Justin wrote:
joanna bujes <joanna.bujes at sun.com> wrote:
<<Perhaps there is something about war that is NOT historical but mythic/psychological ...something that is separate from evil intent, but kicks in when people are put in a schizophrenic position.>>
Now now, you are not allowed to use psychological factors in historical explanation. That is not materialist. Just ask Yoshie.
jks
Joanna
----------
Now now. You are grumpy lately Justin. Joanna's statement seems to me a perfectly historical, _not_ psychological, proposition. It affirms that certain extreme social relations (Kenneth Burke noted that war, looked at from a distance, appeared as a special case of cooperation between the contending armies) bring out human potentials that don't appear under ordinary circumstances.
When a non-swimmer falls into water, and panics as her lungs fill with water, the panic does not cause the drowning.
:-)
Carrol
P.S. I think this incorrect usage of "schizophrenic" is irretrievably established in language, but in honor of my several friends who suffer from schizophrenia I must point out that it reflects a gross misunderstanding of schizophrenia (which does not at all involve a "split personality" or anything that vaguely approaches be so describable).