Your postings are very interesting, but there's one thing which I've been
meaning to ask for some time now: what do you envision as the connection of
these thoughts to Foucault. My apologies if you have already made this
clear in some previous posting that I missed,
Regards,
Nate
At 07:10 PM 11/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> I have been developing a hypothesis relating warfare to submission,
> focusing upon the mentality of the soldier. Actually, I am attempting to
> articulate the dynamics of a SOCIETAL process.
>
> The intervening variable connecting warfare and submission is "the
> sacred ideal," or omnipotent object. The psychological posture of
> submission occurs in relationship to the desire for attachment or wish to
> connect to the omnipotent object. One submits because one believes that
> the object is the source of goodness and power. The object to which one
> wishes to submit is the object one worships.
>
> Warfare grows out of attachment to the sacred ideal or omnipotent
> object. I use the term "submission" because I wish to draw attention to
> the fact that what manifests as aggression has its source in the desire
> to "bow down" to the object. The consequence of submission to the sacred
> object is violence against an enemy. One imagines one is required to
> "punish" those who do not respect or love the object as one does oneself.
> One commits acts of violence in the name of the object. Persons do not
> perceive that their aggression as being the consequence of submission
> because they so entirely IDENTIFY with the omnipotent object.
>
> Ruth Stein has written about "EVIL AS LOVE AND LIBERATION." We may
> bracket the term "evil" (a culturally bound concept) and discuss the
> relationship between religion and collective or societal destructiveness.
> The histories of civilizations might be written (often they are) from the
> perspective of acts of violence undertaken in the name of societal
> ideals. Why do we hesitate to explore this relationship?
>
> A profound mechanism of denial is operative. Everyone tends to
> identify with some societal group and with "civilization." We have been
> unwilling to perceive the relationship between destructiveness and
> society itself because we do not wish to ABANDON OUR ATTACHMENT to
> civilization. We don't want to acknowledge that evil or destructiveness
> is bound within the very fabric of society. We desperately wish to
> preserve the belief that our nation is "good."
>
> Hitler said, "We don't want to have any other God, only Germany."
> He stated that Deutschland uber allas is a "profession of faith which
> today fills millions with a greater strength, with that faith which is
> mightier than any earthly might."
>
> Hitler said, "We may be inhumane but if we rescue Germany we have
> achieved the greatest deed in the world." Hitler did not "use" the idea
> of Germany in order to justify what he did. Attachment to the German Volk
> and his fantasy of "saving the people" was the wellspring of everything
> that occurred.
>
> When Ruth Stein writes of "Evil as Love," she is not writing about
> an obscure dynamic that applies only to terrorism. She is writing about
> the FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS THAT GENERATES DESTRUCTIVENESS IN SOCIETY. Acts
> of destruction such as warfare and terrorism are generated by the belief
> that such acts are necessary in order to SAVE OR RESCUE THE BELOVED
> OBJECT. Love for the omnipotent object and collective acts of destruction
> are two sides of the same coin.
>
> Stein analyzes Mohammed Atta's letter and concludes that it "does
> not speak of hatred. It is past hatred. Absurdly and perversely, it is
> about love. It is about love of God." She speaks of a "sickening marriage
> of love and murder."
>
> Hitler proclaimed:
>
>Our future is Germany. Our today is German. And our past is Germany. Let
>us take a vow this morning, at every hour, in each day, to think of
>Germany, of the nation, of our German people. You cannot be unfaithful to
>something that has given sense and meaning to your whole existence.
>
>He affirmed that "Our love towards our people will never alter, and our
>faith in this Germany of ours is imperishable."
>
> Franco Fornari states that, "Those who make war are driven not by a
> hate need, but by a love need. Men see war as a duty toward the love
> object." Collective acts of aggression grow out of identification with
> the beloved object--conceived as the essence of goodness and source of power.
>
> To awaken from the nightmare of history is to perceive the
> collective dream that lies at the heart of civilization.
>
>With regards,
>
>Richard Koenigsberg
>
>Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.
>Director, Library of Social Science
>
>
>Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.
>Director, Library of Social Science
meaning to ask for some time now: what do you envision as the connection of
these thoughts to Foucault. My apologies if you have already made this
clear in some previous posting that I missed,
Regards,
Nate
At 07:10 PM 11/24/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> I have been developing a hypothesis relating warfare to submission,
> focusing upon the mentality of the soldier. Actually, I am attempting to
> articulate the dynamics of a SOCIETAL process.
>
> The intervening variable connecting warfare and submission is "the
> sacred ideal," or omnipotent object. The psychological posture of
> submission occurs in relationship to the desire for attachment or wish to
> connect to the omnipotent object. One submits because one believes that
> the object is the source of goodness and power. The object to which one
> wishes to submit is the object one worships.
>
> Warfare grows out of attachment to the sacred ideal or omnipotent
> object. I use the term "submission" because I wish to draw attention to
> the fact that what manifests as aggression has its source in the desire
> to "bow down" to the object. The consequence of submission to the sacred
> object is violence against an enemy. One imagines one is required to
> "punish" those who do not respect or love the object as one does oneself.
> One commits acts of violence in the name of the object. Persons do not
> perceive that their aggression as being the consequence of submission
> because they so entirely IDENTIFY with the omnipotent object.
>
> Ruth Stein has written about "EVIL AS LOVE AND LIBERATION." We may
> bracket the term "evil" (a culturally bound concept) and discuss the
> relationship between religion and collective or societal destructiveness.
> The histories of civilizations might be written (often they are) from the
> perspective of acts of violence undertaken in the name of societal
> ideals. Why do we hesitate to explore this relationship?
>
> A profound mechanism of denial is operative. Everyone tends to
> identify with some societal group and with "civilization." We have been
> unwilling to perceive the relationship between destructiveness and
> society itself because we do not wish to ABANDON OUR ATTACHMENT to
> civilization. We don't want to acknowledge that evil or destructiveness
> is bound within the very fabric of society. We desperately wish to
> preserve the belief that our nation is "good."
>
> Hitler said, "We don't want to have any other God, only Germany."
> He stated that Deutschland uber allas is a "profession of faith which
> today fills millions with a greater strength, with that faith which is
> mightier than any earthly might."
>
> Hitler said, "We may be inhumane but if we rescue Germany we have
> achieved the greatest deed in the world." Hitler did not "use" the idea
> of Germany in order to justify what he did. Attachment to the German Volk
> and his fantasy of "saving the people" was the wellspring of everything
> that occurred.
>
> When Ruth Stein writes of "Evil as Love," she is not writing about
> an obscure dynamic that applies only to terrorism. She is writing about
> the FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS THAT GENERATES DESTRUCTIVENESS IN SOCIETY. Acts
> of destruction such as warfare and terrorism are generated by the belief
> that such acts are necessary in order to SAVE OR RESCUE THE BELOVED
> OBJECT. Love for the omnipotent object and collective acts of destruction
> are two sides of the same coin.
>
> Stein analyzes Mohammed Atta's letter and concludes that it "does
> not speak of hatred. It is past hatred. Absurdly and perversely, it is
> about love. It is about love of God." She speaks of a "sickening marriage
> of love and murder."
>
> Hitler proclaimed:
>
>Our future is Germany. Our today is German. And our past is Germany. Let
>us take a vow this morning, at every hour, in each day, to think of
>Germany, of the nation, of our German people. You cannot be unfaithful to
>something that has given sense and meaning to your whole existence.
>
>He affirmed that "Our love towards our people will never alter, and our
>faith in this Germany of ours is imperishable."
>
> Franco Fornari states that, "Those who make war are driven not by a
> hate need, but by a love need. Men see war as a duty toward the love
> object." Collective acts of aggression grow out of identification with
> the beloved object--conceived as the essence of goodness and source of power.
>
> To awaken from the nightmare of history is to perceive the
> collective dream that lies at the heart of civilization.
>
>With regards,
>
>Richard Koenigsberg
>
>Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.
>Director, Library of Social Science
>
>
>Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.
>Director, Library of Social Science