Orgone Energy

[MetaKron]

Metakron - by conventional standards it would appear as if phogistician's claim that Reich was a pervert was an accurate one. He made it as a passing comment. The sidetracking of the discussion has been by those who have tried to claim Reich was not a pervert, when the evidence appears to support this.
Should this have anything to do with how we perceive Reich's ideas? Absolutely not. I don't think Phlog was suggesting it should. [If he was I would, on that point, disagree with him vehemently.]

He did it to make people angry. Don't insult my intelligence. If you, he, or Light do not have anything to contribute to the discussion as reasoning adults, consider not contributing. Any REASONED rebuttal is welcome. It would be a first from your side, not only on the forum but in history.

 

[Ophiolite]

Now you are asking for a reasoned rebuttal, yet your own response seems emotionally charged.
How do you know he made the statement to make people angry? That is your opinion, not a fact.
In what way am I insulting your intelligence?
I believe I am being reasonable by suggesting that Phlog's comments were in passing, and that it is arguable that the consequent off-topic discussion has revolved around challenging his veracity. Why was this not a reasonable contribution? I was attempting to defuse the situation by being reasonable. Why are you accusing me of being unreasonable?

 

[duendy]

Now you are asking for a reasoned rebuttal, yet your own response seems emotionally charged.
How do you know he made the statement to make people angry? That is your opinion, not a fact.
In what way am I insulting your intelligence?
I believe I am being reasonable by suggesting that Phlog's comments were in passing, and that it is arguable that the consequent off-topic discussion has revolved around challenging his veracity. Why was this not a reasonable contribution? I was attempting to defuse the situation by being reasonable. Why are you accusing me of being unreasonable?

Oh, why dont ya just get down and get yer nose up phlo...practice what yer preach

and i also wpuld like to see wha t YOU get up to my puritan friend. shit if theres on ting i detest its others callin others perverts...i mean for fuks sake its 21st century!...on o ya fukin presidents got blow jobs under his desk for chriiisakes. and dont AKS what Blair's a part of. but ohhh nooo, you NEVER crtitcize those in authority do you. you go for your 'woo woos' dont you? you love to call names and try and defame etc , even when person is dead, and cant defend your vile propaganda.
the only peple who deserve the title 'pervert' are pedophiles--ie adults who molest prepubescent children.....And want some wisdom. when you even marginilize THEM wid your namecallin, you actually create a more dangerous environment for children (another thread maybe!)....

cannot you see what you are like, and what you defend?.......obviously not!

 

[phlogistician]

Calling Reich a 'perv' was fairly casual, and not meant to be an ad hom, but rather more an observation.

Reich seems sexually obsessed. His studies were driven by his strange desires. Despite claims about his work, there is nothing quantifiable. Plenty of clamis about what 'orgone' energy is, that it is massless, it defies entropy, it is fundamental, and it is life force, but not a single way of proving any of this. Why? Because 'orgone energy' was Reich's pathology, not a real entity.

 

[phlogistician]

He did it to make people angry.

No I didn't. This is debate, and to debate, requires being emotionally detached from the subject. Scientists are prepared to drop a theory if the evidence suggests it is flawed. We remain detached from our theories, because if you start to admire them, it will be harder to abandon them when evidence contradicts them. If you are getting angry, it is because of one or more things; You like these theories too much. You feel frustrated that others don't see things the way you do. You cannot explain or define exactly what it is you want to discuss (because let's face it, there are no measurements, just allusion and prose).

Don't insult my intelligence.

I'm not. You have some grasp of science, it's just mis-applied.

If you, he, or Light do not have anything to contribute to the discussion as reasoning adults, consider not contributing. Any REASONED rebuttal is welcome. It would be a first from your side, not only on the forum but in history.

OK, so I called you an idiot for thinking you can see orgone energy. Do you think that is a reasonable claim? Do you not admit that what you describe matches the phenomena of floaters?

If you want a rebuttal, a reasoned rebuttal, try posting some facts, and we'll discuss those.

 

[duendy]

Calling Reich a 'perv' was fairly casual, and not meant to be an ad hom, but rather more an observation.

me)))))not meant to be a ad hom.??..no MEANT to be a adhom..?????? callin someone a pervert? right, so if i call you one nextmpost you will say it aint a ad hom right?...you joker

Reich seems sexually obsessed. His studies were driven by his strange desires. Despite claims about his work, there is nothing quantifiable. Plenty of clamis about what 'orgone' energy is, that it is massless, it defies entropy, it is fundamental, and it is life force, but not a single way of proving any of this. Why? Because 'orgone energy' was Reich's pathology, not a real entity.

so he's 'crazy' now as well as a 'pervert' and i bet THA extra insult aint a ad hom in ph;o's absurd universe wherehemakesup the rules to suit himself all the way along!
and we are expctedto trust YOU and your great understanding oh pure one??

you know when you come phlo? isit like a sneeze??

 

[duendy]

No I didn't. This is debate, and to debate, requires being emotionally detached from the subject.

me))))Mwhahahhahah....what does onesay to this declaration?? so, phlo, you leave emotions out ofdebate do ou. you who are spittin ad hom him spittin self......right i see. phlo saya so... it MUST be true,....right......?

Scientists are prepared to drop a theory if the evidence suggests it is flawed. We remain detached from our theories, because if you start to admire them, it will be harder to abandon them when evidence contradicts them. If you are getting angry, it is because of one or more things; You like these theories too much. You feel frustrated that others don't see things the way you do. You cannot explain or define exactly what it is you want to discuss (because let's face it, there are no measurements, just allusion and prose).

me))))))see that speech? say it and look at yerself in te mirror. say it errrm about 500times, no....1000!



I'm not. You have some grasp of science, it's just mis-applied.

me)))))))says thelivin breathing science book who knows everything.



OK, so I called you an idiot for thinking you can see orgone energy. Do you think that is a reasonable claim? Do you not admit that what you describe matches the phenomena of floaters?

me)))no YOUR emotional denyin self thinks that which you arrogantly assume and push on others. you claim to KNOW anothers experience.

If you want a rebuttal, a reasoned rebuttal, try posting some facts, and we'll discuss those.

facts facts facts ey mr gradgrind 11?

 

[MetaKron]

No I didn't. This is debate, and to debate, requires being emotionally detached from the subject. Scientists are prepared to drop a theory if the evidence suggests it is flawed. We remain detached from our theories, because if you start to admire them, it will be harder to abandon them when evidence contradicts them. If you are getting angry, it is because of one or more things; You like these theories too much. You feel frustrated that others don't see things the way you do. You cannot explain or define exactly what it is you want to discuss (because let's face it, there are no measurements, just allusion and prose).



I'm not. You have some grasp of science, it's just mis-applied.



OK, so I called you an idiot for thinking you can see orgone energy. Do you think that is a reasonable claim? Do you not admit that what you describe matches the phenomena of floaters?

If you want a rebuttal, a reasoned rebuttal, try posting some facts, and we'll discuss those.

If I didn't have as much experience with the net as I do, I would be surprised that you can defend the way that you present yourself. I once thought that scientists of the mainstream were supposed to act like gentlemen and scholars, not like the wierdness that I have seen so many times. Following your illustrious career here, and a vast majority of the defenders of the mainstream elsewhere, I have learned that wierdness is what you have.

This should be a rule: If you don't have anything substantial to say, don't say it or at least keep it short. No one here is going to be made to believe that you are behaving like anything but a disruptive brat. I'm still a little surprised that you even try.

The whole idea is to make it useless for me to present my views. You deliberately trash the discussion by acting like a child.

I am not going to submit anything to you for your criticism. You don't know how to behave yourself. Go away and don't come back.

 

[MetaKron]

Calling Reich a 'perv' was fairly casual, and not meant to be an ad hom, but rather more an observation.

Reich seems sexually obsessed. His studies were driven by his strange desires. Despite claims about his work, there is nothing quantifiable. Plenty of clamis about what 'orgone' energy is, that it is massless, it defies entropy, it is fundamental, and it is life force, but not a single way of proving any of this. Why? Because 'orgone energy' was Reich's pathology, not a real entity.

You really are a cheap bastard.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh, why dont you just get down and get your nose up phlo...practice what you preach

I routinely practice what I preach. I fail to grasp its relevance here.

And I also would like to see what YOU get up to my puritan friend? Shit if there's one thing i detest its others calling others perverts.

What I do or do not get up to is incidental to what Reich got up to. Either Reich and I are both perverts, or he was a pervert, and I am not. Our relative perversions are wholly independent and therefore mine (real or imagined) is irrelevant to this discussion.
You seem to feel that calling someone a pervert is perjorative. I feel it is simply descriptive. Which is the more judgemental attitude?

One of your fukin presidents got blow jobs under his desk for chrisakes.

Not one of my President's. I don't have (and have never had) any President's: not even in the biblical sense of having known one. [Although I was once within spitting distance of President Kosygin, but that's another matter.]

And dont ASK what Blair's a part of. but ohhh nooo, you NEVER crtitcize those in authority do you.

I disagree. The following examples were posted by me in this and another forum:
1.Using the incorrect title of the thread, "what is total victory of terrorism" it includes the following.
Restriction of freedoms in the target countries by governments under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Removal of freedoms in the target countries by governments under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Carrying out of invasions, not internationally sanctioned, by target countries governments under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Creating divisions within the target countries, which divisions are deepened by anti-terrorist rhetoric and legislation of those countries goverments.
The function of terrorism in this context is to create reaction that will produce changes in the target country so that it no longer is the country it was, but has sacrificed many of its values in order to counter terrorism. And Bush and Blair and their cronies fell for it hook, line and sinker.

2.You may have gathered I am no fan of Blair. My opinion of him from an early stage was 'smarmy git.' [I'm not sure how well that translates to American - brown-nosing asshole, perhaps.]
Bush utterly appals me in so many ways I have lost count, but I will say this for him. He has firm beliefs and he acts on those beliefs. Not so with our Tony.

You go for your 'woo woos' dont you? You love to call names and try and defame etc , even when person is dead, and cant defend your vile propaganda.

I have already explained that I do not consider calling someone a pervert to be any different from calling them short, or a Methodist, or a carpenter. It is a descriptive term. So I am not defaming them. Further, I have not called Recih a pervert, I have concurred with the notion that that is probably an apt description.

The only peple who deserve the title 'pervert' are pedophiles--

No. I think they deserve the title ‘paedophiles’, though quite what that has to do with the discussion I am at a loss to understand.

cannot you see what you are like, and what you defend?.......obviously not!

I am not defending anything. I am seeking to clarify certain aspects of Phlogistician’s posts that have apparently been misunderstood by others.

 

[duendy]

I routinely practice what I preach. I fail to grasp its relevance here.


What I do or do not get up to is incidental to what Reich got up to. Either Reich and I are both perverts, or he was a pervert, and I am not. Our relative perversions are wholly independent and therefore mine (real or imagined) is irrelevant to this discussion.

me(((((((callin Reich a perv wa also irrelevant to this discussion, but you've got yer nose so faaar up phlo's tush you can only see crack

You seem to feel that calling someone a pervert is perjorative. I feel it is simply descriptive. Which is the more judgemental attitude?

me))))))))i see. lisen. nest time yer in the pub. go up to the first dude bigger than you, and say 'hey fancy a pint pervert'...let me know what happens..oKAY?

Not one of my President's. I don't have (and have never had) any President's: not even in the biblical sense of having known one. [Although I was once within spitting distance of President Kosygin, but that's another matter.]

I disagree. The following examples were posted by me in this and another forum:
1.Using the incorrect title of the thread, "what is total victory of terrorism" it includes the following.
Restriction of freedoms in the target countries by governments under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Removal of freedoms in the target countries by governments under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Carrying out of invasions, not internationally sanctioned, by target countries governments under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Creating divisions within the target countries, which divisions are deepened by anti-terrorist rhetoric and legislation of those countries goverments.
The function of terrorism in this context is to create reaction that will produce changes in the target country so that it no longer is the country it was, but has sacrificed many of its values in order to counter terrorism. And Bush and Blair and their cronies fell for it hook, line and sinker.

2.You may have gathered I am no fan of Blair. My opinion of him from an early stage was 'smarmy git.' [I'm not sure how well that translates to American - brown-nosing asshole, perhaps.]
Bush utterly appals me in so many ways I have lost count, but I will say this for him. He has firm beliefs and he acts on those beliefs. Not so with our Tony.

me)))gfood. we agree bout phony blair

I have already explained that I do not consider calling someone a pervert to be any different from calling them short, or a Methodist, or a carpenter. It is a descriptive term. So I am not defaming them. Further, I have not called Recih a pervert, I have concurred with the notion that that is probably an apt description.

mePPPPso you gonna do the pub tang then? after all its only like callin someone shorty innit?

No. I think they deserve the title ‘paedophiles’, though quite what that has to do with the discussion I am at a loss to understand.

me))))))quite simpl. dont call people pervs. especially my friend, Wilhelm. we dont like it, and wont put up with such abuse!

I am not defending anything. I am seeking to clarify certain aspects of Phlogistician’s posts that have apparently been misunderstood by others.

i know, his unappointed apologist....ahhhh, how sweet. all materialists together in solidarity, defending each facist move they do to others.

 

[phlogistician]

I am not going to submit anything to you for your criticism. You don't know how to behave yourself. Go away and don't come back.

Because you have nothing to present.

I asked you to link to Reichs pictures of orgone sparks, which you claimed he took. You failed to do so.

You fail to answer my question about your symptoms being those of floaters.

And again you make a claim that I'm a cheap bastard, but you don't say why. Well, keep on with the ad homs, it really makes you seem more credible.

This is just a dodge, because you know Reich was odd. So rather than address the point, you just attack me. That, is childish behvaviour, but in another dodge, you level that accusation at me first!

So, it's put up or shut up time. Some fact or evidence, please.

 

[Ophiolite]

That didn't really add anything did it Duendy? You broadly appear to be acknowledging that your emotional attack on me was unjustified - though that hasn't stopped you launching a further one.
You suggest that I go up to someone in the pub and say, 'hey fancy a pint pervert'...
This will be difficult to implement for two reasons:
1. I would need evidence for making that claim. I am not going to apply it randomly to the first person I meet.
2. I am Scottish, we do not buy people pints unless we can avoid it.

I have certainly done similar in pubs on other occasions. Based upon comments made to me, or overheard, I have directly accused individuals of being undeducated morons, or thoughtless, mindless pimples on the arse of humanity. This generally engenders a comment such as "you know I can beat the shit out of you". So far, the reply "which would exactly prove my point that you are a mindless moron", has forestalled any actual physical attack.
Rest assured, at the first opportunity I shall call someone a pervert - just don't ask me to buy them a pint as well.

 

[phlogistician]

not meant to be a ad hom.??..no MEANT to be a adhom..?????? callin someone a pervert? right, so if i call you one nextmpost you will say it aint a ad hom right?...you joker

If you called me a pervert without any reason, then that would be an ad hom. If you discovered I was a serial adulterer (I'm not, I've been faithful to my partner of ten years) and indulged in some rather strange sexual practices, calling me a pervert would be apt.

so he's 'crazy' now

Are you saying that stating orgasm energy is the basis of matter is sane? Do you think attaching electrodes to your dick is balanced?

 

[MetaKron]

<Editing out the part where I told someone what he could do with himself.>

Is there anyone who wants to ask me about the sparklies who can speak English or any other language in something like a polite tone and not waste my time with verbal abuse and stupidity? Damn, I mean, it's hard to read Duendy's stuff but at least there is a real human being behind it. I prefer hers by far over the material written by the trolls here.

There are numerous ways to test the reality of the sparklies. One if whether you see the same view with both eyes. For them to be "floaters" is impossible if you see the same field of sparklies with either eye. Crossing your eyes is a good test because then you see the same pattern doubled. There are also some that are closer and some that appear to be much farther away. Another test is that they all appear to move in the same manner, are exactly the same color. They move independently of each other. This is an important distinction because floaters tend to move the same direction.

Floaters tend to be dark objects and shadows, and when I looked it up, they mentioned flashes of light, sort of like seeing stars after being hit on the head. The trouble is that these are distinctly different. The flashes of light that are orgone particles are out in front a ways. The flashes of light from mechanical stimulation of the retina are short, sharp, usually against a dark background, and well, they are different. Anyone who sneezes and sees lights knows what I'm talking about.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you think attaching electrodes to your dick is balanced?

I think it has both positive and negatives aspects. However, I think you and Duendy may be poles apart on this one. I would certainly agree it is shocking behaviour; quite revolting really. Not a current practice, i imagine, nor one that would be amply rewarding. Assault and battery, even if on your own person, could easily land you in a cell.

 

[phlogistician]

So what colour are they? How big? How long do they last? Do you see them more some times than others? Does anybody else see them? Have you ever touched one? Do you wear glasses or contact lenses? Ever had any head/eye trauma?

A FULL description please!

 

[phlogistician]

I think you and Duendy may be poles apart on this one.

Yeah, with duendy it's 'anything goes' I guess. Probably because she's had to accept this as OK due to past experiences. I bet a 50 something acid casualty has been in some scrapes.

 

[duendy]

,

If you called me a pervert without any reason, then that would be an ad hom. If you discovered I was a serial adulterer (I'm not, I've been faithful to my partner of ten years) and indulged in some rather strange sexual practices, calling me a pervert would be apt.

me))))))oh sweet shit. mr perfect and mr borin all in one self-righteous package. spare us ..please! NEXT you'll be preachin fire and brimstone backed up by 'science'.
heha..phlo, your worldview is the perfect example as how the same patrarchal mindset carries thru the change of paradigms. i am sure Reich would laugh wid me too


Are you saying that stating orgasm energy is the basis of matter is sane? Do you think attaching electrodes to your dick is balanced?

right,yer trying to hook me into your old farts gossipin club are you?? . aint gonna happen. my mind would blow your enclosed-thingy apart. believe me!......i have always intuited, both from my research into mythology and experientially that this here---this here Nature is EROTIC........sexaulity, orgasmic-ness, eroticism isn't just the sexual act.....it is intrinsic to lifedeathregeneration, the air, the feeling, all sensuality. prepatriarchal peoples knew it, patriarchhy demonized it, the Goddess/Nature/Feminine in her Wild Aspect/Psychedelic Inspiration which awakens eroticism in relation with environment! Then in its mechanistic 'phase'/NOW , materialistic worldview doesn't even recognize it TO even demonize it. thats where yo at facts-machine

 

[Ophiolite]

A friend of mine always did stammer,
While using what was near perfect grammar,
I mention this here,
Out of genuine fear,
That Duendy will continue to yammer.

She says Nature's largely erotic
[The Greeks said as much in Demotic]
While our patriarchal clout,
Drove the good people out,
Making our overall stance quite despotic.