Subject: On Creativity ... etc
From: Kevin Austin (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Aug 03 2005 - 00:02:14 EDT
I take this to be based upon 19th century european models of
'sociologist' and 'historian'. The application of 19th C european
thought as the 'prefered model' includes the non-reversability of
time (the forward timeline leading to the return of the messiah), and
the model expounded is internally coherent, which is one of the
reasons why the position will not (cannot?) change.
Was it J-P II who said that heaven is not a place (object), but a
condition of the mind (or something similar).
≥Heaven is not a place but an inward state of consciousness... The
Kingdom is not external but within... within the mind.≤ (92) It
follows that ≥there is a great difference in believing God to be
within you or outside you.≤ (117)
from the Preface from "Creativity: Where the Divine and the Human
Meet" by Matthew Fox
I do not know any area of human potential more important if we are to
be a sustainable species again. Creativity, when all is said and
done, may be the best thing our species has going for it. It is also
the most dangerous. I explore creativity here in the following
manner: First I ask, how essential is creativity to our human nature?
Chapters one and two undertake this question, ... chapter two by
proposing that creativity is our real nature. Creativity constitutes
the very meaning of being human and our powers of creativity
distinguish us from other species. Evil as well as profound goodness
transpires through our creativity
At 14:46 -0400 2005/08/02, Michael Gogins wrote:
>I doubt a sociologist or a historian would have as much trouble with
>this word 'art', actually.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:09 EST