[CAUT] Morality and Piano Technology; was RE: Tuning--again

[Jeannie Grassi]

Hello Ben,
While I admit I find some of your posts interesting, I must share with you
that I am getting tired of weeding out and deleting such emails as the ones
below.  This List has usually been very good at limiting discussions to
technical and university-specific information I would appreciate it if you
could direct your comments to those areas.  I can see that the discussions
in which you quite frequently find yourself appear to stimulate your
intellect, however they are cluttering up the List and I, for one, would
appreciate if you would continue such discourse in private and not in this
venue. 

Thanks,
Jeannie Grassi, RPT
Bainbridge Island, WA


-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba)
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:31 AM
To: 'caut at ptg.org'
Subject: [CAUT] Morality and Piano Technology; was RE: Tuning--again

     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