I again want to thank Tim Romano and Charles Moyer for their very insightful
observations and analyses of Jung's views on war. Charles Moyer quoted Jung
as saying,

"Dionysus is the abyss of impassioned dissolution, where all human
distinctions are merged in the animal divinity of the primordial psyche - a
blissful and terrible experience. Humanity, huddling behind the walls of its
culture, believes it has escaped this experience, until it succeeds in
letting loose another orgy of bloodshed. All well-meaning people are amazed
when this happens and blame high finance, the armaments industry, the Jews,
or the Freemasons."

I see now what Tim Romano is referring to, when he rebukes those who would
reduce the decision to go to war to a mere psychological urge or instinct
comparable to the instinct for procreation.

Jung seems to have it at least partly right in discussing the terrible
"abyss of impassioned dissolution" which is associated with war. But it
seems to me that this Dionysian experience of "animal divinity", the
experience of the successful soldier, ACCOMPANIES the experience of WAR
ITSELF, and one's reflections on war, AFTER one has been a participant.
This "abyss" has little or nothing to do with the DECISION TO GO TO WAR,
which is made in accordance with (often crude) "rational" political and
economic calculations.  The decisions by the political leadership-- to fight
wars, covertly or overtly, in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, Panama, Grenada,
Nicaragua, and Vietnam--- are not impelled by the so-called Dionysian aspect
of the psyche which is revealed or celebrated after and during a war. The
decision is made by people will not participate in the war at all, in any
direct war; by people who have a particular mind set, which reflects their
views on the effect which going to war-- or not going to war-- will have on
markets, the future of various industries (including the arms industry,
sadly enough, because the leadership often owns shares in these companies,
and expects a job IN these companies after their tenure is finished), and
what effect a decision to go to war will have on other short term political
outcomes.  Of course, the point is to make it all look good.

Thus we read in Also Sprache Zarathustra words to this effect:

"I say unto you that it is not the good cause which halloweth a war; but it
is the good war which halloweth the cause."

The tales of the war, the "heroic deeds"  (acts of butchery) and the
victorious result, make the war seem more justified in retrospect, than if
it had been lost.

Jung is wrong to minimize the effects which institutions and groups, like
the "arms industry" and "high finance", can have on a decision to create a
climate which makes it easier to go to war.  Take the current situation in
the US, where opinion polls show that the vast majority of the public either
wants military spending reduced, or kept at the same level as last year.
Yet BOTH major parties have worked to pass a ten percent increase in
military spending WITH NO PERCEIVABLE THREAT of any consequence since the
demise of the USSR.  (Only thirty percent of American public actually
supports an increase in military spending).  One way to explain this
militaristic enthusiasm is to chalk it up to the huge campaign contributions
given out by major arms manufacturers, and their associated industrial
partners.  The shamelessness of the speeches given in Philadelphia this week
by the likes of Colin Powell and Norman Schwartzkopf is practially
unparalleled in this supposed era of peace time ("peace" in spite of the
fact that Iraq is being on an almost daily basis, against the objections of
most of Europe and the vast majority of the international community).  The
possible consequences of a US military build up at this time are
deliberately ignored.

And we have the paradigmatic example of conscious hypocrisy in Pound's
writings on the subject of war during the 30's and 40's.

Should we state that Pound's hypocrisy-- regarding the issue of war and the
aims of the fascists --is no better or worse than the stance taken by the
current political leadership in the US?  Should we state that it is
precisely the same, in its implications for world peace, in the long run?




Paz, Amor y Fraternidad,

Wei




________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com