Awomen David Ilvedson, RPT Pacifica, CA 94044 ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "Chris Solliday" <csolliday at rcn.com> To: caut at ptg.org Received: 6/22/2009 5:53:01 AM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Morality and Piano Technology; was RE: Tuning--again >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 >> >>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC