No Subject

[dsr@uvacs.cs.virginia.edu (Dana S. Richards)]

I would like to respond to the rather mean-spirited response by
Andrew Marvick, to my posting about Kate and orgone energy.
I will not continue this discussion here, (though email is fine),
since andrew (he does not think it is impolite to use the 
miniscule form in addressing others) is repeatedly cited as a reliable
source of information in this group; `debates' on someone else's
home turf are never true debates.

I would like to refer to myself as XYZ. While there is no doubt a good reason
why someone would write sentences such as `IED, though, doesn't see ...', 
I do not much care to know the reason. 
But since it is a poor debating tactic to refer to oneself differently 
I will adopt XYZ (instead of referring to IED as `andrew').

The confrontational tone is clear:

]     [XYZ], you'd do well to find out a little more about your subjects
]     before condemning them so violently.

]     IED has to explain something pretty basic here that you've missed, [XYZ].

]     Well, you've certainly got it all figured out, [XYZ].

]     an admirable openmindedness when it comes to subjects which she is 
]     not _thoroughly_ familiar with--unlike yourself

The tone has little to with the technical content of XYZ's posting, XYZ thinks,
but, instead, is a knee-jerk reaction by IED to XYZ's impugning Kate's
choice of material and the way she dealt with it.  (XYZ doubts she much
cares if IED comes to her rescue.)

An appropriate response to XYZ's posting might be: `The song concerns
Peter Reich's book, which you may already be acquainted with.  Try
listening to it with that perspective.'  Instead we get ......


] >Orgone energy and Reich is the purest kind of pseudo-science;
] >there is no component of real science at all.   It is completely
] >worthless and artless - anyone could invent something more
] >believable at the drop of a hat.
]
]     Dana, you'd do well to find out a little more about your subjects
]before condemning them so violently. Reich's late theories are pretty
]clearly insane, that's not really disputable. No one in this group, nor
]Kate herself, has ever argued for the _scientific_validity_ of Reich's
]theories of orgone energy.

The theory is a series of statements that are falsifiable (and false!).
It is not metaphysical, philosophical, or religious; if it has
no scientific validity is just plain worthless.

]     Of course, it is just as true that relying on Martin
]Gardner's secondhand, short-order dismissal of another man's life work
]is not the "scientific method" of seeking reliable data in order to reach
]a sound conclusion. You really ought to read some of Reich's books your-
]self. Try _The_Bion_Experiments_, which is a classic, and not too long.
                                              ^^^^^^^ ?
Is IED saying XYZ is not acquainted with the details of Reich's works?
Further XYZ suggests that IED will find Gardner a far more reliable and less
biased source of information than Peter Reich.

]     IED's main objection to your comments above only concerns
]your statement that orgone theory is not just scientifically
]bogus, but "artless", as well. The former has never been at issue here.
]The latter, however, is, in IED's opinion (and judgements of the
]"artfulness" of any work can only remain opinion), _utterly_false_.
]The late works of Wilhelm Reich are set out in a mixture of fervent,
]deluded conviction and scholarly presentation that give his ideas
]a hypnotic, almost magical appeal. They may not be "true", but they
]_are_ artful.

XYZ tried _avoid_ the obvious response in the last sentence, by carefully
including the word `artless', with an explanation of what XYZ meant by that.
Grand theories by cranks are a dime-a-dozen and Reich's is one of the
least interesting.  If IED thinks they have a `magical appeal', then IED
is easily impressed, or doesn't get out much.

] >and the apparatus is the same as the ornate version on the Kate EP cover.
]
]     Incidentally, your statement that the real Cloudbuster was
]the same as Kate's is also false. 
      [The rest of this paragraph then seeks to show that, in fact,
       the statement is true.  XYZ does know what it looks like. Sheesh!]

]     IED has to explain something pretty basic here that you've missed,
][XYZ]. Kate's song _isn't_about_  Wilhelm Reich, at all. The song is a
]treatment of Reich's _son's_ memoirs of his childhood. The book, by Peter
]Reich, is called _A_Book_of_Dreams_. 

This is what XYZ needed to know.
XYZ cannot help but be impressed by IED's choice of `treatment';  this
leaves open that it is not `about' the book, but just some sort of
impressionistic treatment.
If it were actually about the book then all XYZ's other comments still apply.
Otherwise it is an ethereal book report.

]Neither the song nor the book
]deals with the question (if there is one) of the scientific legitimacy
]of Reich Sr.'s ideas. Both deal solely with the experiences of a small
]boy, his adult memories, and his love for his father. To Peter, as a
]child, the theories of orgone energy which Reich attached to the
]Cloudbuster (and to every other aspect of his work) were far less
]clear or interesting than the machine's other alleged (and to
]Reich Sr., less significant) function, namely rainmaking. That is
]why there is no mention of orgone energy in the song, only of rainmaking.

Now here is where XYZ is negatively impressed by IED's `critical faculties'.

It is certainly curious that Peter cannot seem to understand orgone energy, 
while 1000s of others seem to; he tries to avoids claiming to believe 
anything that is patently absurd.   But Peter does claim to understand,
or at least is intrigued by the real possibility of, rainmaking.
The two are inextricably mixed.
To claim to believe in (to even discuss) cloudbusting without mentioning
orgone energy is an intellectually dishonest ploy.
If this IED's idea of a defense, then the situation is worse than expected.

Peter is not just an observer of nonsense; he has used the cloudbuster to
shoot at UFOs (`EAs')!  It must be mentioned that neo-Reichians are, as 
always, profiting ($$) from others gullibility with their cloudbusting,
accumulators, and such.  While XYZ has no evidence, it must be considered
that Peter will profit as long as he straddles the fence.

]     Kate wrote the song because she was deeply moved by Peter's
]memoirs. She found the book quite by chance, when she visited
]an occult bookstore in London one day and felt the title "calling
]out" to her.

XYZ thinks that _A_Book_of_Dreams_ must have been one the least surprising
titles in any bookstore, much less an occult one (XYZ will not pursue the
question of what she was doing in such a store - its a free country).
(Gardner calls the book a `touching biography of his father'.)
But this is of no real importance.

]Remember, also, that Kate has since become a personal friend of Peter Reich,
]whom she greatly respects and likes.

Hence IED's uncritical and `openminded' attitude towards peter.

]We can therefore safely assume that any negative opinions
]she might harbour concerning Wilhelm Reich's work (probably non-existent,
]knowing Kate and her eternal, invincible and admirable to think the best
]of everyone and everything), she would want to keep to herself.

This is the kind of thing XYZ avoids by not reading rec.music.gaffa.

]     Also, it's worth remembering that, although Reich's work may
]be less than scientific, his suffering at the hands of a McCarthy-era
]FDA in the U.S. on trumped-up charges of "interstate trafficking of
]medical supplies" is the only real travesty in the whole Reich story--
]certainly not Reich's work, which was always completely harmless, and
]often quite beautiful.

IED, `you'd do well to find out a little more about your subjects
before condemning them so violently.'
Reich's work is not harmless; perhaps XYZ was too circumspect when he
said it was worthless - it is dangerous to people's health and their
pocketbooks. He repeatedly recommended orgone energy (used in conjunction
with various accumulators) be used to cure illnesses, such as cancer.
It is dangerous the same as laetrile.
Peter, of course, thinks they were trumped up charges!

] >Does Kate believe it all?  You sure cannot tell be reading the lyrics.
] >(Why would someone write lyrics about a topic 99% of the listeners could
] >not possibly know of and then fail to inform the remaining 1% of any
] >outlook at all??)
]
]     This is really pretty annoying. First, why should Kate have
]any kind of _obligation_ to present some "outlook" on the value
]or lack of value in Reich Sr.'s theories? 

She is not obliged to do anything to please XYZ!  However the song is not about
a boy's introspective attitudes towards having grown up with a crazy father.
It concerns cloudbusting which rests on the `value in Reich Sr.'s theories'.
Without an outlook the _lyrics_ are pointless (in the strict sense of 
the word).

]IED has had many occasions to marvel at
]the high incidence of familiarity with Reich among Kate's _real_ fans.
]This is not because Kate's fans are more predisposed to get into Reich,
]but simply because serious fans of Kate's music go to at least _some_
]effort to find out what her songs are about! 

XYZ thinks he is real fan and finds IED's definition closeminded, 
self-serving, if not offensive.
In any event, even using IED's definition XYZ does not need to revise the 
percentages, unless IED wants to use the circular definition of only counting
those who _do_ understand all the lyrics.

   [Various `clues' mentioned.]

These clues do not point away from `Reich Sr.'s theories'.
(BTW, XYZ has not had an opportunity to see any Kate videos.)

] >If she does believe it then my respect for her critical faculties
] >drops right off the scale.
] >If she does not believe it then she should have at least hinted that
] >Reich was a outrageous crank.
] >It is a no win situation.

]     Well, you've certainly got it all figured out, [XYZ]. IED,
]though, doesn't see sense in either of your alternatives. First,
]if Kate _did_ "believe" in Reichian theory (extremely unlikely,
]based on what we know of her extraordinary intelligence as
]demonstrated over a ten-year-long career), what difference would
]that make upon the _power_of_her_art_? Which, after all, is why
]we all supposedly respect her--not because she's supposed to have
]"critical faculties" of some specified level.
]     And if she _doesn't_ believe in Reich's ideas (also probably
]untrue, since Kate has many times shown an admirable openmindedness
]when it comes to subjects which she is not _thoroughly_ familiar with--
]unlike yourself), why "should" she have any obligations to inject
]that dibelief into a song about Reich's _son_--or, for that matter,
]even into a song about Reich himself? Who's to say what Kate _should_
]or _shouldn't_ do in her art, except Kate herself? Why must any
]statement concerning Reich be pedagogical and editorial? And what
]would any such insertion of opinion have to do with the _artistic_
]value of the music?

Openmindedness is pretty funny stuff; for example:
She probably does believe it because she is admirably openminded AND it is 
extremely unlikely she believes it because she is extraordinarily intelligent.
IED is really pulling out all the stops at the end here!!

`Openmindedness' is the most common defense of pseudo-science,
but it does not mean entertaining ideas known to be nonsense -- it never has.
If she cannot identify cloudbusting as a sham after talking to
Peter for ten minutes then ....

XYZ's comments only came from trying to `make sense' of the lyrics.
XYZ never questioned the artistic value of the music; IED knows this but
he cannot resist a predictable and sweeping argument for dismissal.

dana