The Republican Party Bless Their Hearts

[silent woman]

So many tools we have for war
Even Jesus brought a sword I have read.

“may not know, until too late, when to turn it off.” Norbert Wiener — “Some Moral and Technical Consequences of Automation

Fromm stated
that “in the nineteenth century inhumanity meant cruelty; in the twentieth century it means schizoid self-alienation”

. . . a very interesting theory of schizophrenia in 1956. A person might
become a schizophrenic if he had been forced to endure (while very young) a
“double-binding” situation—a totally contradictory situation in which he
could not win no matter what he would do. A typical double-binding situation
was created in a family with a contradictory mother and the absence of a strong father (Bateson, et al. 1956).
22
. . .Many people viewed the sixties as something like a double-binding situation. Nuclear horror and conflicting authorities “mobilize[d] and actualize[d] this world of schizophrenic,” . . .
In his book Burning Conscious (1962), the Austrian philosopher Günter
Anders wrote that the reality and the image of nuclear mass murder created the “raging schizophrenia of our day” where people act like “isolated and uncoordinated beings.” Here schizophrenia was more than a metaphor. The book was a collection of the correspondences between Anders and the “hero of Hiroshima” Major Claude Robert Eatherly who was at that time suffering from “the delayed action of the atomic bomb on its possessors” (Eatherly & Anders 1962). In the 1950s, Eatherly had twice attempted suicide, been arrested for fraud, and alternated between court appearances and mental hospitals several times. He had been diagnosed as a schizophrenic. Bertrand Russell was sympathetic with Eatherly, emphasizing that insanity existed within the society, not within him. Defining the condition of mankind as the “technification of our being,” Anders explained in his first letter to Eatherly that he who had been a screw in a “military machine” now wanted to be a human again. Being schizophrenic was the only way to revive his humanity or to live sanely in the crazy world.
24
In one of his letters to Anders, Eatherly spoke somewhat hopefully of nuclear
scientists. I would like to ask you some questions. Could we trust those nuclear scientists to delay their work and paralyze the political and military
organizations? Would they be willing to risk their first love by giving
up all the grants, laboratories and government support, and to unite
and demand a trusted guardian for their brainchild? If they could do
this, then we would be safe (p. 22).
Could science and scientists save people?

http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Docume ... 1/hong.pdf