<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>now OT: Non-ETs; more organic than ET?</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> It is a silly argument after all. I think anyone with both a scientific min= d and an emotional center or feeling soul, which includes all present compan= y, ought to be able to recognize at least the possibility of science and spi= rit 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 phys= ical 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 othe= r are limiting their human toolkit unnecessarily. <BLOCKQUOTE> 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? </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE><TT>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<= BR> 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 acti= vity and we pursue >>ways of making it more so.  It is a small step from the emotio= nal 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, scienc= e 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 be= lieve 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 h= is take on >spirituality,  he is still not saying that science is able to ente= r the spiritual world. > (and for the record, I don't think being religious automatically confe= rs >spirituality...)    > >Since we have been treated to Einstein's words as a source, let us cons= ider >these gems: > >"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from med= iocre 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 exceede= d our >humanity." > >Further quotes from Einstein: > >     "Few people are capable of expressing wit= h 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 soci= al 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 va= rious >permutations along the way.  Slings and arrows?  sure,  = but I expected that.   > >  Albert again: >   "All that is valuable in human society depends upon t= he opportunity for >development accorded the individual." >     How much "opportuninty for development&qu= ot; is being encouraged by limiting >temperment use to one single form?  Does the young, growing musici= an 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<B= R> incorrigible >nonconformist warmly acclaimed. " > >   I don't mind being a nonconformist.  I can tune ET an= ytime 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 hav= e 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 t= his.   >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 </TT></BLOCKQUOTE><TT> </TT> </BODY> </HTML>