> >Is that "moral equivalence" in your book? > > Maybe. You do not allow for "good" and "bad" > ad" people, but you distinguish between "sane" and > "insane" people. On its face, this is a distinction > without a difference. Call them what you want, just > so long as you can distinguish between them and you > can ally yourself with one and protect yourself from > the other.
Really, there's a whole different spin.
As a computer guy, I tend to draw a distinction between hardware and software. Human hardware is very impressive, neurobiologically speaking. It's the software that's full of bugs, evolves slowly (much faster than genetically, but still slowly).
Future shock has been hard on us. A lot of us went more than a little crazy.
I think as a species we have brains on the verge of being too much to handle (whatever that means), but, like Fuller, I think we still have a chance to gain a more even keel, such that a time-line stretching ahead for millenia, with humanity an expected/anticipated presence, won't be so unrealistic-seeming (cite the work of the Long Now Foundation http://www.longnow.org/ ).
> However, you champion Fuller, who allows for no > no good or bad people. I assume he has never met a > Mother Theresa or a Geoffrey Daumer. Now, some > people see God in one and the Devil in the other; > you may see sane and insane; I am content with good > d and bad. But if Fuller does not see a difference > between Mother Theresa and Geoffrey Daumer, then > there is something wrong with him. > > Haim
I think in 'Critical Path' he's employing his self-disciplines to not get sucked in by the usual good vs. bad ideologies. It's a world history, starting with a myth or cosmology (rather unbelievable taken literally) but getting more and more believable as we approach the present time, such that the sequel 'Grunch of Giants' reads as a very contemporary narrative (though it's highly literary also -- Fuller held a chair of poetry at Harvard for awhile, wrote lots of free verse)).
An upshot of this discipline/strategy is you don't find as many people as you'd expect in a world historical narrative. Hitler is nowhere mentioned by name, that I can recall, although Eisenhower is in there. J.P. Morgan gets considerable attention.
In other contexts, he'd say deprecatory things or positive things, per normal, about this or that public or private figure. He was more normal-sounding than one might gather from reading his "prose".
I worked more closely with one of Fuller's chief assistants than Fuller himself, in meatspace anyway (i.e. in terms of physically rubbing shoulders: E.J. Applewhite. I can assure you he was quite able to unleash invective against any number of targets, although he was quite discrete about it. His wife too. I've got more info on Applewhites at my website if you're curious, including a link to Ed's obit: