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

[Chris Solliday]

Amen,
Chris Solliday, RPT
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeannie Grassi" <jcgrassi at earthlink.net>
To: "'Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba)'" <sloaneba at ucmail.uc.edu>; <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Morality and Piano Technology; was RE: Tuning--again


> 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
>
>