Platt -
I would like tackle the Leuchter case on two levels. First, on the
intellectual. Fred is stating an intellectual opinion, or hypothesis if you
prefer, about the holocost. His views are supported by his background and
education. First, what are his credentials? Has he studied anthropology,
history, engineering (i.e., the mechanics of gas chambers, etc)? I think we
need this information in order to assess the credibility of his claim. I
mean, anyone can say anything they want about the holocost. Just because he
went to Auschwitz and has some practical experience with death chambers,
etc.; doesn't mean his claims are worthwhile. And second, we must consider
the witnesses to history. The thousands of people who are still alive and
tell the story of the horrors that took place. I go out to breakfast once a
week with a woman who actually lived through imprisonment in a Nazi
concentration camp. She's told me some horriffic stories, including the loss
of her father at the Nazis' hands. She has suffered psycologically all of
her life because of that experience. I submit that Mr. Leuchter can go to
all the concentration camp site's he wants too. How does his theory compare
to the many survivors? It begs the question (and I don't have a good
answer): how does intellectual hypothesis compare against a real social
experience in terms of "the truth?" I can tell you my opinions on the
matter... this little old grandmotherly woman has memories of horrors that I
can't even imagine - and I've tried. My understanding of Pirsig's idea of
quality is a continuium - from low to high. I might argue that someone
making an intellectual statement about a period of history has low to high
quality depending on their credentials, experience, etc. I'm skeptical of
Mr. Leuchter's. However, I believe this woman's experiences have high
quality in that she's actually lived through the time that Mr. Leucter is
merely hypothesizing about. To illustrate, I can read books about war and
come up with theories about what's it's like. I doubt this would compare
with talking with a veteran about their real-life experience. So there it
is. I guess I'll throw it out there: Mr. Leuchter's intellectual theories
about "the truth" of the holocost are of low quality when contrasted against
the physical evicence (i.e., eye-wittnesses, survivors, photographs, etc) -
or social experience - about "the truth." Let me know wht you think.
Jack
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
