If memory serves, Friedrich Engels quipped (in German, well before the First World War): "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." James Hillman's A Terrible Love if War (2004) gets at war from a Jungian archetypal perspective. Hillman, now in his eighties, shows a wide-ranging understanding of the history of war. The book is arranged in four major chapters, designed to evoke and provoke thought:
War is Normal
War is Inhuman
War is Sublime
Religion is War
Nagasaki mushroom cloud, August 9, 1945.
A Terrible Love of War inspires additional posts, at some point. But for now here's a chillingly frank sample:
New day? New wars. More self-righteous killing . . . more earth despoiled in the name of the nation [-- any nation --] the leader, the cause, the god. And more prayers. Wars will go on; they will not cease and they will not change. . . [W]e can imagine and therefore understand -- not all of it, but enough to step away from delusions of hope and love and peace and reason. (p 217).
Maybe it's better to think in terms of truces, rather than permanent peace. Certainly the idea of a truce is more accurate, more realistic, a reminder of how fragile the state of non-war ever is.
Today's Rune: Mystery. Posted during Iraq (2003-present), Afghanistan (2001-present), the War on Drugs (ongoing), and so on.
4 comments:
This is probably something I'd like.
Chances of understanding one another, agreeing to disagree, is better under the conditions of a truce, don't you think?
Aw Erik, War is one of my least favorite subjects. I cannot think of a single positive connotation for the word.
Thanks all for the comments! Jim, absolutely, and almost always.
Post a Comment