My heart goes out to anyone involved in such a
calamity, but Martha's bitter words intended to
silence mine with the moral superiority of her actions
(treating injured firemen in downtown New York) do not
belong to a philosophical discussion group. If she
really thinks our business is frivolous and
inappropriate right now, why is she logging on to read
and reply? Nothing we do in this virtual space
attempts to undermine her noble act of charity (I say
this without sarcasm/malice).
Regarding Robert, I began my previous mail by 'clearly
identifying the 9/11 acts as evil' before peppering my
discourse 'with such
> obtuse terms as ``decoding,'' (and not only that,
> but ``to be...subtle in
> our decoding''!!) ``symbolics'' and
> ``socio-politico-psychological''.
I am confused - what is obtuse about the need to
decode the media's interpretation of events and
manipulation of the emotions of the public, and do it
subtly? As I mentioned before, Muslims have been
attacked at random in the US since 9/11 - do you
really believe this is independent of the (unsubtle +
encoded) media coverage?
What is obtuse about pointing out the social,
political and personal/psychological aspects of the
events, images, interpretations etc that make up our
reality ('socio-politico-psychological')?
Theoretical positions are not necessarily luxuries to
be cast aside when faced with grim realities.
I made great pains to make clear my sensitivity to
those affected by the traumatic events of 9/11 and
would like to re-state my point that philosophical
discussion is as essential now as ever - perhaps
inappropriately academic for people coping with the
events, but disasters, war, terrorism, famine, poverty
are happening all the time all over the world, and
life, philosophy, science, art go on. Maybe they
shouldn't, until we all live in an equal world, but
they do.
with respect,
TZ
> One last point relating to film and philosophy - if
> our analyses and theories (of the symbolics and
> mediation of images in society etc) mean anything in
> relation to film, then surely they can and *must*
> apply to current media coverage also - not out of
> disrespect to victims of terrorism, but out of a
need
> to be human(e), to be intelligent and subtle in our
> decoding of socio-politico-psychological realities,
to
> try in micro-efforts not to let emotion and 'good vs
> evil' rhetoric blind us to what should matter - the
> creation of a world where freedom means more than
> western capitalist democracy and blood-lust-fuelled
> revenge (nurtured by Hollywood over the years) have
to offer.
>
>
>You make an interesting point, and I'd like to talk
>about it, but I'm going
>to have to get back to you after I finish bandaging a
>waiting line of 50
>badly injured firemen.
>Martha P. Nochimson
--- Robert Koehler <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> I bring attention to all in this discussion group to
> the message from Martha
> P. Nochimson on Thursday. But it isn't only the
> response, but what Martha
> was responding to: A blizzard of pseudo-academic
> verbiage, drawing some fine
> point between what is in fact a clear philosophical
> stance (that is, to
> clearly identify the 9/11 acts as evil) and the
> current media coverage and
> its potential for distortion. At this point, when
> reading messages--in the
> context, mind you, of this week's tragedy--which are
> peppered with such
> obtuse terms as ``decoding,'' (and not only that,
> but ``to be...subtle in
> our decoding''!!) ``symbolics'' and
> ``socio-politico-psychological,'' I can
> only conclude that there is something seriously out
> of kilter. Martha, on
> the other hand, is treating injured firemen in
> downtown New York. This is
> the sublime juxtaposed against the ridiculous.
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
|