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.
    I would agree with those pleading for a breather in the ``heated''
conversation, if all there were here was heat and no light. But there has
been some fine light expressed in this group, and it has made for a
fascinating, revealing exchange.
     Crisis reveals character, and folks, we are in a crisis. I know that
there are many of us who hold to a view, a hope, of a just and truly
democratic world. I can imagine it, even acknowledging the worst in human
nature. I was a participant in the founding congress of the U.S. Greens in
the '80s, directly inspired by (then) West Germany's Die Grunen and the
British Ecology Party. The crisis of the Earth remains a very real thing,
too long ignored.
    But there is a more immediate crisis going on right now, and it has
nothing to do with individual nation-states. It has nothing to do, in fact,
with God or religion: I am atheist-humanist, and the evil I have referred to
in this ongoing discussion is entirely human in nature and not the least bit
mystical. This new crisis is one of conscience. There is a cause behind the
acts of 9/11; if it is indeed the work of the cited suspects, the cause is
well-documented, and has, by the way, absolutely nothing to do with the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But do not confuse cause with reason, for
there is none here. Similarly, there was a cause impelling the blitz of
London, but no reason behind it. I think it is in this distinguishing
between cause and reason where a philosophically based group can find
fruitful ground for discussion. More than that, this distinguishing is
precisely where conscience lies. And please understand--there is no
religious grounding for the attack: Suicide is anathema to Islam, and so is
drinking rum and vodka, as two of the suspects did the night before the
attack. There is no viable political algebra that draws some logic between
the airborne acts and the state of the world's poor and deprived. None of
these connections can be drawn; none follow. This is calculated, direct
action. So direct, in fact, that no amount of, as some would say,
``mediated'' images could distort this clear reality.
     The U.S. has long been an adolescent culture (as a working film critic,
I report on this sad state of affairs weekly), and I believe that, on
Tuesday, our culture was kicked into adulthood--that is, seriousness. This
seriousness results in clarity, of mind, of purpose. Perhaps academia, too
(I am not a member of that particular club), has been mired in an
adolescence for too long as well. This event may be a kick to the ivory
tower as well. We will see.
Robert Koehler
----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: A Terrible Act


> In a message dated 09/13/2001 1:43:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> > 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