XYZ and cloudbusting

[IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: XYZ and cloudbusting

 > There follows a discussion of his early (and uncontested!) work,
 > wholly unrelated to orgonomy which is the only topic of discussion,
 > I thought.

     You failed to communicate that thought until now, XYZ. That's
why both IED and Tim Maroney felt it important to mention Reich's
earlier achievements.

 >> Wilhelm Reich was killed for scientific heresy, and that is the part
 >> of his story that Kate Bush deals with in her excellent song
 >> "Cloudbusting".
 >
 > Compare and contast with IED.

     IED has no quarrel with Tim's statement above. He only wanted
to point out that all aspects of Reich Sr. in the song are told
from the point of view of his young son Peter. Wilhelm Reich's work
is relevant only because it provided much of the child's early
experience of life. Reich Sr. is relevant in the song--as in the
book--only as a father dearly loved by his son. In the same sense,
Reich Sr.'s arrest by U.S. government agents in the video are
depicted because they were a powerful image, in the child's memory,
of the forces which caused his separation from his father.

 > Reich was not even a minor martyr.

     IED has no firm opinion about whether Reich was a "martyr"
or not. That he was a victim of the political and social atmosphere
of his environment is beyond question, however. Reich's practise
in Maine and Arizona in the 1940s and '50s was never "dangerous"
in the slightest degree to anyone. XYZ's comparison with laetrile
is inappropriate. In the case of laetrile there is a well-documented
and rather high incidence of patients whose death may
(or may not) have been hastened by their reliance on the drug
instead of on more conventional treatments. In Reich's case
there were never _any_ such documented incidences. The analogy which
XYZ draws is unfair and unsupported by the facts.

 > I would like to respond to the rather mean-spirited response by
 > Andrew Marvick, to my posting about Kate and orgone energy.

     IED's responses are all too often mean-spirited. This is
one of his many failings. It cannot be said, however, that in
the present context his ill feeling was not provoked, at least
in part, by XYZ's own venomous attitude toward both Reich (whom
he so eloquently termed "a outrageous crank" <sic>) and Kate.

 > 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.

     Actually, there are almost certainly as many readers of Love-Hounds
who do _not_ consider much of IED's information and opinions "reliable",
so you shouldn't feel at a disadvantage there, XYZ. As for L-Hs being
"home turf", you--like any other Kate fan who isn't trying to make
a financial profit--are welcome to make Love-Hounds _your_ home
turf, if you wish.
     For the record, XYZ, IED called you "dana" simply
because _you_ called yourself "dana"--for no other reason. In
fact, you continue to call yourself "dana". So why is it seen
as an insult that IED should reproduce your own form of self-
identification as faithfully as possible? Extremely peculiar.
There are several Love-Hounds who decline to use upper-case
letters in their signatures. IED cannot be expected to know
when this is intentional and when it is just the writer's
carelessness.
     IED has discussed his self-reference in the third person
many times over the past three years in Love-Hounds. He is not
going to go over it again for a late-comer, and he is sure that
the rest of the group are grateful for that. Sorry.
     Incidentally, IED did try several times to e-mail XYZ directly,
but without success. So for the time being any discussion between IED and
XYZ will have to be conducted in public. Apologies to the rest of you.

 > (XYZ doubts <Kate> much cares if IED comes to her rescue.)

     No argument there. IED never thought she did. But it certainly
seems to matter a lot to you!

 > 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.

     Your faith in the omnipotence of science seems almost religious
in its intensity, XYZ.

 > Is IED saying XYZ is not acquainted with the details of Reich's works?

     IED can only go by what you tell him, XYZ. You continue to
cite secondhand sources like Gardner (and now H.G. Wells, too!)
as the only basis for your highly emotional condemnation of Reich's
work. IED once again suggests that you try going to the works of
Reich himself. You might gain a broader insight into another
person's point of view.

 > Further XYZ suggests that IED will find Gardner a far more reliable and less
 > biased source of information than Peter Reich.

     Reliable for what kind of information, XYZ? Try to keep the
issues clear in your mind for a moment. Gardner is presenting
pre-edited and abridged bits of information to you, secondhand,
in order to support a very strong personal point of view about
Wilhelm Reich's _work_. Peter Reich is presenting a highly personal
account of his childhood experiences, including evocations of
his personal relationship with his father, Wilhelm Reich, the _man_.
The two books have virtually nothing in common with each other. They
concern quite different subjects. Do you see this yet?
     It may be true that Gardner provides more reliable factual
information about Reich's work and career than Peter Reich does.
But it is _definitely_ true that Wilhelm Reich's many fascinating books
will tell you a great deal more about that work than Gardner can.
     You're so fond of the scientific method, XYZ, why not follow one
of science's most basic premises: don't rely on secondhand information
when the firsthand source is readily available to you. Find out
for yourself!

 >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.

     But how could you possibly know whether Reich's books are
interesting, XYZ, if you have never read them? One can scarcely
experience the magical appeal of _Crime_and_Punishment_, for
example, by reading the plot synopsis in a Cliff Notes booklet!
IED is trying to make you understand that Reich's work is valuable
as literature, as _art_, not for the validity or lack of validity
of his claims. You are simply not in a position to judge the value
of Reich's work until you take the time to read it--preferably several
volumes.

]     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!]

     XYZ conveniently fails to reproduce "the rest of this paragraph"!
How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that the original
cloudbuster and Kate's video cloudbuster are "the same"? It's absurd.
They have only the most basic qualities in common. It is clear
that XYZ does _not_ know what the two models look like, or he would
not continue to embarass himself on the point.

 >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.

     You raise an interesting point. Kate's method has usually
been to treat a story (whether it be derived from a book, a
film, a picture, a newspaper story or someone's oral account)
_without_ making its source immediately clear. There is a very
good reason for this. Kate's intention is always to try to
evoke the _emotions_ which she felt in experiencing the original
stimulus which inspired the song. The frequent result of this
intention is a song which plunges the listener directly into the
experience of the story's characters. This means that very often
the listener has difficulty figuring out exactly what the facts
surrounding the narrative source are. Kate has often said that a
bland explanation of the story has the effect of reducing its emotional
power. So IED often refers to Kate's songs as "treatments" of
a story, rather than literal explications of a text. XYZ may choose
to call such songs "ethereal book reports", if he wishes. IED
wouldn't argue the point; it's substantially true. But _why_is_
_this_bad_? On what grounds do you criticise Kate's method?

 >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.

     Once again, XYZ, you have failed to grasp a crucial point.
Apparently you haven't yet understood that Peter Reich's book is
an account of his experiences _as_a_child_. _As_a_child_! Got it?
His aim in writing _A_Book_of_Dreams_ was not to address the question
of whether cloudbusters _actually_ attract and repel various forms
of orgone energy, nor even the question of whether cloudbusters
can make it rain. These issues are _irrelevant_ to the book. Peter
Reich was simply trying to communicate the emotions which he experienced
as a child, during a period early in his life when he really _did_
believe in the cloudbuster's power to make it rain. Although in fact,
the boy's experience of losing his father, and indeed of all the
last few months he spent with Reich, Sr. prior to his conviction,
is symbolised in part by intimations that the "magic" wasn't really
true. As Peter's childhood situation crumbles around him, his
belief in the cloudbuster (and in many other aspects of his life
with Reich, Sr.) takes on an increasingly defensive quality--one of
the many brilliant and genuinely moving aspects of the book.

 >While XYZ has no evidence, it must be
 >considered that Peter will profit as long as he straddles the fence.

Well, XYZ, you're certainly right in saying that you have no
evidence. Since Peter Reich has only written the one book, and
since that book has now been out of print for a number of years,
and since he has never given any lectures about his father's work
(to IED's knowledge), it seems highly unlikely that he "profits"
by his father's reputation. Beyond that, however, IED must ask
you once more to explain _why_ it is so imperative to you that
Peter Reich should have to take some definite position on the issue.
Why does everything have to be so black-and-white to you, XYZ?

 >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.

     _A_Book_of_Dreams_ was never a popular seller, XYZ. It only
went through three rather small pressings before going out of print
for good. Its appearance even in an occult bookshop was not something
one could have counted on even in 1974, let alone in a general
bookstore. Nowadays, a used copy is a real rarity.
     If Gardner really called _A_Book_of_Dreams_ a "biography of
his father", then IED suggests you put down Gardner's book right
away and read Peter's book. It is _not_ a "biography". Gardner sounds
as though he hasn't even read the book. It contains virtually none
of the kind of specific factual information which one would expect
to find in a biography. The book is concerned mainly, even
exclusively, with Peter's _own_ experiences, both as a child and
as a young adult, and all the references to his father's life are
described from the decidedly unbiographical point of view of a small
boy.

 >Peter, of course, thinks they were trumped up charges!

     Where do you get this stuff from, XYZ? How do _you_ know
what Peter Reich thinks of the charges against his father? He
didn't make his adult position on the Reich case explicit anywhere
in the book that IED could see. Anyway, what difference does
it make to the beauty of Peter's childhood memoir whether he now
accepts Wilhelm Reich's side of the case or not? It's _irrelevant_.

 > However the song is not about the
 > 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).

     Perhaps that's just your problem, XYZ: you're always trying to
preserve the "strictest sense of the word". The fact is that Peter's
book _is_ about the child's attitudes toward the experience of
growing up with his "crazy father". It concerns cloudbusting only
insofar as cloudbusting was a part of that child's experience. The
"outlook" of the child toward cloudbusting changes subtly from one
of relatively unthinking belief to one of slightly defensive faith.
But it is the faith of a child in both cases. Kate is true to the
book in that respect, and her "outlook" is an emotional, rather than
an intellectual, one.

 > (BTW, XYZ has not had an opportunity to see any Kate videos.)

    Oh, great. So you're _really_ arguing from a position of
strength! You haven't seen the video, you haven't read any of
Wilhelm Reich's own work, and you haven't read Peter Reich's
memoirs. Some scientist!

 >If she cannot identify cloudbusting as a sham after talking to
 >Peter for ten minutes then ....

     When did _you_ talk to Peter, XYZ? If you haven't talked
to Peter, or read his book, or read his father's books, or
seen Kate's video, how do you know whether Peter is convincing
or not, or whether he defends cloudbusting or not, or whether
he has _ever_ tried to argue that cloudbusting actually works?
And _this_ is the kind of case you make against IED's openmindedness!

 >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.
 >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.

     IED is overwhelmed. XYZ, your latest posting is so ill-conceived,
poorly written and sloppily considered that IED really doesn't feel
energetic enough to reply in the detail that he would like.
     The main conclusion that IED must draw from your latest mass of
jumbled verbiage is that you have an axe to grind. You despise
all aspects of metaphysics, and it's clear that your position of
angry disbelief is utterly unshakeable. There are dozens of
indications of this dogmatic attitude in your posting, but the
baldest of these is your suggestion that Kate's decision to
visit an occult bookstore is somehow _allowable_ because "its <sic>
a free country"! How is one to argue rationally with someone
who has the great questions of life and death so tidily solved
for himself that there can be no intellectual justification for
even _visiting_ an occult bookstore?
     Another of your statements which IED must react to
concerns the contention that there was a contradiction in IED's
supposition regarding Kate's "belief in" or disbelief in Reich's
orgone work. IED's point--clearly and concisely presented--was that
Kate retains an open mind on questions for which neither science nor
art have satisfying answers. Obviously this is not true of XYZ. He
apparently has found all the answers he needs in science. IED has
not. There's really not much else that can be said on this subject.
     Another point arises. There is _no_ evidence that _any_ of Reich's
patients was _ever_ harmed in _any_way_ through their involvement
with orgone research and practises. If you believe otherwise, you
have simply been misinformed. For an exhaustive and eminently
dispassionate account of the F.D.A. case in all its permutations,
read Jerome Greenfield's _Wilhelm_Reich_vs._the_U.S.A._, published
in 1974. There is also a very readable little book called _Some_Sense_
_about_Wilhelm_Reich_, by Lee Raditsa, which might
help you out. And again, XYZ, you are advised to read Reich's own
work itself, rather than relying (as you evidently continue to do)
on the opinions of third parties.
     Finally, XYZ, please try to remember that Kate's song was inspired
and based on the memoir of Reich's son's childhood. Rather than taking
your guru, Gardner's, word for it that _A_Book_of_Dreams_ is "moving",
why don't you _read_ the book for yourself, XYZ? There is _no_
reason why Kate Bush should have to take some kind of ideological
_position_ on the scientific reliability of the cloudbuster. Kate
was trying to evoke in musical terms the emotions which she felt
were communicated in Peter's book. That's all. Since Peter, as a
small boy, actually believed that the cloudbuster could make it
rain, Kate's song makes the same assumption. It is quite clear,
however, from both the song and the video, that this belief is
that of a small boy. What Kate herself believes is quite irrelevant.
     Please, XYZ, try to show a little tolerance of others' ideas
and attitudes toward life. It's not all science, you know.
Last time IED checked, life, like Kate, was still a great mystery.

-- Andrew Marvick