Hello Richard,
I suppose I would stand a greater chance of being heard by the people who reacted as if outraged to Christian symbols, if I kowtowed to the pluralistic interpretation of Jeffersonianism that it demonstrates, and would initially have proceeded with a purusartha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusharthas
In other words, I could have spoken of dharma opposed to artha, and observed that we need to pursue most of all dharma in what we do, not artha. Is there only artha in piano technology? If I am pursuing artha, why enter a profession where artha is not likely? We, as piano technicians, in a profession that typically does not pay well these days, must have some appreciation for the pursuit of dharma, as that we do not stand much chance of obtaining a great deal of artha in the process. Or we are fools for choosing this profession. And you are fine with that, because we did not employ Christian symbols. Somehow, we conclude this to be a morality free from partiality in the enlightened West, because it does not employ Christian symbols. Throw in some yoga, and you are open-minded kind of idea.
In Greek etymology we also can make this bifurcation, for eros really is not what the flesh is. But the minute I make reference to Christian symbols, and start talking about the spirit opposed to the flesh instead, I write blasphemy.
Ecumenicism and neutrality in religion, or going further, Comte's positivism, on the surface, is the answer to all the worlds problems. "Why can't we all just get along? But in reality, it just can't work.
What is the science of morality, Richard? Why not objectively tell me what is wrong about what I quoted in the bible if it is just another ancient religious text? Why is it wrong to play pianos skillfully? This isn't about stuffing anything in your e-mail box. It is just an idea that can be evaluated objectively, and that you can respond to objectively. Tell me, what is wrong with this idea?
We can objectively evaluate different religious texts, and determine it is impossible to be neutral. For instance, perusing the Vedas, we find that Indra, a supreme Hindu deity, himself is prayed to, and sought for the intoxicating drink, Soma:
9:113:1 "Let Indra the killer of Vrtra drink Soma in Saryanavat, gathering his strength within himself, to do a great heroic deed. O drop of Soma, flow from Indra."
The Rig Veda; and anthology. tr. O'flaherty, W. D. New York: Penguin Books 1981 p. 133
Do you agree with that? Do you agree that drugs come from a, if not the, supreme God? How do you respond neutrally, and not affirmatively, or negatively? Yet in the Qur'an, we find
2:219 "They ask you [Prophet] about intoxicants and gambling: say, 'There is great sin in both, and some benefit for people: the sin is greater than the benefit.'"
The Qur'an tr. Haleem, M. A. S. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005 p. 24
And so, we respond with an ecumenical attitude to Hinduism and Islam? How is that possible? These say entirely different things.
I agree we need to be open on all sides, but it is impossible to be on all sides of the issue.
Respectfully,
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Richard Brekne
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:21 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Tuning--again
Yes... well Ben... not meaning to be intolerant or anything... it is
basically just plain good form to find appropriate places to share ones
beliefs one way or the other about things like God, Nirvana,
Reincarnation, Indagadadavida, the Big Bang... Evolutionary theory, or
whatever.... Not to mention that to begin with I doubt seriously J.C.
himself would smile nicely at the idea of pointing ones very human moral
finger at another over such an issue, and then insisting on stuffing it
down everyone else mailbox whether they want it or not.
I dont hear any Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shinto's, Bai Hai's etc etc
etc ad absurdum.... let alone agnostics or atheists insisting on pushing
their trips on folks here. You want to do the Christian thing... fine..
go for it. There is a time and a place for the preaching bit.... and
it aint here. Here... its plenty suffice to hold oneself to the "do
unto others" bit... or whatever corresponds to your particular belief set.
Cheers
"We"
"Grin... boy do we ever agree on this point there David !"
Dear "We,"
I believe some of the criticism of him is a result of the openness
with which he approached his faith in God, and has nothing to do
with how good a technician he is. That is part of what I was getting at.
As for the suggestion that observations about the relationship
between morality, piano technology, and religious texts are not
necessarily appropriate and whether or not these have a place on the
CAUT list, I can only remind you that there are many Evangelical
Colleges and Universities that employ piano technicians in this
country that teach the bible is in fact a directive source for
conducting a moral life. As piano technicians working at accredited
schools, do they also not belong on the CAUT list along with my last
post?
Who is being intolerant, the Evangelical piano technicians working
at bible colleges who rarely mention God on the CAUT list, or the
people forbidding so much as any mention of the slightest thing
approaching God on the CAUT list?
- Ben
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC