Monday, April 17, 2006

In the Mouth of Beelzubub

'May the face of G-d shine upon you' Israel. The ego of the infant is said to believe it has two mothers, one capable of absolute protection, the other wishing it to be absolutely destroyed. The analyst Giovachini references this. The Palestinian government takes the destructive mother as god, identifies with her in destroying those who have not already succumbed to her death.

11 comments:

Nathalie said...

Do you think it's possible to associate nations' behavior to a mental state? I saw that Giovacchini wrote a lot about borderline and something about a split ego (talking as a commoner not a psydoc , don't shoot me...). I know borderline people have self destructive tendencies including of course , suicide ... does it relate to your line of thought re: the Palestinians?

michael said...

Ever since the Mufti chosen by the British for some perverted reason from candidates some of whom received more votes than he, Islam in Palestine has needed to receive schooling from the real Cosa Nostra to improve its level of civilization. If one cursorily looks at religion as a regression in the service of the ego and a way, in part, to deal with the infantile experiences, cf. my blogpost, and one looks at 'isms' as the new religions of the twentieth century, then there might be a good correlation between Nazism and communism and their embrace of the destructive mother as a principle of governance and their own self destruction. Thus should go Hamas. To me a most interesting side issue involves using the British perhaps again as a counterexample. But first, present background. My understanding, and I could look for the link, is that, though Hamas has a majority in the representative body, the majority of Palestinians did not vote for Hamas. The election was run, on the principle of a horse race, first passed the post. That's fine for finding the fastest horse; but, remove a lot of electoral candidates from the field, and limit it to 2; then the outcome in an election might well be different. That's why in the U.S. after the 'fasted' 2 are determined we have a 'runoff,' a term that, tipping its hat to the previous contest, may obscure what is going on. Hamas, as an organization, limited itself to one candidate in each district, a principle not followed by opponents. Now back to history. The British were told that, if they would stand fast at Munich, rebels including the chief of staff of the Army, would remove Hitler. The British always felt their enemy was the Germans, who they viewed inevitably as competitors, and refused to try and ally themselves with any section of them. In a sense, the British view coalesced the Germans as a principle of destruction and needlessly. The implications, as the mathematicians say, sometimes throwing us into fright at our ignorance, are 'obvious.' That is where the British do get it right in 'muddling through.' Thanks, really, for the comment though I'm not sure I've answered your question.

Alex said...

If the ego of the infant is said to believe it has two mothers, one capable of absolute protection, the other wishing it to be absolutely destroyed, and the Palestinian government takes the destructive mother as god, then who does it identify with as the mother who will protect unconditionally?

michael said...

The infant doesn't have both mothers at once. Whichever ego state it is in, it believes the perceived mother is the real one. That is why having a mother that is abolutely intent on destroying you is so terrifying.

Alex said...

So, if the mother is loving and nuturing one day and demeaning and intent on destroying you the next (possibly schizophrenia or multiple personality), how do you become a healthy adult who can find a balance so that you are not either completely trusting or completely fearful of everything and everyone? Either extreme has consequences that are often difficult to work through.

Michael said...

The mother in her personality is probably not all that different day to day though her absence can be difficult. The infant is in large part using the mother to balance it's internal stimuli. If need is not balanced by mother's attention then the infant perceives mother as wanting to destroy him or her. Think about how you feel in a restaurant when the waitress won't come around and you need something. Gradually, the infant integrates, to a large extent, it's views and feels there is only one mother who may be both, by turns, satisfying, but maybe not quite as powerful, that is delgated to Santa Claus, and frustrating. If the infant has to wall off, and we all probably do to some extent, feelings of frustration, then those are left to be projected onto the Other at a later date.

Nathalie said...

Michael, what happens when there is a bad integration of the two mothers: a bipolar personality, borderline disorder, stuff like that...? Or does it cause bad frustration management and asocial behavior?

michael said...

Yes, Nathalie, all of those things. My thought is also, suggested in my blog post, that religion is, in part, a controlled or structured regression in which a person recovers relationship with original objects, 'mothers,' which experience reworks one's identity and, thus, relationship with others. In this regression, a religion does not need to choose a relationship with a loving mother but may chose one with an annihilating one. Islam or 'submission' may find comfort in the latter. The offhand stories I have heard about the poor Saudi driving a car until it runs out of gas and leaving it, offering the explanation of 'fate' or the more complex behavior of the suicide bomber and Hamas may be consistent with that. One needs to say such things, even intellectually, with caution.

Alex said...

I now understand the connection between mother and religion and why people are drawn to specific churches and will kill in the name of G-D. I believe I have just had an epiphany! Thank you so much for that comment. I am really enjoying your posts.

Nathalie said...

Hum ... Is the choice of religion, in part, a structured regression or is it more trivially and simply an excellent refuge / answer for insecure people because it offers a framework with clear rules and good bounderies. I don't mean to say of course all religious people are insecure - I am a religious and practicing person myself. Insecure, me?

Michael said...

A religion chooses us through our parents of course. And people use it and evade it like any other 'gift.' My youngest son is about to go to a Jesuit high school. His mother wants him to take Spanish; I very much hope he will take Latin. I very much enjoyed reading the Gallic Wars by Caesar and his "Veni, Vidi, Vici," in a way a part of Catholic tradition. Your 'uses' for a religion leave me thinking of Catholicism. One might joke that Freud thought of Catholicism and wrote 'Totem and Taboo' as an ironic reflection, an outrageous, especially if one, as Lincoln said, likes that sort of thing, chapter. Rabbi S. Zimmerman, who became the head of the main Reform rabbinic school in the US, opined that the lost word for G-d said by the High Priest once a year was a variant of the verb 'be' or 'being.' This would fit with Moses salutation, 'Therefore choose life,' but is not just a loving god but would seem to allow for creative destruction.