As I understand it, memory isn’t what we think it is. We think we’re remembering something, but actually we’re reconstructing it. The stories we tell ourselves, which often support what we want to believe anyway, become what we believe to be memories. <\/p>\n
Of course, as Abi Sutherland<\/a> points out, it’s not just the stories we tell ourselves that builds our memories; it’s also the stories that pundits and media tell us.<\/p>\n I’m suspicious of attempts to find meaning in the stupid, tragic mass-murder committed a decade ago. The meaning is that some people are murderous assholes.<\/p>\n Noah Millman’s 9\/11 post <\/a>is the best I’ve read today:<\/p>\n In retrospect, what suffered the most lasting damage from the terrorist attacks of ten years ago was my belief in my own rationality. I believed that I was thinking things through seriously, and coming to difficult but true conclusions about what had happened, what would happen, what must happen. Here is part of what I wrote, to friends and family, several days later:<\/p>\n Our President has made it clear: we are at war. I do not anticipate that this will be a short or an easy war. Our enemy has operations in dozens of countries, including this one. He is supported, out of enthusiasm or fear, by many governments among our purported friends as well as among our enemies. He has shown his cunning, his ruthlessness, and most of all his patience, in his successful plot to kill thousands of innocents and bring down the symbols of our civilization. And in striking at him, as we must, we will bring down others who will in turn seek their own vengeance upon us.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n There is not a single factual assertion in that paragraph that I had any reason to believe I could substantiate. I did not know anything about the enemy. I had no idea whether or not there were \u201coperations\u201d in dozens of countries \u2013 I don\u2019t even know what I meant by \u201coperations.\u201d I know what I was referring to with the business about being \u201csupported\u201d by friends and enemies, but \u201csupport\u201d is a deliberately fuzzy word; I wouldn\u2019t have used it if I was trying to make a concrete assertion with clear implications. The purpose of that assertion, like everything else, was to build up my first assertion. We were at war. And it wouldn\u2019t be short or easy. Because that conclusion, though grim, was one that imparted meaning to the murder of 3,000 people. I thought I was being serious \u2013 examining the facts, calculating the likely negative consequences of necessary action, preparing myself for the unfortunate necessities of life. But I wasn\u2019t doing anything of the kind. I was engaged in a search for meaning in which reason was purely instrumental.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n JSM’s post<\/a>, written the day after a decade ago, still seems on target:<\/p>\n Of course the World Trade Center bombings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hat tip to Stephen at Attempts<\/a>, who has many more links.<\/p>\n Open thread for discussing anything 9\/11 related. (Or this post, I suppose.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As I understand it, memory isn’t what we think it is. We think we’re remembering something, but actually we’re reconstructing it. The stories we tell ourselves, which often support what we want to believe anyway, become what we believe to … Continue reading