is it ok to be luddite?

[jbor]

I understand what you're saying (and the example you've given isn't really
the best in that the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion caused by
refraction of the light spectrum or something -- further, "truth" is
relative, and is not something which can, or should, be imposed by brute
force, but that's another story) but my point is that if someone has a
cause, or an argument, which they are seeking to promote and propagate then
terrorism isn't a viable medium, either morally (imo) or in populist terms.
It's a lesson that someone like Yasser Arafat learned pretty quickly. I'm
not even sure that Ned Lud's cause was served all that well by his act of
terrorism, even though it was directed against the machinery of oppression
rather than the oppressors themselves: the Luddite Revolt lasted a measly
six years (1811-1816), while the Industrial Revolution continued, and has
continued, unabated.

best



----------
>From: pporteous at worley.co.nz
>To: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>, pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: is it ok to be luddite?
>Date: Wed, Jun 7, 2000, 8:13 AM
>

> Maybe Joy's wording is not the best.  If someone says the sky is blue, and
then
> kills some people who disagree, his argument may be less convincing to some,
but
> is nonetheless still true.
>
> peter