humour which can be quite restricted in my line of work.  My peers can be so serious, that my jokes are often misunderstood.  I believe in balance and humour is part of that balance.  Actually, I am coming to believe that humour is a gift and I saw an abundance of it last night.  Though I was in three programs at the same time, I found my life at the college the most accepting and rewarding.  It was also the place where I was expected to work hard and I did.   My life outside my studies and work was minimal for five years.  Now, I can return to school and see those weary, but happy faces from the students and relate.  I can also be very happy that the majority of my studies are over.   Professional Development is a piece of cake.  I have had a good life and am in a good place doing exactly what I want.  I want to help people and I want to write for fun.
    One of the Profs asked me what I was writing and how much I had written.  I told her and said
200 pages.  She suggested that I eliminate the first part.  I was writing too much and people don’t
want to read more than 200 pages.   I didn’t know that.  I must be one of the few who read fat books.  Last year when I was selling my, “Hey Guy Buy Me” at Queens Park, one man began to tell me off, saying that I was charging too much for my little skinny book.  What do I know about the cost of selling books?  I left that up to the publisher.  I think the cartoons in it are worth it and my wit and comedy as well.  But not that guy.  He looked at the cover and began giving me the lecture of a life time regarding the cost.  I did not tell him what my publisher told me about the quality of the paper.  I thought if I had, he might yell out louder while walking away. 
    “How are your books selling and what is the title?”  The Prof who has written scholarly books asked.  How embarrassing among intellectuals to be discussing my comical guide for men.  One person said she had read it and found it funny.  She smiled.  I replied that my book was not selling very much but I have heard that from other writers.  I said I have learned from this experience and will hunt for a publisher who takes care of all that selling part in future.  In other words self publishing may not be my answer, though I really liked dealing with the publisher of my book.  However, one needs help and by the way the Publishers I saw at events give away books they are trying to promote,  I want one of them.  I hear writers tell me that it is not like the old days when lots was done for an author.     
     I learned at the party from one man that he was told to eliminate everything white in his diet.  I thought of everything that I eat, white buns, white butter, white mayonnaise etc…..I learned that too much potassium has the same symptoms on the body as too little potassium.  I think I will start eliminating or decreasing the white in my fridge and buy little bananas.  How much potassium is ok?  What foods have potassium  anyhow besides my favourite bananas?
   The highlight of the night was watching the entertainment.  I am always at awe at how much the students and Profs have to offer.  My academic advisor (past) sang in Latin and played the guitar with a guest.  He has an amazing voice and used to begin some classes singing in Latin.
     What I enjoyed most was a traditional Mexican Native dance and all that was needed was a burning fire to dance around to.  The male actually dented a part of the floor and broke off another, with the force of his dance.  I guess the floor was laminate.  I would try to lean back further not to have him topple over me.  The space was so confined and the dance so beautiful, powerful and traditional.  The costume of feathers and beads and leather was breathtaking.  I yelled out to a Native friend of mine who had been in several classes of mine, asking if she could beat that dance.  I know her well enough to be able to say that.  She chuckled, across from me.
    It was a wonderful evening.  When I drove my favourite Prof back to his residence, I thought about how much I had written and how I had eleven more years story to condense. 
     “I think I will write it all and then keep a copy of that for my records.”  He agreed and suggested that I edit it afterwards. 
     As I sit here thinking of last night and about to begin writing again, I wonder if I should condense everything to 200 pages or to write about the different stages such as Basic Training, Police Training, Ottawa etc…For the meantime, I will continue to write and focus less on details.  Then I will read it all over again correcting what needs to be corrected and then think a bit more about it while I look for a publisher. 
     I know my neighbour had to condense his book, at the request of his publisher.  Ummmmm. In the mean time, I will take a day at a time and savor each moment of this phase of my life and the writing of this book.  This will probably be my only serious book.  I am already thinking of the next one.  Now that I know readers don’t like reading more than 200 pages, I can write so many more books…..YES!!   Will I sell them?  What do you think?  

Wednesday 23 January 2013

Evolution



    All too often there is a select group, a privileged group, who learn, explore, and debate in a university cluster.  Knowledge can never be understated, neither can the opportunity for growth.   Humans evolve.  The universe evolves.  Catholicism evolves.  At times knowledge of the revolving Catholic faith becomes restricted to a select group who either fail to discuss outside the cluster of safety or the elite or choose to ignore the congregation because it is easier than to explain.  This paper is a reflection of growth and knowledge that needs to be understood for Catholics to defend and to debate their religion.  It is a minute detail, but important none the less. 
     This paper will demonstrate how Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest contributed to Catholicism in his understanding of evolution which is Catholic teaching today.  This evolution is widely known as "Darwin's Theory of Evolution".  Who Teilhard de Chardin was, what the theory of evolution is and how it is relevant to Roman Catholicism in an evolutionary world will be explained.
Static World vs Dynamic : Evolution

    If a juggler has three balls it is important that they are each of equivalent weight.  If not, the balance is affected and the balls fall.  Think of three balls as one being the world, one being God, and the other being humanity.  In theology one may understand our evolving state by utilizing this concept.  We live in a developing universe.  There was a time of nature gods, there was a mythology, but not a history and therefore a divine purpose could not be declared.
     By the time Christianity appeared, the Roman world would have been entirely familiar with the thought that the universe might have gradually come to be as it is.[1]
      In the year 1616, the Holy Office declared that the sun is the center of the universe, and consequently does not change place and that the earth is not the center of the universe and is not motionless, but is in motion as a whole and its daily rotation. [2]  We know with absolute physical certainty, that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind[3]
From Early Times
     The average Catholic has no true understanding of how their religion originated and how this has changed throughout the centuries.  By understanding this concept there is a better understanding of how humanity has evolved and thus continues to evolve. 
     The primary focus of the Old Testament is about salvation.  In Israel's faith, redemption was primary and creation secondary.  This was not only in order of theological importance, but also in order of appearance to the Israelite tradition.  The first chapter of Genesis was not composed until after the Babylonian exile in the sixth century B.C., long after the historical chronicles. The fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. and the loss of the land reflect the feeling of a collapse, a chaos all over the earth and a cry to Yahweh as the One on whom all order depends, the One who first brought order from chaos.  The opening chapter of Genesis composed around this time, expresses confidence that the same Lord who has protected Israel from its beginnings is the Creator.  It retells the story of Creation presented in the much older and more primitive account of the origins of man and woman, as Chapter Two of Genesis.  The creation from nothing, is of later Christian tradition.[4]  In the Bible the story of creation does not stand by itself as though it were a prescientific attempt to explain the origin or evolution of nature.  Creation is the starting point of history.  It sets the stage for the unfolding of the divine purpose, a historical drama.[5]
     The history of the gospel tradition is a history of the translation of a story from Aramaic into Greek, even though the earliest stages of this history are lost to us.  The Greek language determined to a substantial degree the formulation of the message.[6]          
     The biblical writers show little if any interest in a causal explanation of natural process.  The Greeks however were fascinated by it.  They speculated of how water or fire or atoms in motion could explain the world they saw(McMullin, p21). Greek natural science attained its height with Aristotle.  He created whole fields such as physics, theoretical astronomy, logic and biology.  Aristotle foreshadowed evolution, "we should venture on the study of every kind of animal without distaste, for each and all will reveal to us something natural…Nature's works exemplify…the conduciveness of everything to an end, and the resultant end of Nature's generations is a form of the beautiful." (McMullin, p22)
     St Augustine (5th century) argued the Genesis account of creation in six days could not have been meant as literal history.  How could there be days, in the literal sense, before the sun was created?  Yet, the sun appears on what is called in the text the fourth day.  Further, the term day is a day in one part of the earth, it is night in the another.  The six days of the Genesis account involve the entire earth.  St Augustine concluded that the term must be taken metaphorically and speculated what it may have meant.  St Augustine stated that if there is a conflict between a literal reading of Scripture and a well-established truth about nature, this is sufficient reason to take the scriptural passage metaphorically.  There cannot be a contradiction between nature and Scripture since God speaks to both. St Augustine indicated that no one should worry if Christians are ignorant of those he called physicists regarding the natures of things.  It is enough for Christians to believe that the cause of all created things, whether in the heavens or on the earth, whether visible or invisible, is nothing other than the goodness of the Creator (McMullin, p 27).
     In the mid 1200s, the natural science taught in universities, including theology students, was that of Aristotle (McMullin, p 27).  Aristotelian cosmology and Christian theology were merged to form the medieval picture of the universe.  Earth was the fixed central sphere surrounded by the spheres of the heavens.  Man was unique and central in location and importance.  This view would soon be challenged by science.[7]
     Galileo (1564-1642) combined mathematical reasoning and experimental observation.  Galileo formulated a new picture of nature, that as nature in motion.  Galileo called mass and velocity, primary qualities.  What some Catholics may not know is that Galileo was a devout Catholic and found no conflict between his scientific and religious beliefs. He upheld the importance of scripture but claimed that it reveals not scientific facts but spiritual knowledge for man's salvation, truths that are above reason and could not be discovered by observation.  Galileo put nature and scripture on the same level as avenues of God (Barbour, pp 23-30).   
     Newton (1642-1727)invented calculus but he was also an ingenious experimenter in mechanics and optics.  Newton's law of motion and gravity, a novel insight, was the idea that the earth's gravitational pull might extend to the moon.  Newton believed and found time for God and the human spirit (Barbour, pp 34-37).     
     The eighteenth century saw itself as the Age of Reason (Barbour, p57)
Charles Darwin and the Church
         Darwin spent twenty-five years studying in detail the breeding of domestic animals, such as dogs where new breeds would be produced that never existed before from greyhound, to St. Bernard to Chihuahua.  Here was evolution with human choice replacing natural survival.  Darwin studied problems as diverse as hybridization of plants, comparative structure of embryos and the geographical distribution of animal and plant forms, both living and extinct.  The range and magnitude of information he brought into correlation with his theory is staggering.  After all this research, he published Origin of Species in 1859 (Barbour,p86.)
     For Roman Catholicism evolution was not in principle as disturbing as it was for Protestant conservatism.  In Catholicism, revealed truth is to be sought not in scripture alone, but in scripture and tradition as interpreted by the living church.  Moreover, the doctrine that scripture is divinely inspired has not excluded considerable flexibility and diversity in biblical interpretations (Barbour, p 100).
     By the close of the century, the fact of evolution was accepted by virtually all scientists, and by the vast majority of theologians.
    In the Middle Ages it was believed that frogs generate spontaneously from mud (Barbour, p 269).  Today we know better.    In 1950, Pope Pius X11, in Humans Generis, a "doctrine of evolution" was directly addressed.  There was no talk of the woman originating from man.[8]
    In 1951, an address of Pope Pius X11 cited with approval the views of several astronomers that the universe had a beginning in time.  In general, it is maintained that the creation of both the universe and the first man and woman were historical events, but that the biblical portrayal of these events is figurative (Barbour p 374).     
Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955)

Ursula King describes Teilhard de Chardin as a traveler, explorer, scientist, priest, and mystic.  She writes that for many he was too complex, too difficult a writer, too daring an innovator.  He was in love with the world and he was in love with God, deeply faithful to the Catholic Church.[9] Teilhard de Chardin was one of the Catholic Theologians who accepted and interpreted the faith with the understanding of evolution.  Teilhard de Chardin divides the energies that propel the world forward in time into two radically different sorts, tangential (preserves what evolution has provided) and radial (draws a given element forwards).  Chardin argued that to explain the evolutionary process, one must introduce a "radial" energy that is basically psychic in nature and whose operation can be discerned only by employing a mode of understanding, a special seeing of pattern.  Teilhard claimed that the radial energies of the universe are the manifestation of a hyperpersonal Omega point toward which the universe is both ascending and converging.  Teilhard identified this Omega Point with the Creator God of the Christian tradition (McMullin, pp36-37).  He believed that everything, in some way, has existed from the very first.  There is no sharp life unless there was already incipient life in all matter.  Similarly there is no line between life and thought.  Mind, like activity, of an elementary kind reaches all the way down the scale of life, though it becomes lost in darkness as we trace it back. Teilhard believed that evolution is incomplete. Creation is continuing and the universe is still in the process of being born (Barbour, p 399).  Teilhard was convinced that our world is a dynamic world, an embryonic cosmos still in growth.  In such a world, origins are less important than directions of development, and the past is less significant than the future.  God is involved in continuous creation (Barbour, 408).      
     Teilhard was trying to find a balance between science, religion and humanity when he said, "Our Christology is still expressed in exactly the same terms as those which, three centuries ago, could satisfy men whose outlook on the cosmos is now physically impossible for us to accept.  Unless we admit that religious life and human life are independent of one another
(which is a psychological impossibility) such a situation must a priori produce a feeling of dismay, a loss of balance…the answer must be in bringing Christology and evolution into line with one another (Chardin, p77).  What Teilhard was trying to do was bring, humanity, God and the world together again.  He was trying to balance the juggling of the balls.       
     Teilhard accepted science and believed that now was the time to look forward, "What now has to be done following the cosmic currents revealed by history, is to confront the future; and that means, now that we have recognized evolution, to drive it further ahead.  All the spirit of the earth combines to produce an increase of unitary thinking: that is the avenue opening up ahead of us. Teilhard was trying to make sense of an evolutionary world.  "Logically, we should have to admit that if the world is advancing towards the spiritual there must be a conscious peak to the universe." (Chardin, p 90) Teilhard believed it was necessary to have a faith in God ahead and a faith in God above, combining the immanent God of evolution with the idea of a transcendent God.  Teilhard was one of the early pioneers of interfaith dialogue. He supported and took part in interfaith activities from 1946 onward. "Faith in Man" was read at the Union des Croyants formed in 1947. Today we know it as inter religious dialogue.  Teilhard's address was based on the idea that people of different faiths and world views can, in spite of their differences, come together through their shared faith in the value of the human being.  Believers of different faiths can cooperate in building together a common future.[10]
     Teilhard was mocked as great men and women before him have been.  His views were described in Canadian and American newspapers as the "Jesuit who believes man descended from apes."  But he was recognized among his intellectual peers.  He was awarded the prestigious Mendel Medal in recognition of his work by the Catholic University of Villanova (King, Ursula, p 164).
Our Present Knowledge
     There is no doubt that we are living in an amazing time with endless opportunities.  Of course we are also living in a dangerous time.  Regardless of our scientific discoveries that continue to expand along with our technical and medical knowledge, we are still allowing people to starve in major portions of the world while we exploit our world in others.  Hopefully we can continue to evolve intellectually as well as spiritually without destroying each other or our planet with our tampering.  There is an end for all of us including our universe as most of us know.  As Catholics we should take our faith seriously, try to do something good for others and our world, even if it is in a small way.  We need to understand the changes we are introduced to in science because we need to understand our faith in the context of a changing world.  We need to maintain the balance of the three balls, of humanity, God and the world.  We depend on our Catholic leaders to educate us, to enlighten us and to help us with our faith. We depend on our leaders to help us to help others.  We depend on our leaders to guide us, nurture us and to help us understand God in our changing world.  It is the responsibility of every priest to enlighten his congregation.  It is every theologian's responsibility to do the same.  But the onus is also on the congregation to explore and to understand our world in relation to our faith.  Creation is not only about us as humans, it is about all the animals we share life with, it is about our planet that we should nurture and respect and take care of as we should with everything that is within our control.  We will continue to grow, and we will continue to spiral. Teilhard tried to make sense in juggling the balls to reconnect our present selves to God.  We will continue to do the same as we move forward and closer to God.       
     Vatican Council II admitted that the evolutionary ideas of Teilhard de Chardin had "a certain influence, at least indirect and diffuse on some orientations of the council". In the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes) it states, "And so mankind substitutes a dynamic and more evolutionary concept of nature for a static one." (GS 5)This is followed in the same document by, "historical studies tend to make us view things under the aspects of changeability and evolution" (GS 54)(Korsmeyer,p 18)
     In June 1988, in a message to a group of scientists and theologians, Pope John Paul 11 urged scientists and theologians to come to understand each other for their mutual benefit.  Pope John Paul said, "Science can purify religion from error and superstition.  Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.  In October 1996, Pope John Paul 11, in a formal address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, declared that "fresh knowledge" produced by scientific research now leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis."  Still he said Roman Catholics must believe that "the spiritual soul is immediately created by God."(Korsmeyer, p20)
     Studies have confirmed that over 99.5% of our DNA is the same as a chimpanzee(Korsmeyer, p 81). What does this tell us?  It tells us that we are arrogant to think that we are so much more important in this world than anything else in it. 
     This paper is about theology and theology is about faith seeking understanding.  Teilhard was a Jesuit priest.  Jesuit spirituality is helping people in finding God in all things. This is not a paper about science. This is a paper about theology.  But we can not talk about theology without talking about science.  We cannot ignore scientific findings.  We cannot continue to insist that a frog is generated spontaneously from mud.  If we do, then the balance of the balls is not possible and will collapse.  The concepts of the Middle ages cannot continue.  Our society and our intelligence are evolving.  Not all have the opportunity for an education.  Not all have the possibilities to learn.  Therefore, it is imperative that our priests educate accordingly.  For they have the opportunity to learn and the obligation to teach the congregation.  Theologians too are obligated to teach.  But one can refuse to learn or laugh at what one doesn't understand or want to understand.  As Catholics we believe in God.  As Catholics we need to understand the balance of the three balls, our world, God and humanity.
     It is fitting that we conclude with our understanding of the world as it was and as it is.
     The entire course of 15 billion years of cosmic evolution can be calculated backwards from the present state of the universe until a point of 1 divided by 10 followed by 42 zeros.  Quantum theory does not allow us to get any closer to time zero.[11]
 15 billion years ago the universe began as a stupendous energy.   14.5 billion years ago the sun was born.  4.45 billion years ago planets were formed.  Earth brings forth an atmosphere, oceans and continents.  395 million years ago we have insects.  245 million years ago 75%to 95% of all species of that time were eliminated. 235 million years ago, dinosaurs appeared; flowers spread. 15 million years ago there is a cosmic impact – a catastrophe. 8 million years ago we have our modern cats (early cats and dogs were 35 million years ago).  6 million years ago there were modern dogs.  3.3 million years ago, current ice ages begin.  2.6 million years ago - first humans.  3,500 years ago the world population has 5 – 10 million.  3,500 B.C – chronic warfare.  3,000 B.C. there is the civilization of the Nile in Egypt and there are advances in technology.  4 B.C.E. Jesus.[12]  
    The Genesis 1 story is primarily meant as a reflection about the relationship between God, the world and humankind.  It gives meaning and purpose to the process of cosmic and biological evolution (Bonting, p28).  As Teilhard realized we will continue to evolve towards God.  Times have changed since St Augustine reported that one should not worry if Christians are ignorant of the nature of things.  If ignorance continues, then we will no longer be able to maintain a balance in the juggling of the balls.     




Bibliography

     Anderson, B.W. Creation, in G.A. Buttrick et al, eds. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible.  Vol.1. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1962.
     Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
     Bonting, Sjoerd. Chaos Theology: Revised Creation Theology. Ottawa: Novalis, 2002.
     King, Ursula. Christ In All Things: Exploring Spirituality with Teilhard de Chardin New York: Orbis Books, 1997.
     King, Ursula. Spirit of Fire: The Life and Vision of Teilhard de Chardin.  New York: Orbis Books, 1996.
     Korsmeyer, Jerry. Evolution and Eden. New York: Paulist, 1998.
     Ladd, G.E. The Patterns of the New Testament Truth. Grand Rapids: Everdmans,1968.
     McMullin, Ernan. Ed. Evolution and Creation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985, pp. 1-27.
    McMullin, Ernan.  Natural Science and Belief in a Creator, in David Byers, ed, Religion,Science and the Search for Wisdom.  Washington, DC: National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1977.
     Swimme, Brian and Thomas Berry. The Universe Story. New York: Harper Collins, 1992.
     Teilhard de Chardin. Christianity and Evolution. New York: Harcourt Brace Jamanovich, Inc. 1971.
     Wildiers, N.M. The Theologian And His Universe.  New York: Seabury, 1982.

    


[1] McMullin Ernan. Ed. Evolution and Creation.  Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985, pp 7.
[2] Wildiers, N.M. The Theologian And His Universe. New York: Seabury, 1982.  Pg 97. All further reference to the text will be indicated by the Author's name followed by page numbers.
[3] Teilhard de Chardin. Christianity and Evolution. New York: Harcourt race Javanovich, Inc. 1971.  P.38. Further reference to the text will be indicated by the author's name followed by page numbers.
[4] McMullin, Ernan, Natural Science and Belief in a Creator, in David Byers, ed., Religion, Science and the Search for Wisdom.  Washington, DC: National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1977, pp 17, 19, & 20.  Further reference to the text will be indicated by the Authors name followed by page numbers.
[5] Anderson , B.W. Creation, in G.A. Buttrick et al, eds.  The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Volume 1. New York: The Abingdon Press, 1962 p 727.
[6] Ladd, G.E. The Patterns of New Testament Truth.  Grand Rapids: Everdmans, 1968.  P 11.
[7] Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966. P 18.  Further reference to the text will be indicated by the author's surname and page numbers.
[8] Korsmeyer, Jerry.  Evolution and Eden. New York: Paulist, l998. Pg 18.  Further reference to the text will be indicated by the author's name followed by the page numbers.
[9] King, Ursula.  Spirit of Fire: The Life and Vision of Teilhard de Chardin. New York: Orbis Books, 1996.  P vii.  Further reference to the text will be indicated by the author's full name, followed by the page numbers.

[10] King, Ursula. Christ in all Things; Exploring Spirituality with Teilhard de Chardin New York: Orbis Books, 1997. Pp 109-111.
[11] Bonting, Sjoerd. Chaos Theology: Revised Creation Theology.  Ottawa: Novalis, 2002. P 26. Further reference to the text will be indicated by author's name followed by page number.
[12] Swimme, Brian and Thomas Berry.  The Universe Story.  New York: Harper Collins, 1992.  (Time Line for the universe pp 269-278)

Saturday 19 January 2013

Creativity - psych notes

Creativity has five levels:
1.  Spontaneous expressions (eg.  child’s scribbling).
2.  producing artistic and scientific works.
3.  inventing a new and useful object method and technique.
4.  modifying a concept.
5.  originating a revolutionary new principle or movement.

Optimal IQ for creative development is only about 19 points above average for a particular field.
Intelligence tests -  convergent thinking – seeks a single right answer (usually the conventional one)   
Creative tests -        divergent thinking comes up with a wide array of fresh possibilities.  Divergent thinking is not the only factor in creativity.   Also important are sensitivity to problems and the ability to redefine or re-interpret them so as to obtain unique solutions.
Freud maintained that creativity is a result of sublimated sexual tension.
 Creative people tend to be courageous,  independent, honest, tenacious, curious and willing to take risks and above all they have a passion for what they do.
Affect tolerance -  ability to tolerate negative feelings is required for creative work.  Also intrinsic motivation, anger, fear, sadness, shame, depression, anxiety, self depreciation and sensitivity to rejection are a necessary part of the process. 

Thursday 17 January 2013

Allow people to grieve

              Whenever there is a loss of life, there is enormous suffering for those who remain behind.  I have had quite a few sessions, seminars and practicum with those dying and those grieving.  I have heard the voices of those dying and suffering that will remain with me and not for print.  What I have learned is that people need to grieve.  Allow that please.  
     Many people project their own feelings on others.   I feel this way, therefore, you should feel this as well.  I emptied my mother’s closet a month after her death and therefore you should have emptied your daughter’s closet after one year.  There is so much judgment, which should be replaced with love and support.    
     People need to be allowed to grieve in their own way.  No demands should be placed on their shoulders than they already have.  People grieve differently and need not to be judged.
    Grief may also open doors to re-examine friendships regarding the support or lack of it from family and friends. 
     If you are grieving, allow yourself the time to do so, if it is what you need.  If you want to return to work and be busy sooner than others think you should, go by what you feel.  Being busy can help.  If you are feeling any type of guilt, remember that it is common.  If I did this, than maybe……….
     If you are supporting someone who is grieving do so by listening.  This is not the time to talk about your own aches and pains.   This is a time when it is not about you, but how you can support someone you care for.  Sometimes grief can tear people apart, but it can also be a time when people become closer and united in sorrow.