is it ok to be luddite

[Jedrzej Polak]

It's a pity you turn this quite interesting exchange into an AA meeting.
Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable explaining the semantics of every word I
use.

Regards

JP

> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:09:41 +1000
> To: Jedrzej Polak <jedpolak at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: is it ok to be luddite
> 
> 
>> We have a simple internal device, which tells us what is morally acceptable,
>> and what is not.
> 
> We who? Kaczynski?
> 
>> The fact that we have accepted
>> double morality in political dealings (Kosovo vs. Tchetchenia; China vs.
>> Tibet)
> 
> Again, we who?
> 
> The two "we"s are different. The first "we" refers to you and I:
> individuals. Individually. The second "we" refers, I guess, to the UN, or
> "the West", or some equally frangible conception of global consensus in
> populist, pseudo-democratic terms. Personally, I think you can count out a
> lot of the first "we"s from that second "we".
> 
> I would imagine that the thing with the Boston Tea Party would be not what
> George III thought, but what the American populace thought.
> 
> 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: Sun, Jun 11, 2000, 6:14 PM
>> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
>