9/11 - The Falling Man

[bridgy]

I've just watched a program (on Channel 4 in the UK) about people who jumped from the Twin Towers on 9/11. In particular, it was about a journalist trying to identify the person depicted in a famous image - "The Falling Man" - which appeared controversially in many newspapers on the following day.

I found the program quite harrowing and very moving to watch.

One of the parts of the program that I found most shocking was the interviews with the wife and daughters of a man who was originally identified as the falling man in the picture (although it was subsequently decided it probably wasn't him).

They were angry at the suggestion that their father/husband could be the falling man because...their (Christian) faith stipulated that if he "committed suicide", his soul would immediately go to hell. They were also therefore very releived that his name was subsequently "cleared" (yes they did use this kind of terminology).

I have an immense amount of sympathy with this family (and all the other families affected of course) for the unimaginable grief and trauma they must have gone through.

I just find it mind-blowing that anyone can believe - and indeed take any comfort in the belief of - a god that would send this clearly loving husband and father straight to hell for making the horrific "choice" (can it be really called this?) of jumping to his death rather than be burned alive in the building. Yet the facts were as black and white as this as far as this man's family were concerned.

Because of their belief, the suggestion that he jumped, further added to their suffering, and I dread to think what their state of mind would have been had the evidence been clear that it actually was their father/husband.

My mind is reeling with trying to come to terms with this kind of belief - I don't know whether to be angry (I assume this family believe all those who did "choose" to jump went straight to hell for it) or just incredibly sad for them.

[Ducky]

I'm only familiar with the footage of the man who fell trying to climb down.

Is there a link to the show, or possibly a link to show when it might air next?

As for the family's beliefs about their loved one not committing suicide, I can say that no one that has gone through the suicide of a loved one, circumstances aside, has accepted it as suicide right away (at least not anyone that I have talked to in support groups or in support circles.) When my family was told of my father's suicide someone said "surely it was murder? This has to be foul play!" It is very difficult to understand the decision to end one's life when you are not that person.

I'd like to see that show, however. Sounds interesting.

[David Swidler]

They were angry at the suggestion that their father/husband could be the falling man because...their (Christian) faith stipulated that if he "committed suicide", his soul would immediately go to hell. They were also therefore very releived that his name was subsequently "cleared" (yes they did use this kind of terminology).

I have an immense amount of sympathy with this family (and all the other families affected of course) for the unimaginable grief and trauma they must have gone through.

I just find it mind-blowing that anyone can believe - and indeed take any comfort in the belief of - a god that would send this clearly loving husband and father straight to hell for making the horrific "choice" (can it be really called this?) of jumping to his death rather than be burned alive in the building. Yet the facts were as black and white as this as far as this man's family were concerned.

Because of their belief, the suggestion that he jumped, further added to their suffering, and I dread to think what their state of mind would have been had the evidence been clear that it actually was their father/husband.

My mind is reeling with trying to come to terms with this kind of belief - I don't know whether to be angry (I assume this family believe all those who did "choose" to jump went straight to hell for it) or just incredibly sad for them.

That's the problem with an all-or-nothing view of Heaven vs. Hell. A real Heaven/Hell would be more like a continuum, not a clear set of domains. That way, in this case, the family could believe that although he took his own life, his cumulative good works more than offset that, and although he may have "erred" (who the hell are we to judge, anyway?), extreme circumstances wouldn't be held against him. They believe in a merciful God, right?

[slingblade]

That's the problem with an all-or-nothing view of Heaven vs. Hell. A real Heaven/Hell would be more like a continuum, not a clear set of domains. That way, in this case, the family could believe that although he took his own life, his cumulative good works more than offset that, and although he may have "erred" (who the hell are we to judge, anyway?), extreme circumstances wouldn't be held against him. They believe in a merciful God, right?

Only on His terms, and they oftimes seem a bit strict. Not really the brand of mercy preferred by 9 out of 10 sufferers.

[bridgy]

Fowlsound, I take your point about the difficulty in accepting the suicide of a loved one - I'm sure I would have as much difficulty with this as anyone else, and you have my sympathy for what you and your family must have gone through.

What I find hard to come to terms with for the example in my OP though, is that the family viewed the guy jumping as suicide at all - as I see it it was 1 of only 2 horrific "choices" he was left with. Whether he jumped or stayed in the building it was murder surely? If he "chose" to stay in the building to die, how does this differ?

The way I interpreted what they were saying was that their faith was giving them a very rigid view of suicide and its consequences, which made it even harder for them to deal with.

Come to think of it, another theme of the program was how the jumpers were "airbrushed" from history by self cencorship on the part of the media. One of the journalists contacted the coroners office to ask how many people had jumped and was told that officially no one did. So the denial was official as well as personal.

Again, I can understand this to an extent - the bottom line is that the footage and photos are disturbing, graphic and tragic and to a certain extent intrude upon personal tragedy.

However, I still find it strange that jumping in such circumstances is seen as suicide at all, and tragic that people believe their loved ones would be in hell had they chosen to do so.

With regards to the documentary itself, as I said it was on Channel 4 in the UK - sorry I can't find much info on it on Channel 4's website and I don't know if and when it is showing elsewhere.

[Darat]

I've always interpreted the actions of the people who chose to jump as making a very brave decision out of an understanding of the dire consequences if they stayed in the building.

I don't see how anyone could consider what they did as "suicide" - they would have thought that staying in the building was certain death so perhaps some of them thought that whilst the chances would be astronomical of surviving a fall from the tower that slight chance was better then no chance.

From a Christian perspective I am also surprised the family hasn't comforted themselves with considering that what these people did was not commit suicide but committed themselves into the mercy of their God. Surely then (from a Christian perspective) what they did was absolutely in line with the core beliefs of Christianity i.e. surrounding oneself to God, to place one's life into God's hands?

Whichever way I look at this I cannot consider those unfortunates who choose to jump were deliberately committing suicide - they had to make a choice. All their action shows is that even when presented with a choice between an almost certain death from a fall or a certain death by burning, smoke inhalation or being crushed alive people will be brave and decide to take the slight chance.

The people who jumped or fell deserve respect for their courage and bravery for facing such a decision, whatever their decision was.

[bridgy]

.

The people who jumped or fell deserve respect for their courage and bravery for facing such a decision, whatever their decision was.
I couldn't agree more - which is why I was so shocked to hear the suggestion that they would go to hell for doing so.

[ChristineR]

Those people simply chose to die by falling rather than by burning. Any religious leader who doesn't recognize that is an idiot, and any God that didn't acknowledge that isn't worthy of worship.

[rharbers]

Those people simply chose to die by falling rather than by burning. Any religious leader who doesn't recognize that is an idiot, and any God that didn't acknowledge that isn't worthy of worship.

Exactly! With temperatures reaching 2500 Fahrenheit, I think I'd probably jump. Not because of any mental conclusion, just because the flight instinct would take over.

[Ipecac]

Great post, Darat! Agree completely.

[Rolfe]

I was out last night, and the programme is on tape to watch later.

There seem to be some very rigid and irrational Christian sects in America. To jump rather than be burned alive is a horrible choice, but surely nobody would have wanted their loved one to choose the latter? Has the concept of God's mercy completely passed these people by? (By that I mean, no it wasn't suicide, but even if it had been, so what?)

I was myself surprised by some media comment at the time, referring to these people as having done something "irrational" inder stress. Hello? It was perfectly rational. There was a picture at the time of two people falling hand in hand, obviously having jumped like that. I could see why the picture might have been pulled out of respect for the families, but I thought it was so tragic and so touching.

Just suddenly remembering the end of the last episode of season 3 of Babylon 5. Sheridan is trapped at the top of a huge drop, right into the interior of the planet, by the firestorm created by the spaceship he himself has directed to crash into the city to defeat the Shadows. He has seconds to live. He hears Kosh's voice in his head. "Jump. Jump now." He jumps. And in throwing himself open to whatever possibilities this action might create, a whole new existence appears.

Much has been written by the author and by fans of the show about Sheridan's motives and motivation for jumping. Nobody ever suggested this was suicide, or the act of a coward. It was a dramatic coup. And by the way, it was first broadcast in 1996, so any resemblance betwen that and the Twin Towers is purely coincidental.

These narrow-minded "Christians" must inhabit a very strange and twisted world, where normal human reactions are completely bypassed.

Rolfe.

[Zbu]

I was out last night, and the programme is on tape to watch later.

There seem to be some very rigid and irrational Christian sects in America. To jump rather than be burned alive is a horrible choice, but surely nobody would have wanted their loved one to choose the latter? Has the concept of God's mercy completely passed these people by? (By that I mean, no it wasn't suicide, but even if it had been, so what?)

<snipped>

These narrow-minded "Christians" must inhabit a very strange and twisted world, where normal human reactions are completely bypassed.

Rolfe.

I like how these people's choice is suddenly critiqued by some Monday-Morning Quarterbacks. Exactly how would you make that choice anyway? Nobody should have to, and those who did shouldn't be held to some twisted morality. Either way, these people were going to die. Sadly, the jumping might have been the least painful way. Plus, I don't see how these 'Christians' really have the time or the stomach to really decide on the Godliness of it all. They died against their wishes, isn't that horrible enough?

The more I think about it, Christianity seems to delight in deciding how humanity reacts instead of observing that. Big shock.

[Ducky]

I like how these people's choice is suddenly critiqued by some Monday-Morning Quarterbacks. Exactly how would you make that choice anyway? Nobody should have to, and those who did shouldn't be held to some twisted morality. Either way, these people were going to die. Sadly, the jumping might have been the least painful way. Plus, I don't see how these 'Christians' really have the time or the stomach to really decide on the Godliness of it all. They died against their wishes, isn't that horrible enough?

The more I think about it, Christianity seems to delight in deciding how humanity reacts instead of observing that. Big shock.


I agree with this.

To clarify my earlier post, I wasn't trying to defend the emotional reactions of the family to the questions of suicide, I was thinking more along the lines of trying to explain how ingrained someone is to react to the word "suicide" over the actual events that took place. I don't think anyone but the most pedantic could call how that guy died as a suicide, but that's what is going to be thrown around simply because he made a choice that resulted in his death. The fact that ANY choice would have resulted in his death is totally ignored.

[Manny]

Against my better judgement, I'll encourage people to read the Esquire article (http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2003/030903_mfe_falling_1.html). Their aversion to his then-apparent jumping was more nuanced than a simple religious objection.

[jj]

IThere seem to be some very rigid and irrational Christian sects in America.


You just noticed? Now? :jaw-dropp

Some of the cults over here are absolutely (rule 8ing) nuts, Rolfe.

[Renfield]

Wow. How ***** ******* crazy is that? To believe that someone would go to hell eternally for jumping out of a building in order to avoid being burned alive?

that's one hell of a kind, forgiving god you've got there, Christians.

[Beerina]

Exactly! With temperatures reaching 2500 Fahrenheit, I think I'd probably jump. Not because of any mental conclusion, just because the flight instinct would take over.

I can see myself trying to hang outside via my belt, then dying as the belt burned through, I slipped, or the building collapsed anyway. Not much of a way out.

[Zbu]

I have no idea what I would do...but right now I sure as hell know I wouldn't disgrace myself to even pray to some pathetic Christian God to appease those utter.....what's a nice way to say 'not even worthy of being a human being?'

[kedo1981]

Just more proof of the evil of christainity

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How is standing by the window to be burned alive any less of an act of suicide than jumping out the window? You be dead either way.

I suspect God has a clause about this sort of thing, and forgives people who are damned if they do and damned if they don't. At least, that's what an omnibenevolent god would have.

~~ Paul

[ImaginalDisc]

From the Esquire Magazine:

Americans responding to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world with acts of heroism, with acts of sacrifice, with acts of generosity, with acts of martyrdom, and, by terrible necessity, with one prolonged act of—if these words can be applied to mass murder—mass suicide.


IN MOST AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS, the photograph that Richard Drew took of the Falling Man ran once and never again. Papers all over the country, from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to the Memphis Commercial Appeal to The Denver Post, were forced to defend themselves against charges that they exploited a man's death, stripped him of his dignity, invaded his privacy, turned tragedy into leering pornography. Most letters of complaint stated the obvious: that someone seeing the picture had to know who it was.

So, the unremarked on deaths of thousands of people in foreign countires in wars we started, allegedly because of the deaths of people just like this man, is perfectly tolerable to the American people, but a photograph of a single American making a choice that some people, because of their religion, object to, elicits so much shock.

[Pauliesonne]

:



So, the unremarked on deaths of thousands of people in foreign countires in wars we started, allegedly because of the deaths of people just like this man, is perfectly tolerable to the American people, but a photograph of a single American making a choice that some people, because of their religion, object to, elicits so much shock.


Pathetic.

[I'll_buy_that]

To further show the extent of emotions taken from this... here is a quote from that Esquire story about a reporter Peter Cheney who was tasked with identifying the man in the photo.

"All that remained was for Peter Cheney to confirm the identification with Norberto's wife and his three daughters. They did not want to talk to him, especially after Norberto's remains were found and identified by the stamp of his DNA—a torso, an arm. So he went to the funeral. He brought his print of Drew's photograph with him and showed it to Jacqueline Hernandez, the oldest of Norberto's three daughters. She looked briefly at the picture, then at Cheney, and ordered him to leave.

What Cheney remembers her saying, in her anger, in her offended grief: "That piece of **** is not my father.""

[Donks]

Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2069640_1,00.html) about identifying the Falling Man and the documentary.

[bridgy]

Donks, thanks for the link - it is a pretty good synopsis of the programme for those who haven't seen it. From the article:
“By calling him the jumper,” says Catherine, another of Hernandez’s three daughters, “you’re saying that his soul is damned. You’re telling me he’s in hell.”

As has already been stated, those who jumped clearly "chose" to do so only in the same way they could have "chosen" to stay in the builing and burned, so it surely can't be viewed as suicide.

I could accept putting down this family's comments to their grief and emotion at the time, but they are saying this in a film made several years after the event - which you'd have thought would have given them time to think and reflect a bit more (and perhaps discuss the issue with their priest). I'm no expert on Catholic theology but surely the church doesn't officially view this as suicide, and therefore punishable by eternity in hell?

Is this a personal interpretation by this family (and their priest?) or is it more widely held amongst Catholics?

[Iacchus]

I don't see how anyone could consider what they did as "suicide" - they would have thought that staying in the building was certain death so perhaps some of them thought that whilst the chances would be astronomical of surviving a fall from the tower that slight chance was better then no chance.Or, perhaps it was almost an involuntary reaction to the flames and heat? That is, if the smoke didn't get to them first. But then again, as you say, why would anyone choose certain death?

[Mercutio]

But then again, as you say, why would anyone choose certain death?
Personally, I would choose "certain death" over "certain hideous, torturous pain and eventual death" nearly every time. Unless the latter meant that I would be saving loved ones. I hope.


I also hope I never ever get the chance to find out.

[Elind]

I've just watched a program (on Channel 4 in the UK) about people who jumped from the Twin Towers on 9/11. In particular, it was about a journalist trying to identify the person depicted in a famous image - "The Falling Man" - which appeared controversially in many newspapers on the following day.

I found the program quite harrowing and very moving to watch.

One of the parts of the program that I found most shocking was the interviews with the wife and daughters of a man who was originally identified as the falling man in the picture (although it was subsequently decided it probably wasn't him).

They were angry at the suggestion that their father/husband could be the falling man because...their (Christian) faith stipulated that if he "committed suicide", his soul would immediately go to hell. They were also therefore very releived that his name was subsequently "cleared" (yes they did use this kind of terminology).

I have an immense amount of sympathy with this family (and all the other families affected of course) for the unimaginable grief and trauma they must have gone through.

I just find it mind-blowing that anyone can believe - and indeed take any comfort in the belief of - a god that would send this clearly loving husband and father straight to hell for making the horrific "choice" (can it be really called this?) of jumping to his death rather than be burned alive in the building. Yet the facts were as black and white as this as far as this man's family were concerned.

Because of their belief, the suggestion that he jumped, further added to their suffering, and I dread to think what their state of mind would have been had the evidence been clear that it actually was their father/husband.

My mind is reeling with trying to come to terms with this kind of belief - I don't know whether to be angry (I assume this family believe all those who did "choose" to jump went straight to hell for it) or just incredibly sad for them.

Perhaps you can consol yourself with the thought that they probably, like most survivor families, each received several million dollars in donations from people like you and me. One should ask them if they donated any of that to a charity.

[Mercutio]

Perhaps you can consol yourself with the thought that they probably, like most survivor families, each received several million dollars in donations from people like you and me. One should ask them if they donated any of that to a charity.
I am trying really hard now, to see which of my children I would watch die for a few million bucks.

Not a great financial move, I guess, but I still don't think I could do it.

[Jmasley1]

It makes you wonder if he died on impact or on the way down.

[Iacchus]

I can't imagine myself being fried or crushed. Of course I wonder if anybody (except for a few) really had the option to jump? Aren't these buildings pretty much designed so that most people can't get to the outside?

[Mercutio]

It makes you wonder if he died on impact or on the way down.
Not when you think of it as your child. It makes you try desperately not to wonder such a thing. It makes you physically ill to contemplate such a thing. It makes me glad it was not me, and guilty that I am glad, because for hundreds, thousands, it was them.

It does make me mad that a belief system, whether motivated by religious belief or otherwise, could add to the horrible emotions such a thing would produce.

[Iacchus]

So, we should be made to feel guilty that we're alive? Perhaps this is not what life is about? At what point are you going to stop feeling guilty? People die and suffer misfortune all the time. Wouldn't it make things a whole lot easier if we understood that, when people die, they're in a better place?

[Mercutio]

Wouldn't it make things a whole lot easier if we understood that, when people die, they're in a better place?
Yes, it would. Lying to ourselves would make everything easier; that's why we do it.

You insensitive fool.


(go ahead, report it--I already censored it twice to make it even close to acceptable.)

[RandFan]

Wouldn't it make things a whole lot easier if we understood that, when people die, they're in a better place?"Understood"?

When I moved into an apartment we couldn't keep our dog and try as I might I couldn't find a home for it. So we took it to the pound. I left the children in the car and took the dog in myself. In order to leave the dog I had to answer a few questions. One of the questions was how the dog acted with strangers. I said that the dog was a bit anti-social with strangers. I was informed that the dog would be put down that night if I left him.

My young children "understood" that the dog was going to a happy home.

Maybe that was wrong and cowardly of me. Perhaps I should have told them the truth. I don't know. It's difficult for very young children to face facts.

When you die Iacchus you are going to go to a happy home.

[Iacchus]

When you die Iacchus you are going to go to a happy home.Well, wherever it is, it will be the place that most "suits me."

[Iacchus]

Yes, it would. Lying to ourselves would make everything easier; that's why we do it.

You insensitive fool.

(go ahead, report it--I already censored it twice to make it even close to acceptable.)And I for one don't happen to believe it's a fairytale. ;)

[RandFan]

Well, wherever it is, it will the place that most "suits me."Do you like hot fudge sundaes? Good music? Walks on the beach? Well get ready 'cause when you die you are going to sunny heaven. All smiles, good food and shiny happy people.

[Iacchus]

Do you like hot fudge sundaes? Good music? Walks on the beach? Well get ready 'cause when you die you are going to sunny heaven. All smiles, good food and shiny happy people.That sounds like a fair enough representation. But then again, I'm a little bit on the anti-social side, so who knows? ;)

[Mercutio]

And I for one don't happen to believe it's a fairytale. ;)
I am so happy for you. It really is too bad that when people start thinking, they lose the ability to believe what you do. It would make the death of their loved ones a time to celebrate, instead of the heart-wrenching agony that a grasp of reality brings to it. Wouldn't it be nice if, when the people we love the most are no longer with us, we could just smile about it and look forward to the time when we also depart forever from the lives we have touched.

No wonder you don't submit your belief system to any real scrutiny.

[Iacchus]

I am so happy for you. It really is too bad that when people start thinking, they lose the ability to believe what you do. It would make the death of their loved ones a time to celebrate, instead of the heart-wrenching agony that a grasp of reality brings to it. Wouldn't it be nice if, when the people we love the most are no longer with us, we could just smile about it and look forward to the time when we also depart forever from the lives we have touched.

No wonder you don't submit your belief system to any real scrutiny.Don't all "Christians" celebrate in Christ's death/victory?

[Mercutio]

That sounds like a fair enough representation. But then again, I'm a little bit on the anti-social side, so who knows? ;)
Anti-social? You are telling people "cheer up--the people you love the most are dead! Isn't it wonderful?"

Yeah, anti-social. Anti-reality...anti-common courtesy...anti-any brain activity whatsoever...

[Mercutio]

Don't all "Christians" celebrate in Christ's death/victory?
You tell me.

Then tell me how happy they are when their own children don't come back after three days.

Tell me how overjoyed they are if they blame themselves for not believing strongly enough.

[censored]

[Iacchus]

Anti-social? You are telling people "cheer up--the people you love the most are dead! Isn't it wonderful?"

Yeah, anti-social. Anti-reality...anti-common courtesy...anti-any brain activity whatsoever...Really? I find that when most people find out somebody has died, they proclaim how sad and misfornute it is, and five minutes later carry on as if nothing happened. Indeed, why all the pretense? Even when somebody close to you dies, you either get over it or, you wind up going to the grave with them.

[Mercutio]

Really? I find that when most people find out somebody has died, they proclaim how sad and misfornute it is, and five minutes later carry on as if nothing happened. Indeed, why all the pretense? Even when somebody close to you dies, you either get over it or, you wind up going to the grave with them.
Good night, Iacchus.

I pity you your existence. I honestly wish I did not feel you deserved it.

M

[RandFan]

Really? I find that when most people find out somebody has died, they proclaim how sad and misfornute it is, and five minutes later carry on as if nothing happened. Indeed, why all the pretense? Even when somebody close to you dies, you either get over it or, you wind up going to the grave with them.?

Hardly (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=grieving+death&spell=1).

[Mercutio]

?

Hardly. (http://forums.randi.org/grieving death)
Link does not work for me, RF.

[Iacchus]

You tell me.

Then tell me how happy they are when their own children don't come back after three days.

Tell me how overjoyed they are if they blame themselves for not believing strongly enough.

[censored]I don't know, I don't have any kids. I've experienced enough pain in this life to where I don't see any point in passing it along to someone else. Especially since I don't believe in this world.

[Iacchus]

I pity you your existence. I honestly wish I did not feel you deserved it.What, are we feeling guilty? ;) Sooner or later you're going to have to get over it. So, why get all worked up about it in the first place?

[RandFan]

Link does not work for me, RF.Grieving Death. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=grieving+death&spell=1)

I have no idea what the hell he means by 5 miniutes and most people. I work with a group that provides grief counceling and it is not as he describes.

[Mercutio]

What, are we feeling guilty?
No.

Not at all.


And that is the pity.

[Mercutio]

Grieving Death. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=grieving+death&spell=1)

I have no idea what the hell he means by 5 miniutes and most people. I work with a group that provides grief counceling and it is not as he describes.
I see your mistake.

You are thinking that something Iacchus says somehow correlates to events in the real world.

So far, in nearly 10,000 posts, that has yet to be the case.

Hope that helps,

M

[Iacchus]

So, what does death mean? ... Nothing, if in fact all it entails is non-existence.

[Iacchus]

Grieving Death. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=grieving+death&spell=1)

I have no idea what the hell he means by 5 miniutes and most people. I work with a group that provides grief counceling and it is not as he describes.I have been so close to the notion of death most of my life, and death is not the enemy.

[Jmasley1]

Interesting, indeed. I wonder if this "sunny heaven" is also the place where extremist muslims get their virgins?

[Iacchus]

Interesting, indeed. I wonder if this "sunny heaven" is also the place where extremist muslims get their virgins?This is no doubt what they would like to believe.

[Jmasley1]

I was legally dead for two minutes when I was four. All I saw (after I entered the "Light") was a bloated water buffalo being suckled by thirteen Diana Ross imitators!

[RandFan]

This is no doubt what they would like to believe.Bingo! Good job. We made a connection.

[Iacchus]

Bingo! Good job. We made a connection.In what way? That there is no afterlife or, that this is what they would like to believe about it? Am just wondering if you're not lumping the two together because both (at least for the time being) are pretty much subject to belief?

[Jmasley1]

Forget belief, let's talk FACT.

[Iacchus]

Forget belief, let's talk FACT.Yes, but how can we talk about anything without a mind which, according to some is just a fiction? ;)

[RandFan]

That there is no afterlife or, that this is what they would like to believe about it? I can see no difference. Wanting there to be an afterlife and wanting certain details suffer the same. Imagined curtains in an imagined room, what's the difference?

Am just wondering if you're not lumping the two together because both (at least for the time being) are pretty much subject to belief?NOT just because, precisely because.

Why should one irrational and unfounded belief be given any respect over any other?

[RandFan]

Yes, but how can we talk about anything without a mind which, according to some is just a fiction? ;) As a long time dualist I can safely tell you that one does not prove the other. And BTW, the wink doesn't underscore your point.

[Iacchus]

I can see no difference. Wanting there to be an afterlife and wanting certain details suffer the same. Imagined curtains in an imagined room, what's the difference?

NOT just because, precisely because.So, were you misrepresenting your position then, by claiming "we" made the connection?

Why should one irrational and unfounded belief be given any respect over any other?And do you claim to have specific knowledge about the afterlife then?

[Jmasley1]

Yes, but how can we talk about anything without a mind which, according to some is just a fiction? ;)

Both the brain (the meat) and the mind (the chemical signals in the meat) exist.

[Iacchus]

As a long time dualist I can safely tell you that one does not prove the other. And BTW, the wink doesn't underscore your point.The only way you can make heads or tails out of anything is by virtue of the fact that you are sentient. So you can forget all the rest which is "physical."

[Jmasley1]

You guys (or gals) should read Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett.

[Iacchus]

You guys (or gals) should read Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett.Oh yeah, which spell is that? The "non-illusion" that all we really are is an "illusion?" What a joke!

[Iacchus]

Both the brain (the meat) and the mind (the chemical signals in the meat) exist.I don't doubt this in the least. However, it's the furthest thing from my mind when I am thinking.

[Jmasley1]

Oh yeah, which spell is that? The "non-illusion" that all we really are is an "illusion?" What a joke!

Uh, no. It is not about that at all, actually.

[slingblade]

Iacchus, can I ask you something?

Let's suppose that someone, somehow, at some point, was able to prove to you, once and for all, with no doubt remaining whatsoever, that reality either does exist or does not--it doesn't matter which to me, but if it does to you, then pick one. But suppose someone could finally, totally prove one of them.

What then? I mean, what do you do then, where do you go from there, what do you do with that information?

My question isn't just in regard to you. I often think this about many of the threads, many of the posters, including myself. I just wonder what people do next when (so-far) unprovable statements get proven, one way or the other.

[RandFan]

So, were you misrepresenting your position then, by claiming "we" made the connection?Non sequitur

And do you claim to have specific knowledge about the afterlife then?No more than you. If virgins are just what people want to believe then an afterlife is just what people want to believe.

[RandFan]

The only way you can make heads or tails out of anything is by virtue of the fact that you are sentient. Which proves nothing beyond the fact that I am sentient.

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, can I ask you something?

Let's suppose that someone, somehow, at some point, was able to prove to you, once and for all, with no doubt remaining whatsoever, that reality either does exist or does not--it doesn't matter which to me, but if it does to you, then pick one. But suppose someone could finally, totally prove one of them.It's quite simple, really. Sentience is a continuum.

[Mercutio]

It's quite simple, really. Sentience is a continuum.
Could you please diagram how this relates in any way whatsoever to the post you quoted?

[Iacchus]

Could you please diagram how this relates in any way whatsoever to the post you quoted?I'm merely stating a fact. And it doesn't need to be proven (to me) because I know.

[slingblade]

It's quite simple, really. Sentience is a continuum.

Well, see, what I'm talking about is the "so what?" factor.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that it can be proven that sentience is a continuum. I don't even care what that means; let's just say it is, and we have proof.

So what?

[Iacchus]

Well, see, what I'm talking about is the "so what?" factor.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that it can be proven that sentience is a continuum. I don't even care what that means; let's just say it is, and we have proof.

So what?So what? Well, for one thing it means Dennett doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about.

[slingblade]

So what? Well, for one thing it means Dennett doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about.

So what?

[Mercutio]

So what?
Actually, this question, in a slightly elaborated form, has been explored here in the guise of the philosophical stance of pragmatism. Your question is a very good one, and for me, the answer really means that it is folly to take a stance on issues for which there is no answer to the "so what?" question.

[Iacchus]

So what?Exaxctly. What does Dennett know?

[Mercutio]

Exaxctly. What does Dennett know?
That faint sound was the point passing by, high overhead.

Assume that Dennett is absolutely right. Then, so what?

ETA: or assume that you could absolutely prove him wrong. Then, so what?

[Iacchus]

That faint sound was the point passing by, high overhead.

Assume that Dennett is absolutely right. Then, so what?

ETA: or assume that you could absolutely prove him wrong. Then, so what?If he was absolutely right there would be no need to assume. It could never be proven that materialism is all there is ... perhaps because it isn't? It can only be one or the other. And of that, I'm inclined to say that I'm absolutely certain.

[Mercutio]

So what?

[Iacchus]

If he was absolutely right there would be no need to assume. It could never be proven that materialism is all there is ... perhaps because it isn't? It can only be one or the other. And of that, I'm inclined to say that I'm absolutely certain.Certainty can only come into play you see, by means of verification through sentience. And what could that mean, except that the whole process must be verifiable by means of sentience. And the only way I can see that being accomplished is by sentience being a continuum.

[Mercutio]

How is it that this is dependent on Dennett's view being right or wrong?

In other words...so what?

[Mercutio]

Exaxctly. What does Dennett know?
As an aside...Dennett is one who would likely speak of sentience as existing in a continuum. Not that Iacchus would read it, but this is a great book. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465073514/103-2832620-9491862?v=glance&n=283155)

[Iacchus]

As an aside...Dennett is one who would likely speak of sentience as existing in a continuum. Not that Iacchus would read it, but this is a great book. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465073514/103-2832620-9491862?v=glance&n=283155)Which is to say, our ability to know is something which is channeled through our brains?

[Mercutio]

Which is to say, our ability to know is something which is channeled through our brains?
:notm

[Iacchus]

Of my accord, it is impossible for me to know anything. It has to come from some place else.

[Mercutio]

Of my accord, it is impossible for me to know anything. It has to come from some place else.
Like...parents, teachers, newspapers, television, libraries (oops, not for you!)...Yes, it did come from some place else. Just not the place you would like to imply.

[slingblade]

Actually, this question, in a slightly elaborated form, has been explored here in the guise of the philosophical stance of pragmatism. Your question is a very good one, and for me, the answer really means that it is folly to take a stance on issues for which there is no answer to the "so what?" question.

Thanks. I find myself curious about such things, and your saying pragmatism clicked with me. I notice many people, including myself, invest a lot of time, thought (don't start with me Iacchus ;)), emotion, and energy into their opinions or positions. And so I wonder, but so what? Why are we so dedicated to our positions, and what do we do if we find out we are right?

[ETA: what's practical or pragmatic in this that we invest so much?]

I mean, if we're wrong, and sensible, we will alter our stance in some way to account for new facts or POVs or whatever. But if we're right....well, so what then? Hee...this is also an "unanswerable," so don't think I didn't notice the irony.

[Iacchus]

Like...parents, teachers, newspapers, television, libraries (oops, not for you!)...Yes, it did come from some place else. Just not the place you would like to imply.What is information without the means to verify it?

[slingblade]

What is information without the means to verify it?

Rumor. Gossip.

[Mercutio]

What is information without the means to verify it?
You are being circular again. You are assuming, because of your ignorance of learning and developmental psychology, some "means of verifying" that exists independently, and without which we cannot learn. No such thing exists. Evidence for that abounds--as one example, you believe any number of things which are contradicted by evidence. If you possessed some innate "means to verify", you would have rejected those beliefs as unverifiable and/or outright disproven.

When you insist on your circular reasoning, you insulate your beliefs from challenge, but you also insulate yourself from learning.

[Iacchus]

You are being circular again.No, not in the least. What purpose does all this information serve to someone who is not alive, not sentient and, by means of its evaluation, is able to utilize it?

[Mercutio]

No, not in the least. What purpose does all this information serve to someone who is not alive, not sentient and, by means of its evaluation is able to utilize it?
None. And you are being circular, as I explained. Just because you do not recognise your logical fallacies, that does not mean you are not committing them. If you would educate yourself on them, perhaps your arguments would improve. Perhaps you would recognise the need to abandon major portions of your philosophy, though, so it's a win-win scenario.

[Iacchus]

Perhaps you would recognise the need to abandon major portions of your philosophy ...I doubt that very much. ;)

[Iacchus]

None. And you are being circular, as I explained. Just because you do not recognise your logical fallacies, that does not mean you are not committing them.So, would you describe anything that is esoteric (or, that which is not easily grasped) as being circular?

[Mercutio]

So, would you describe anything that is esoteric (or, that which is not easily graspsed) as being circular?
No. It is only circular when you assume your conclusions. Which you do, constantly.

This stuff has been explained to you many times. Here's another explanation. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A688287)
More. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

[Kopji]

So, we should be made to feel guilty that we're alive? Perhaps this is not what life is about? At what point are you going to stop feeling guilty? People die and suffer misfortune all the time. Wouldn't it make things a whole lot easier if we understood that, when people die, they're in a better place?

Seeking to understand things as they really are, not as we wish them to be, or as they appear - is a better way but not an easier way.

Death & dying are integral to life: helping to give meaning to ideas like courage, suffering, sacrifice, honesty, honor, and ...hope. To make death appear more welcome is also to sacrifice building the character of the living.

Guilt is a low quality selfish emotion that often takes the place of right action. Instead of doing the right thing we feel guilty about it. If our actions were responsible for someone's death and we feel better by 'understanding' that it sends them to a better place... what causes us to ever examine our actions?

[Iacchus]

No. It is only circular when you assume your conclusions. Which you do, constantly.

This stuff has been explained to you many times. Here's another explanation. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A688287)
More. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)The sky is blue. Is that a circular statement?

[Mercutio]

The sky is blue. Is that a circular statement?
No.

It's fun...I plug in "Iacchus" and "Circular" into the JREF search function, and I get 146 posts. About a third are my own. You have had circularity explained to you over a dozen times by now, Iacchus. This is why I say you are actively and aggressively ignorant.

You really should know circularity by now.

[Elind]

I am trying really hard now, to see which of my children I would watch die for a few million bucks.

Not a great financial move, I guess, but I still don't think I could do it.

That wasn't the point of my post, which you no doubt understood but didn't describe very well in the above.

Just to be clear; if the comments by this family were correct, then I would have expected them to do as I suggested and leave the rest to their god.

[Mercutio]

That wasn't the point of my post, which you no doubt understood but didn't describe very well in the above.
You give me too much credit. No, I did not understand the point of your post. I am glad to hear I was mistaken, but I am still unclear.

Just to be clear; if the comments by this family were correct, then I would have expected them to do as I suggested and leave the rest to their god.
"Do as you suggested"...and console themselves with money? Or donate it? Or what?

I am not trying to be dense here, and I am certainly not trying to defend the attitudes of those families. But I honestly think I must have missed, and still be missing, the message you intended to send.

[Elind]

You give me too much credit. No, I did not understand the point of your post. I am glad to hear I was mistaken, but I am still unclear.

"Do as you suggested"...and console themselves with money? Or donate it? Or what?

I am not trying to be dense here, and I am certainly not trying to defend the attitudes of those families. But I honestly think I must have missed, and still be missing, the message you intended to send.

:( "sigh"

The suggestion is that those who believe so sincerely in their god, would be expected to receive their compensation in this world from the same god.

My thought was that I would be interested to know if, while refuting the possibility that their family member would rather jump from a building than stand still and be burned alive because that is what their god would want, that they would be honest enough not to receive secular help, to the tune of millions, from the likes of you (presumably) and me. Do I need to clarify further?

[Mercutio]

Fair enough. I still have some disagreement, but not nearly as much as with them. Thanks for taking the time to help me.

[Elind]

Fair enough. I still have some disagreement, but not nearly as much as with them. Thanks for taking the time to help me.

Welcome, until the next.:covereyes

[Iacchus]

No.

It's fun...I plug in "Iacchus" and "Circular" into the JREF search function, and I get 146 posts. About a third are my own. You have had circularity explained to you over a dozen times by now, Iacchus. This is why I say you are actively and aggressively ignorant.

You really should know circularity by now.Ignorant in general? Or, ignorant about what circularity means?

[Iacchus]

No. It is only circular when you assume your conclusions. Which you do, constantly.Which, is the same thing as saying I don't know what I'm talking about, correct? Of course you may assume that I'm assuming something when, in fact I actually know what I'm talking about. In which case it is actually you who is making the assumption. Hence it would seem the circularity stems from your disbelief in what I'm saying.

[RandFan]

Which, is the same thing as saying I don't know what I'm talking about, correct? Of course you may assume that I'm assuming something when, in fact I actually know what I'm talking about. In which case it is actually you who is making the assumption. Hence it would seem the circularity stems from your disbelief in what I'm saying. :D Your rich Iacchus. I don't know whether you know what you are talking about or not. I only know that you are using circular reasoning. You don't really get to use that fact to your benefit but I'll give you 2 points for trying.

[Iacchus]

:D Your rich Iacchus. I don't know whether you know what you are talking about or not. I only know that you are using circular reasoning. You don't really get to use that fact to your benefit but I'll give you 2 points for trying.Well, let me put it this way, the only conclusions I'm using here are only for the sake of argument. For, if in fact God does exist, and I know that He does, what is there to conclude? This is a determination I've already made. In which case for me, all I'm doing is stating a fact. ;)

[RandFan]

Well, let me put it this way, the only conclusions I'm using here are only for the sake of argument. For, if in fact God does exist, and I know that He does, what is there to conclude? This is a determination I've already made. In which case for me, all I'm doing is stating a fact. Without delving into all of the problems with this statement let me just say that it is irrelevant. Circular reasoning is illogical irrespective of what you may know or may not know.

[Iacchus]

Without delving into all of the problems with this statement let me just say that it is irrelevant. Circular reasoning is illogical irrespective of what you may know or may not know.The only thing that I seem to be getting is that what I'm saying is not referential to what some folks might deem tangible. Now, does this make me guilty of "assuming my conclusions?" How so?

[Mercutio]

The only thing that I seem to be getting is that what I'm saying is not referential to what some folks might deem tangible.
This is certainly true, but it is independent of your circularity. You do tend to go off on tangents, usually when you have been painted into a corner by your own arguments.
Now, does this make me guilty of "assuming my conclusions?" How so?No, it does not. The two problems are independent. Congratulations, now you have two logic problems to overcome, and not just one. Yes, you do make non-sequitur comments. Yes, you do make circular comments. Sometimes you do both at once, but the two problems are not the same.

Seriously, go read up on logic and logical fallacies. You are making very basic mistakes, and have been corrected on them enough times that you really should know better. If your ideas are right, then they deserve much better support than you are so far able to give them. If your ideas are right, there is currently no reason for anyone here to recognise that. If your ideas are right and your reasons for believing them are what you have written here, then you would be believing the right thing for the wrong reasons. (If your ideas are wrong, you are believing the wrong thing for the wrong reason.)

[RandFan]

The only thing that I seem to be getting is that what I'm saying is not referential to what some folks might deem tangible. Now, does this make me guilty of "assuming my conclusions?" How so?See Mercutio's excellent post above.

One can use faulty reasoning while maintaining a valid proposition. Even if we assumed your conclusion is true it wouldn't correct your invalid reasoning.

More importantly it won't lead anyone else to your conclusion.

2 + 2 = 1
Therefore 1 is a rational number.

The conclusion, correct as it may be doesn't follow from the argument.

[Iacchus]

The conclusion, correct as it may be doesn't follow from the argument.No, this is what I mean by you folks not deeming what I say is tangible. How so? Because apparently it's been proven to the contrary.

[Iacchus]

If your ideas are right, then they deserve much better support than you are so far able to give them.Does it really matter all that much? I'm not sure it does. If it did, I don't think it would require me to explain about it.

[RandFan]

No, this is what I mean by you folks not deeming what I say is tangible. How so? Because apparently it's been proven to the contrary.I'm not certain there is any logically valid argument in any of this. It's a bit of a mess. Could you clarify?

[Melendwyr]

How can such bright people continue to argue with an absolute twit? Do they derive a kind of twisted pleasure from repeating fruitless actions over and over again? Do they think they're reaching someone?

So what?

[Iacchus]

How can such bright people continue to argue with an absolute twit? Do they derive a kind of twisted pleasure from repeating fruitless actions over and over again? Do they think they're reaching someone?

So what?Funny. I was just thinking the same thing.

[Mercutio]

How can such bright people continue to argue with an absolute twit? Do they derive a kind of twisted pleasure from repeating fruitless actions over and over again? Do they think they're reaching someone?
There have been, in other such threads, lurkers who emerge and say they have learned from the exchange. I have received PMs from people who have said the same. No one is under any illusion that they are reaching Iacchus.

[RandFan]

There have been, in other such threads, lurkers who emerge and say they have learned from the exchange. I have received PMs from people who have said the same. No one is under any illusion that they are reaching Iacchus.I have had the same. I think it can be good excercise. More importantly, I don't have any illusions that my contributions at JREF are earth shattering. I come here primarily for my own purposes so why should anyone else care who I discuss these subjects with?

I kinda like pushing the rock up the hill (http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/sisyphus.html).

[Iacchus]

Yes, illusion is a funny word. Do you think I'm under any illusion that you folks know what I'm talking about? Indeed, I seem to be perfectly capable of distinguishing between what is an illusion and what is not, at least in this respect. Neither do I claim to be under any particular illusion that you folks think I'm under an illusion. Hmm ... Isn't it something that we can even agree with each other when, in fact I am the one who is most certainly under an illusion? How do you know that it all isn't just a part of my illusion? :confused:

[RandFan]

Yes, illusion is a funny word. Do you think I'm under any illusion that you folks know what I'm talking about? Indeed, I seem to be perfectly capable of distinguishing between what is an illusion and what is not, at least in this respect. Neither do I claim to be under any particular illusion that you folks think I'm under an illusion. Hmm ... Isn't it something that we can even agree with each other when, in fact I am the one who is most certainly under an illusion? How do you know that it all isn't just a part of my illusion? :confused: I think, therfore you are. Good one Iacchus. :D Yes, your illusion is wondering whether or not it is real.

[Rolfe]

I still haven't watched my tape of the TV programme - busy, busy. But I've just read the 2003 article that was linked to earlier in the thread, and I think I'll watch the tape tonight.

I remember watching the events of 11th September as they happened, and being moved to tears by the falling/jumping people. I don't remember the man in the photo in question, but I remember others, in particular a couple, I think male and female, falling hand in hand, obviously having jumped like that. It was heartbreaking. I also remember a close-up shot of people crowding a broken window, obviously with fire in the room behind, and one incredibly beautiful girl with pre-Raphaelite red hair among them. All these people must have died, and it's probable that they jumped.

I know my feeling at the time was, how terrible to be forced into that situation. But also, thankfulness that they had the choice, to choose an instant painless death by falling, rather than being burned alive. I know that if I'd been in that situation, and escape from the fire was clearly impossible, I'd have jumped. And if I'd had any loved one in those buildings, which thank God I didn't, I'd have been comforted to think that he or she had been able to jump rather than be burned.

I certainly found watching the falling people (not falling bodies!) disturbing, but not nearly as disturbing as imagining what happened to the people who couldn't get to a window to jump!

So why am I telling you this? Because I'm a Christian, and I don't think I'm at all unrepresentative of the ordinary, non-extreme Christian denominations, certainly in a European context. I can't imagine narrow-minded bigotry so extreme that it would condemn those tragic people for such a terrible choice - though clearly, as has been pointed out in this thread, such bigotry does exist.

I find it hard, as an ordinary European Christian who has no problem at all with evolution or the age of the universe or the big bang and so on, to understand those extreme American sects who come out with such rubbish. This side of the pond, most Christians are of a similar opinion to the sceptics about how many screws these people have loose (though I admit we do have a few homegrown examples too). I notice a tendency on this forum to focus exclusively on the fundamentalist lunatic fringe (as we would see it), and then castigate all Christians for the narrow-mindedness of this minority. To me, this is straw-manning.

I don't believe for an instant that God would condemn anyone to hell for jumping from a great height rather than being burned alive, and neither does anyone I know. (I also find the philosophical position of those who say "I can't believe in a God who would do [insert evil action here]" to be most interesting, but that's maybe a discussion for another day.)

So, castigate those who feel that the jumping people did something shameful all you like, but please don't run away with the impression that this is a general Christian judgement of the situation, because it isn't.

Rolfe.

[Iacchus]

I think, therfore you are. Good one Iacchus. :D Yes, your illusion is wondering whether or not it is real.Well, I'm certainly not suggesting that it has to be this way. ;)

[RandFan]

Well, I'm certainly not suggesting that it has to be this way. ;) That wooshing sound you hear is the point going over your head. What has to be or what does not have to be is beside the point.

[Mercutio]

So, castigate those who feel that the jumping people did something shameful all you like, but please don't run away with the impression that this is a general Christian judgement of the situation, because it isn't.

Rolfe.
A very good point which really should go without saying...but in truth needs to be said more often.

[Rolfe]

I just watched the programme. Twice, straight through. Extremely thought-provoking, so maybe I'll provoke you all with my thoughts tomorrow.

Rolfe.

[Iacchus]

I notice a tendency on this forum to focus exclusively on the fundamentalist lunatic fringe (as we would see it), and then castigate all Christians for the narrow-mindedness of this minority. To me, this is straw-manning.Yep.

[RandFan]

Yep. In your case we have ample reason to castigate without generalizing. I'm glad you are in agreement with Rolfe, I am too, but it won't help you.

[Iacchus]

In your case we have ample reason to castigate without generalizing. I'm glad you are in agreement with Rolfe, I am too, but it won't help you.Well, I admit that I may be a lunatic in my own right but, it has little to do with the fundamentalists.

[Rolfe]

Well, about the programme. It took me thinking in areas I hadn't anticipated, which is always interesting.

First, the question of whether anyone jumping from a (very high) burning building would automatically be damned as a suicide was only a very small part of the programme. It came up in the context of the Hernandez family, whose father was originally (and probably wrongly) identified as the "falling man". They weren't bible belt fundies, they were Catholic. However, by their own admission, they weren't particularly devout or observant Catholics. They expressed the unilateral position that their religion, which they didn't really practise and didn't seem to understand very well, would classify that action as suicide, end of argument.

Well, no. I'm not a Catholic, so if there are any priests or even observant Catholics around here to correct me, please do. However, I don't believe that Catholic teaching would apply this simplistic judgement to the situation. Did these people talk with their priest about the matter? If they did, they didn't mention it. I'm pretty certain that of they had done, they would have been told that a choice between an unimaginably painful death and an instant, painless death, when death is inevitable, is not suicide. They might also have been comforted by the thought that if Norberto had chosen to jump, he had the opportunity to confront his imminent death, and to make his last confession and make his peace with God. So perhaps he was more likely to be in heaven than many people. Unfortunately, what the family was saying was more superstition than theology.

Christian denominations have been making allowances for suicides for hundreds of years. In England, a common verdict in an inquest used to be "suicide while the balance of the mind was disturbed". Basically, if the suicide was insane, then they weren't responsible for their actions, so it wasn't a sin. But then the very fact of suicide proves that you're not sane, Catch 44. The "while the balance of the mind was disturbed" addendum would allow burial in consecrated ground.

I've been to two Christian funerals of suicide victims, one of whom was a very devout Christian. In both cases the victims were suffering from severe clinical depression, and in both cases the vicar or minister took the view that it was the illness of depression which had killed the woman. At one funeral, prayers were said "for all those suffering from the illness which killed Sylvia", and the burial was in the church cemetery.

While I can believe anything of the southern bible-belt fundamentalists, most Christian traditions, including the one the Hernandezs belonged to, do not take the simplistic, judgemental view that has been presented, and this just wouldn't have been an issue for most Christians aware of the events of 11th September.

In contrast the family to which the man who probably was the "falling man" were devout Christians. His father was a minister. His reaction (reported, he wasn't in the programme) was that he was having trouble with the whole subject because he taught his congregation that no matter how bad a situation you're in, you have to confront it and keep going. At first, I understood this as a different way of expressing the "he shouldn't have jumped, it was giving up" view, and it was only on the second viewing I realised that wasn't what he was saying. In fact it seemed to be rather similar to the point of view of the vicar whose daughter was killed in the London bombings last year. She has given up her charge, because she believed she was being hypocritical in serving Communion with its emphasis on forgiveness when she was unable to forgive her daughter's murderers. It seems that the American minister was saying to the producers that he couldn't cope with the investigation and the publicity and opening the wounds again, because he was finding himself unable to move on and cope with his son's death in the way he preached that others should cope with adversity. Nowhere was it suggested that any of his family believed that Jonathan's soul was in hell.

More interesting was the way the producers chose to end the programme, despite having identified Jonathan the sound engineer as very very probably the man in the photo. We don't know for sure who he was, and in a way he may stand for all the victims, an "unknown soldier" of the atrocity.

I didn't get the impression that the main driving force in the "airbrushing" out of the people who jumped had anything to do with seeing them as suicides. In most cases it seemed that the sight of the falling people was just too painful for many observers to bear. So they blamed the news media for showing them something so distressing, and they also took up the cudgels on behalf of the relatives of the victims, whose pain at seeing these images could well be imagined. Then it sort of segued into "that didn't happen...."

I don't remember so much of that on this side of the pond. There were a lot of pictures in the days after the atrocity, and I do now remember the one in question. It's just that it didn't make so much impact on me as the one of the couple falling hand in hand, or the ones of the people crowding the windows, obviously considering that maybe they were going to have to jump. They were immensely painful to look at. However, my own view was that this really happened, and it diminishes the suffering of those people to refuse to look. I prefer to dignify them by looking, and understanding, and trying to empathise. I know some people looked away, but I didn't hear anyone in Britain deny that this happened.

The reaction reminds me of something I witnessed in the Theatre Royal in Glasgow one evening. It was at a very powerful production of Peter Grimes. At the second interval, the party in the row behind me decided to leave. Not because the performance was bad, or they were bored, but because it was so harrowing they didn't want to watch any more. Was this a good response to the art, or not? I felt that the right response was to watch the production to the end, and experience what the director wanted me to experience. But maybe the response that it was all just too much was more flattering, who knows.

This led me to some rather odd thoughts about tragedy as art, and specifically this atrocity, as tragedy, as drama, as art.

Soon after it happened, I remember an artist (a sculptor?) being roundly castigated for saying that the hijackers had produced great art. He was mainly referring to the jagged remains of the towers, and the pictures of the tortured metalwork jutting up against the sky. Yes, this was an amazing image, and one with so much underlying meaning one couldn't begin to express it. But he was saying more than that. He was treating the whole event as an artistic "happening", and commenting that in that sense, the thing was a work of genius.

Of course, said when it was said, he was bound to be slated, and he was. Nevertheless, I think there was some truth in what he said.

The elegant purity and simplicity of the intact towers against the blue sky. The soaring, swooping airliners curving through the sky. The black and orange and red explosions of fire. The terrible drama of those trapped above the impacts, and the desperate attempts to evacuate those below, and the awful arbitrariness of the division. The huge power unleashed in the collapse. The chaotic, twisted shards of the collapsed metal sheeting thrusting to the sky, and the implicit comparison with the regular, understated minimalism of the intact towers. The side dramas of the Pentagon, and the crash in the field, and "let's roll". The pathetic telephone calls from the doomed airliners. And so on.

I'm beginning to see why my response to the whole affair was somehow different from the other disasters that have been on our screens over the past years. There was an enormity to this, a height of drama, and a terrible beauty of imagery, that transcended a simple news bulletin. Watching it, there was an element of watching a work of art - a tragedy, but nevertheless art.

Now this is a problem. Appreciating tragedy as art is one thing, feeling the catharsis of a truly dramatic performance. But this was real! A great peformance of the Iliad, OK, but we don't regard Hector and Achilles as real people any more. These were real people suffering and dying in front of us. Reacting to this with anything other than utter horror is unthinkable - but then when the horror itself is a response to the dramatic, how do we cope?

We can't even acknowledge the artistic element, because the "artists", the creators of the whole "happening", were evil beyond imagining. And yet that sheer depth of evil is in itself another contributor to the dramatic impact.

There was something of this in the response to the "falling man" photo. It was a truly great piece of photographic art. The composition, the framing, someone said it was a potential Pulitzer winner. But it's obscene, to be thinking of something as horrible as this as art, so we draw back from it. If we are affected beyond the normal level or response to a news bulletin, right down at the cathartic, dramatic level we usually reserve for things like Peter Grimes or King Lear, this must be wrong, surely. So maybe we shy away, we don't want to look, we get up and leave at the interval. And the most disturbing images of all, those of the falling people, we deny. We didn't look. They didn't happen.

It's an appalling thought. But I think that artist was right. Considered quite outside the morals of the thing, the attack on the Twin Towers might arguably be the greatest work of art of our age. The drama, the imagery, the emotion, the depths of evil and the heights of heroism, it's all there. And this may be the most disturbing thing of all.

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Rolfe - I've no response to your post and I don't know if I agree or disagree with you but thank you for taking the time to write it.