is it ok to be luddite

[Jedrzej Polak]

Okay, I certainly agree with you, but we have some unresolved problem here:
if one is  a seal, a whale or a tree (or belongs to sexual/political/ethnic
minority with no real influence), how one goes around making the world aware
about his/her needs? I will repeat: radical thinking and radical action does
not equal violence. In my country not so long ago, radicals were publishing
illegally "Doctor Zhivago" and sending aid to those behind the bars, so
forgive me, but I'm quite sympathetic.

JP

> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:16:39 +1000
> To: Jedrzej Polak <jedpolak at mac.com>
> Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: is it ok to be luddite
> 
> 
> It was actually the grey areas I was referring to, rather than attempting to
> say that Greenpeace itself is constituted as a terrorist organisation. When
> certain Greenpeace-affiliated individuals throw themselves in front of
> earth-moving equipment or frog-kick their zippy boards into the path of
> monstrous iron-hulled oil tankers they are engaging in something which
> verges uncomfortably on terrorism in that they knowingly put themselves into
> a situation where their own deaths might result unless the driver of the
> vehicle, who has no intention to do violence to private citizens, public
> property or political enemies, takes immediate evasive action. If not a
> terrorist tactic then it's a form of moral or psychological blackmail at the
> very least.
> 
> It's important to remember that there is a separation between the cause,
> which might be noble and right as in the case of environmentalism, from the
> actions of some or all of the exponents of that cause, which could be
> terrorist. It's like the extremist fringes of the feminist and civil rights
> movements, the militant lesbian separatists, Black Panthers and certain
> other affirmative action lobbyists, who possibly did more harm to the causes
> of gender and racial equity than the white male chauvinists whose balls and
> brains they were determined to detach.
> 
> 
> best
> 
> 
> ps. Interestingly, pynchonfiles reports that
>> New York Times Book Review of 28 October, features his article "Is it O.K.
>> to be a Luddite" reflected on the conflicts between those who fear or value
>> the advancement of technology. Pynchon's conflict was to be with Abe
>> Rosenthal, the executive editor of The New York Times, who would not allow
>> him to use the term "badass." Pynchon finally won the battle.
> http://209.130.125.160/pynchonprint.htm
> 
> And Pynchon does in fact overtly locate himself on the affirmative side of
> the question posed in the title of the article:
>> If our world survives, the next great challenge to watch out for will come
>> -- you heard it here first - when the curves of research and development in
>> artificial intelligence, molecular biology and robotics all converge. Oboy.
>> It will be amazing and unpredictable, and even the biggest of brass, let us
>> devoutly hope, are going to be caught flat-footed. It is certainly
>> something for all good Luddites to look forward to if, God willing, we
>> should live so long.
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
>> From: Jedrzej Polak <jedpolak at mac.com>
>> To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>, <jbor at bigpond.com>
>> Subject: re: is it ok to be luddite
>> Date: Sat, Jun 10, 2000, 2:44 AM
>> 
> 
>> If we agree that terrorism is violence toward private citizens, public
>> property, and political enemies promoted by a political group to achieve or
>> maintain supremacy, the good folks from Greenpeace cannot be regarded as
>> terrorists because 1. their goals are far from political; 2; they do not
>> strive to achieve or maintain supremacy. If you think otherwise, I would
>> gladly see the examples of Greenpeace political terrorism (or any kind of
>> terrorism at that!). Let us not try to overgeneralize, or soon we'll call
>> Gandhi a moral terrorist!