In a message dated 12/30/99 4:07:27 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I want to assure you and others that I’m not defending Leuchter, nor am I
saying that the MoQ justifies his ideas in any way. The point of the case is
to show the danger posed by those convinced they “see the truth” for the
benefit of humanity. Pirsig claims the MoQ provides moral principles that
can
distinguish a Galileo fighting social repression from a criminal fighting
social
repression. The question I pose is, using the Leuchter case as a
springboard, “What principles?”
Is David Lind right in saying we just have to wait and see? I suppose then
the
question becomes, "How long do we wait?" >>
Platt, I don't think the Leuchter case is a good example (at least not with
the scant details I have). I don't view Leuchter as someone who considered
himself any kind of revolutionary; he was just a man who gave an unbiased
report to a court that expected a biased report. His position as a would-be
social revolutionary isn't the correct issue; how well he performed the given
task is the correct issue.
The hippies were lousy revolutionaries. In no way did they improve the world.
Looking back, it seems like all they wanted was for people to loosen up,
biologically speaking. Didn't do much good for us in the long run.
If people would really use their brains, deciding between good or bad
revolutionaries would be quite easy. And the decision can be easily backed up
by the MOQ.
Jon
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]
