is it ok to be luddite

[Jedrzej Polak]

We have a simple internal device, which tells us what is morally acceptable,
and what is not. Fortunately, journalistic "ethics" has not replaced simple
conscience so far, though I can imagine that there are people relying on
eight o'clock news as far as their moral choices are concerned.

I think that our problem here is the popular reception of unorthodox public
behavior, and not the moral evaluation of it. The fact that we have accepted
double morality in political dealings (Kosovo vs. Tchetchenia; China vs.
Tibet) should not obscure the necessity of applying moral judgements to each
individual case, and even to each individual moral choice. Moral choices
tend to be dynamic (as the case of Tad Kaczynski shows), and while I can
condemn Kaczynski for his  methods, I can easily subscribe to some of his
ideas. And please do not forget that from the very beginning  of our history
every act of disagreement with the status quo, has been considered to be a
revolutionary and terroristic  outrage. I bet George III (when he was sane)
considered the Boston Tea Party in exactly the same categories.

JP
> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 09:51:21 +1000
> To: Jedrzej Polak <jedpolak at mac.com>
> Cc: pynchon-l at waste.org
> Subject: Re: is it ok to be luddite
> 
> 
>> if one is  a seal, a whale or a tree
> or a dodo, or a Gadarene swine on the road to Boston ...
> 
> Yes, I'm sympathetic to the causes you mention also, but what we are talking
> about is the processes through which equity is achieved for these
> minorities. And I'm not so sure that lumping seals and trees together with
> Kurdish refugees isn't over-generalisation. Nevertheless ...
> 
> I agree with you that radical thinking and radical action do not necessarily
> equal violence, but sometimes they do. The Oklahoma City bombing was an act
> of terrorism, and as such it tends to overshadow the Manifesto which
> accompanied it in respect of popular acceptance and international
> endorsement of the radical thinking espoused therein. At the top of
> Greenpeace's current agenda also is stopping the use of biotechnology in
> agriculture: the major focus of last October's Greenpeace Conference in
> London was a debate between the CEO of Monsanto and Lord Melchett over the
> production and use of genetically-modified foods. Fair enough. But
> Melchett's arrest for mowing down an experimental government crop of
> genetically-modified maize near his Norfolk estate fits the definition of
> terrorism you provided earlier ("violence towards ... public property"). I'd
> hate for the opponents of environmentalism to be able to consign Greenpeace
> to the same lunatic fringe as Kaczynski.
> 
> The other point to note is that journalistic bias is generally
> political/ideological, insidiously so. Whereas a Greenpeace-sponsored
> publication will perhaps echo the euphemistic description of the Sea
> Shepherds' 'Ocean Warrior' as a "new long-range, ice-class, heavy-duty,
> conservation enforcement ship ... a protector, defender of life, and a
> symbol of hope for a better, more humane, and more ecologically conscious
> future", a Norwegian newspaper might well describe it as a pirate vessel
> acquired by a criminal organisation under false pretences. It is naive to
> believe that journalistic "ethics" somehow override the political and
> corporate constraints which determine publishable content and editorial
> slant.
> 
> best
> 
> 
> ----------
>> From: Jedrzej Polak <jedpolak at mac.com>
>> To: jbor <jbor at bigpond.com>, <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>> Subject: Re: is it ok to be luddite
>> Date: Sat, Jun 10, 2000, 5:06 PM
>> 
> 
>> 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.