WAR is a symptom of Western Allopathic Psychological Orientation


There has always been the Hygiean – Aesculapian Division in how we understand the dynamics of nature.  The Hygiean approach is the cultivating and sustaining of balance and harmony while the Aesculapian approach is to root out and eliminate ‘pathogens’ or ‘trouble-makers’.   If we first orient to the cultivating of balance and harmony, we can use the ‘elimination of pathogens’ as a ‘back-up’ last resort, as in indigenous aboriginal cultures, … but if we move the anti-pathogen (Aesculapian) approach into primacy, it becomes our first course of action.  The Robin Hoods and Jean Valjean’s of the world with their Hygiean ethical orientation INSPIRE us while the brute force anti-pathogen approach associates with the ego of those who consider themselves on the side of ‘good’ with respect to their ability to ‘eliminate that which is bad’.


Once we elevate the allopathic Aesculapian approach into primacy over the Hygiean and make it the first course of action, we give no mercy to the Robin Hoods and Jean Valjeans but follow the anti-pathogen course of removing all that disturb the current equilibrium even if that current equilibrium preserves gross imbalance as with rich and poor.  In other words, there is no longer any room for Hygiean recultivating of balance and harmony once the anti-pathogen orientation is given precedence.


WAR is the social-dynamic that corresponds to the anti-pathogen approach, which was recognized as problematic by indigenous aboriginal peoples as recorded in the GREAT PEACE of the Iroquois as also in the indigenous aboriginal folklore generally, which is why such folklore accords with modern physics understanding of the way that Nature works.


Pathogen elimination has become the first course of action of Western society, rather than the back-up.  Philosophically and scientifically, there is no such thing as a pathogen, but there is relational polarization that can give rise to a ‘short-circuit’ where someone or something ‘gets zapped’.  The natural remedy is as found in the ‘healing circles’ of indigenous aboriginal cultures where the root source of relational imbalance (polarization) is addressed and dealt with.


Western culture has largely opted for elevating the allopathic approach to the first course of action, in both the management of relational dynamics within the individual and within the dynamics of the social collective.  This is problematic particularly where the influences giving rise to polarization continue undiminished or are even amplified by the anti-pathogen actions.  The anti-pathogen approach has become the single tool for addressing conflict, and as with the man whose only tool is a hammer, everything is looking like a nail.


REMEMBRANCE, for Hygieans, is something we want to be recorded in a picture of the reconciled ‘sides’ shaking hands.  This is the way of the PEACEMAKER, as in the indigenous aboriginal (e.g. Iroquois) legend of the peacemaker, Dekanawideh, does not seek to overthrow or exterminate the evil  (pathogen) Adodarho, but to meet and find re-conciliatory harmony through mutual participation in relational transformation that subsumes polarized tensions.


We know, from natural experience, this kind of ’Hygiean’  REMEMBRANCE and how natural and harmonious it feels because it is very often our natural ethic in resolving interpersonal strife, and it has the same topological relational form as in the stories of Robin Hood and Jean Valjean, where ‘rebalancing’ is the first-sought remedy for antithetical polarization, rather than taking the imbalance to the abstract extreme of division into the binary opposites of ‘good’ versus ‘evil’.  As Heraclitus pointed out; in nature, such extreme opposites are the ingredients of harmony as in the pulled string of the Lyre, … the point is not to persist in opposition until EITHER one OR the other prevails, but to move forward so as to transcend the polarization to a new understanding where BOTH the one AND the other are mutually accommodating.  This is referred to as QUANTUM LOGIC OF THE INCLUDED MEDIUM, in modern physics wherein ‘figure’ and ‘ground’ are NOT TWO mutually exclusive things-in-themselves, but only appear so, as with the duning and desert floor, where language and naming is what imputes ontological thing-in-itself TWONESS where there is UNITY that merely gives the appearance of TWONESS, as with figure-and-ground in a fluid dynamic.


REMEMBRANCE can thus also come in our acknowledgement of ‘mitakuye oyasin’, ‘we are all related’ by our common inclusion within the transforming relational continuum aka ‘the Tao’ aka ‘the Great Mystery’ aka the Logos’ aka ‘the wavefield’.


MEANWHILE, WESTERN CULTURE ‘REMEMBRANCE’ can harden and entrench our Aesculapian EITHER GOOD OR BAD, EITHER WINNER OR LOSER way of thinking by celebrating the ‘defeat of an enemy’ and thus stopping short of celebrating the reunification of brothers who had become polarized against one another.   Do we want to understand the achievement of our fallen-in-battle friends and relatives as their contribution to WINNING THE WAR, … or to the re-establishment of peace and harmony?  Do we want to continue to walk the proud walk of winners and spit on the defeated, or do we want to embrace our war-alienated brothers and rejoice in the healing of a bitter division?  What of these understandings do we want to associate with the REMEMBRANCE of the sacrifice of our fallen brothers, … the Hygiean or the Aesculapian understanding?


* * *




Soldiers tend to be faithful followers of political leaders that represent the ‘sovereignty’ of their nation, and many nations demand of their citizens the solemn oath of allegiance that includes the commitment to ‘bear arms’ in support of their nation, which means, in support of the leader of their nation, whatever sort of individual that may be.


Western culture has this penchant for binary thinking in terms of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and the exalting of ‘winners’ and the demeaning of ‘losers’, although political leaders appeal to the noble and heroic spirit of those in their armed services to throw themselves body and soul into the fray in support of their nation and their national leader.  In fact, such encouragement is common to all nations, and citizens swear oaths that they will support their nation’s leader, and that is seen in Western culture as an ‘honourable’ thing.

War-making does not ‘come out of the blue’.  Nations are like people that bully and abuse one another and the bullying and abuse that emerges on the surface always has subterranean roots that derive from past conflicts and unresolved tensions.  Therefore, the identification of the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ in wartime is highly ambiguous and not nearly so seamlessly explicit and polar as it is almost always presented.  The politicians, who are the ones that engender war, are careful to put the spotlight on their successful troops as ‘heroes’ and of course the politicians that lead their nation into loss, will quickly make themselves scarce, or be incarcerated, executed or take their own lives.  Meanwhile, their faithful supporters in their armed services, no matter how bravely and selflessly they kept their vows to bear arms and risk or give their lives in support of their nation, will now be cursed as ‘losers’ by the ‘winners’ rather than celebrated for their selfless commitment to their vows to support their nation in conflict, and thus to support the decisions of the incumbent leader and his decisions however they play out.  That is what ‘nationalism’ expects of its citizenry.


For the soldiers on the ‘losing side’, no matter how courageous and committed they were to their vows of allegiance and arms-bearing, a loss will bring the contempt of their vanquishing ‘superiors’.  For example, if their nation’s aggressive actions were rooted in reaction to prior ‘put-down’ and abuse by others who ‘had the upper hand’, such historical understanding will be entirely ignored when it comes time for the ‘winners’ to deal with the ‘losers’.  Thus, what we Western culture adherents promote as honorable and courageous, the support of ‘my country right or wrong’, is given short shrift in our consideration of the ‘losers’ in such engagements.  Thus, the Germans who courageously supported their leader and nation in WWII




At D-Day Commemoration, Few Mourn the War’s Losers   … by Vivienne Walt / La Cambe, France  June 5, 2014


It may surprise the many Americans who have arrived in Normandy in France this week to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings, but the largest burial place here is not, in fact, the iconic U.S. war cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer about 10 miles from here. That site’s forest of sunlit, erect white crosses in perfectly symmetrical rows marks the graves of more than 9,387 Americans, memorialized for later generations in Hollywood movies, including the closing scene of the Tom Hanks hit, Saving Private Ryan.

Instead, among the many cemeteries for the 100,000 or so soldiers killed in the mammoth seaborne invasion on June 6, 1944 known as D-Day, and the three-month Battle for Normandy that followed, the biggest number of graves by far honor 21,222 soldiers who fought on the losing side: The Germans.

For many modern Europeans, the well-tended cemetery seems to symbolize a unified continent—a sign that old enemies are now allies within the 28-nation E.U., ironically, with the strongest and biggest nation being Germany. And yet, it was only in 2004 that a German leader, then Gerhard Schroeder, was first invited to attend the D-Day anniversary ceremonies. This year, Chancellor Angela Merkel will attend Friday’s international ceremony for 17 world leaders, including President Barack Obama.

* * *


But how did German leaders secure the support of German young men in a war or aggression (or was it retribution) in Europe?


The following 1919 newspaper ‘cartoon’ foretold the likelihood of a future war in 20 years when the innocents growing up in Germany who were hung with the albatross of ‘repugnant losers’ reached the age of maturity.



To be sure, many young men and women including those on the side of the Allies sacrificed life and limb in the service of their country, and the latter came out on the winning side, where their selfless efforts continue to be recognized.   The recognition of the veteran allied soldiers and those who died are presided over by political leaders, but only on the winning side where the leaders remain ‘in place’.   Did the soldiers on the losing side fight with less commitment and courage, … in fighting ultimately (towards the end) against insurmountable odds?  Is their human spirit somehow ‘less commendable’ because they were born into a historical flow that was taking them down the wrong river branch, the one that goes over the falls?


Is there any truth in the words of the song; … There but for fortune, go you or I, go you or I?


If so, why would we ant to REMEMBER OURSELVES  in the Aesculapian terms of ELIMINATORS OF PATHOGENS rather than in the Hygiean terms of RESTORERS OF BALANCE AND HARMONY?


How do WE (so the veteran must ask himself) want to be REMEMBERED?  Should this not be reflected in REMEMBRANCE DAY activity?  Do we want a Hygiean or an Aesculapian REMEMBRANCE?  Was the sacrifice of life for the restoring of harmony or for the elimination of pathogens?   Since we only rarely see Allied veterans of war embracing and commiserating with German veterans of war, it is evident that the Hygiean understanding of war is not ‘in place’ and that the Aesculapian understanding of war in terms where heroic saviours sacrifice life and limb to prevail over evil pathogens is the unvoiced cognitive backdrop.  As far as an individual finding himself being counted among the evil pathogens rather than the  heroic saviours, … history shows that; … there but for fortune, go you or I, … go you or I.


AS WITH THE INDIGENOUS ABORIGINAL DEKANAWIDEH, the Aesculapian vision of ‘pathogen elimination’ can be ‘seen through’ as an OVER-SIMPLISTIC ABSTRACTION … AN INTELLECTUAL (double-error based) REDUCTION that OBSCURES AND ECLIPSES our view of conflict in NATURAL terms of relational dissonance that can be resolved through the cultivating and sustaining of relational harmony.  THE CONCEPT OF A ‘PATHOGEN’ IS A DOUBLE ERROR OF LANGUAGE AND GRAMMAR (the first error is ‘naming’ that imputes notional independent thing-in-itself being , conflated with (second error) grammar that imputes to the naming-instantiated thing-in-itself (first error) the power of sourcing actions and development.


THERE ARE NO ‘PATHOGENS’, THERE IS ONLY RELATIONAL DISSONANCE.  WHEN RELATIONAL HARMONY PHASE SHIFTS TO RELATIONAL DISSONANCE, it is Western culture adherents penchant for double error based thinking that imputes the existence of SORCERY wherein the SORCERER of undesirable actions and development is also known as the PATHOGEN.



In other words, the belief in PATHOLOGY AND PATHOGENS, is the belief in SORCERY and SORCERERS, and such SUPERSTITIOUS belief is alive and well in Western culture (It resides within Newtonian alchemy-based physics’ which has yet to be superseded as the popular basis for Western operative reality, by modern physics).

* * *