> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment It is a silly argument after all. I think anyone with both a scientific mind and an emotional center or feeling soul, which includes all present company, ought to be able to recognize at least the possibility of science and spirit to coexist and even inform each other with new insight. It is certainly possible to explore spiritual experience with a degree of scientific rigor. This requires the same objectivity as physical science. It is also possible to explore scientific research with a high degree of spiritual wonder, awe, and religious feeling. This requires an openness to revelation from the physical world. I state these things not as dogma, but as possibilities. Those who operate in one of these realms and argue the validity of the other are limiting their human toolkit unnecessarily. From: Don <pianotuna@accesscomm.ca> Reply-To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org> Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 16:33:51 To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org> Subject: Re: Non-ETs; more organic than ET? Hi Ed, Well then since Art is not enough for you try this on for size: Albert Einstein "I maintain that cosmic religiousness is the strongest and most noble driving force of scientific research." Hogwash to your orignal statement I think? Game set and match too! At 01:51 PM 4/4/2004 EDT, you wrote: >Greetings, >I wrote: >> For some, (myself included), music is a spiritual activity and we pursue >>ways of making it more so. It is a small step from the emotional to the >>spiritual world, and the spiritual world is a world which, by definition, >the >>scientist is barred from entering. >> > >Don replies: > ><< Please repeat that to Einstein? Hogwash Ed. > >"After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art >tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest >scientists are always artists as well." >Albert Einstein > > Well, exactly what is the point here?? I don't see Einstein even >addressing spirituality in this quote! It seems that Don is regarding spirituality >and art as interchangable terms. I don't. While I firmly believe that >craftsmanship can be taken to the level of art,(though some of my Fine Art >instructors vehemently disagreed with this in college) I do not automatically consider >an artist as a spiritual being. > Even when Einstein states, > "I assert that the cosmic religious experience is the strongest and the >noblest driving force behind scientific research." we don't know what he means >by "cosmic religious experience". However, if this is his take on >spirituality, he is still not saying that science is able to enter the spiritual world. > (and for the record, I don't think being religious automatically confers >spirituality...) > >Since we have been treated to Einstein's words as a source, let us consider >these gems: > >"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. >" >(In cruder terms, it has been asked "why do the heathen rage"?) > >and in regard to science vs. spirituality: > >"It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our >humanity." > >Further quotes from Einstein: > > "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which >differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even >incapable of forming such opinions." > > Any of us that have trumpeted the value of using a wide range of >temperaments have become accustomed to the "prejudices of our social environment". >However, my opinion is that it is valuable to become familiar with the >developement of temperament and the music that was composed with the various >permutations along the way. Slings and arrows? sure, but I expected that. > > Albert again: > "All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for >development accorded the individual." > How much "opportuninty for development" is being encouraged by limiting >temperment use to one single form? Does the young, growing musician get the >greatest opportunity for growth from a single tonal perspective? I don't think >so. > >I suppose my favorite on the list that Don posted links to is this one; > >"It gives me great pleasure indeed to see the stubbornness of an incorrigible >nonconformist warmly acclaimed. " > > I don't mind being a nonconformist. I can tune ET anytime I need to and >the whenever the $ituation calls for it. I can also offer new perspectives to >musicians with the alternatives, and my experience has, so far, been a >rewarding one. There is a tremendous sense of accomplishment when a piano owner >looks up from their newly well-tempered instrument and says "I have never heard >this piano sound so good!". I no longer keep track of these epiphanies, but >they are a continuing source of joy in my work, and I am not alone in this. >Regards, > >Ed Foote RPT >http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html >www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html > >_______________________________________________ >pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > > Regards, Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.P.T. mailto:pianotuna@accesscomm.ca http://us.geocities.com/drpt1948/ 3004 Grant Rd. REGINA, SK S4S 5G7 306-352-3620 or 1-888-29t-uner _______________________________________________ pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/0b/50/0c/b2/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC