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