as crazy, as out of his/her mind,etc. What we will do now is todeconstruct these notions with regards to the terrorist mind, and comment onthe effects of this discourse of psychopathology as it affects world conflicts. The discourse on thehuman mind participates in a Western field of doctrine that establishes whatcan be said, and who can say it. It hasthe status of a human science. It isgrounded on the dogma that the world is composed of individuals that have an interiority through which reality, the domain of the true, emerges. History is then the emergence andre-emergence of the domain of a universal consciousness. The past can be made present throughconsciousness. This could mean thatextinct cultures and ancient mind-sets come again and again into the world,which makes their concrete disappearance obsolete, and their existence aswell. The discourse on the nature ofthe mind has come about as a product of modernity; it is in no way aprogress of science, but only an arrangement of the domains of the true, which carries an order of powerwithin itself that served to rearrange what gets included and whatexcluded. One of these rearrangementswas the one regarding reason and folly. Already since the Middle Ages the madman was constructed as a subjectof both exclusion and inclusion into the domain of the truth about the humanbeing. Nevertheless, with the emergenceof Man as a subject of science, the opposition between reason and follygained new divisions and rejections[44]. These new divisions were permitted by anetwork of institutions such as the mental hospital and the prison[45],and the discourse on madness gained new forms. For one thing, today every person can berecognized, under the new discourse, as possessing a neurosis or something ofthis sort. On the other hand, thediscourse on madness has become such a part of everyday life that it allowsfor interventions - andnon-interventions, as well in the name of sanity. The idea of the integration of the humansubject with her/his inner truth is a pervasive one that legitimates wars tobe waged in the name of a sane, peaceful world. The Other is constructed as someone in need of intervention, social orpsychological, so that this Other will find out the true consciousness that leads to peace, for example. With total disregard forcultural-social-historical circumstances that lead a people to resistoppression, the discourse on consciousness legitimates interventions likewars and other acts by powerful States, for example, to be made in the name ofsanity. In the words of MichelFoucault (1972):Ifthe history of thought could remain the locus of uninterrupted continuities, ifit could endlessly forge connections that no analysis could undo withoutabstraction, if it could weave, around everything that men say and do, obscuresynthesis that anticipate for him, prepare him, and lead him endlessly towardshis future, it would provide a privileged shelter for the sovereignty ofconsciousness. Continuous history is theindispensable correlative of the founding function of the subject: theguarantee that everything that has eluded him will be restored to him; thecertainty that time will disperse nothing without restoring it in areconstituted unity; the promise that one day the subject in the form ofhistorical consciousness will once again