Gaffaweb >
Love & Anger >
1989-16 >
[ Date Index |
Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 22:05 PDT
Subject: IED adds 145 more verbose lines to the Reich issue
From: Andrew Marvick (IED) To: Love-Hounds found) Subject: IED adds 145 more verbose lines to the Reich issue Steve Schonberger (? no signature found) writes: >> First, IED must say a word or two about the recent revival >> of criticism of the work of Wilhelm Reich. > > More like 1632 words (just about Reich, never mind the rest) ! IED's own title made it clear that his description was intended to be seen as self-mocking irony. IED is a wordy fellow, no question about it. But he would argue that, though numerous, his words are generally well chosen. (Also, remember that IED hadn't contributed a word to Love-Hounds for six days prior to the date of his offending remarks.) > Just because <Reich's> writing was artistic, and some of his psychology > work admirable, doesn't mean that his medical quackery was excusable. > ...work was admirable, but that doesn't excuse quackery, even if quackery... > ...art in some pseudo-science is good but doesn't excuse the pseudo-science. > ...about his father). It doesn't make W. Reich's pseudo-science excusable... > ...his career doesn't excuse his later quackery. In fact, it makes the... IED gathers that your point is that the artistic value of Reich's work is no "excuse" for its "quackery". In your zeal to communicate this opinion, you neglected to note that IED never said it _was_ an "excuse"! IED merely pointed out that the accusation--and even the proof--that Reich's work is theoretically unsound (to say the least) does not _address_ the issue of his work's _artistic_ value. Therefore, the objection which you make (some five times or more) about IED's remarks on Reich are inapplicable, inappropriate and undeserved. > The Joker in the _Batman_ movie did most of his murders in an artistic > way, yet certainly couldn't be called admirable. W. Reich's writing > was artistic (I'm taking your word on this) and some of his psychology > work was admirable, but that doesn't excuse quackery, even if quackery > is a lesser crime than the Jokers' crimes... IED objects to this comparison. Reich's quackery has been grossly exaggerated. Nearly all of his work was confined to the printed page. What "experiments" he performed were utterly innoccuous and harmless. He left no victims of any kind, and caused no damage whatever. IED can only urge you--and all those other Love-Hounds who have been pre- judging Reich--once again, to read Reich's work and decide for yourselves. > This may be true, but a passionate debunking of astrology doesn't make > astrology valid. Nor did IED ever suggest that Gardner's overt bias against his subject in any way "validated" Reich's theories! Where did you get the idea that IED thinks that Reich's theories are valid? In fact, IED said quite explicitly that Reich's theories are _not_ valid! At the same time he pointed out that the truth or falsehood of a person's ideas does not in itself negate the value of the _expression_ of those ideas, or the beauty of the ideas themselves--whether they be "true" or not. > The beauty of pseudo-science isn't what makes it sell, in general. In the > case of Kate and Reich, the beauty (and her familiarity with Peter Reich) > is the attraction, but most people get into pseudo-science because they > are attracted to the bogus claims and don't understand the corresponding > real science. I think most astrology enthusiasts read the stuff because > they think it will do them some good, rather than for art in the writings. > Most astrology isn't good art anyway. The fact that some people can find > art in some pseudo-science is good, but doesn't excuse the pseudo-science, > particularly for those that it defrauds. And IED never said or even implied that it does. But your larger point opens up a different debate. Assuming that someone were truly "defrauded", in the legal sense, IED would be in total agreement that the defrauder should be held responsible for his crime. But only if some clear and tangible crime had been proved to have been committed _by_the_writer_. The writer's mere expression of untenable ideas would _not_ count as such a crime. In Reich's case, there was no "fraud" of any kind. Reich merely believed some blatantly koo-koo things, and shared his belief with the world. IED does not consider him guilty of any fraud for doing that. Furthermore, it is really too much to suggest that anyone gullible and foolish enough to take seriously someone's theories about UFOs and rainmakers has a legitimate complaint against the theorist when, eventually, he or she discovers that those theories are not accurate. In IED's opinion, it is not Reich's "fault" if someone reading his late work on UFOs and D.O.R. takes his word that such things actually exist. Society is based on some basic assumptions about human sanity and common sense. If someone chooses to believe that UFOs and orgone energy exist simply because he/she read it in Reich's book, that person is free to do so. But Reich should not be held "responsible" for the consequences of such patent stupidity on that reader's part. To use your own analogy again: let's suppose next week some moron should go into the Huntington Museum and spray red paint on Gainsborough's _Blue_Boy_. Your argument against Reich implies that the vandal of the Gainsborough would have to be called a _victim_ of Tim Burton's film, rather than a criminal who is responsible for his own actions. IED's position is that Burton and the producers of _Batman_ could not fairly be held to be responsible for the lunatic behavior of the vandal. Because our society is founded on the premise that its members will be able to tell reality from fantasy, right from wrong. The fact that some members of society may not be able to distinguish between the real and the fantastic is not a condition which can fairly be used as a means of censoring or repressing an individual's right to free artistic expression, no matter what its subject matter. > Kate made beautiful music about bank robbery and the Vietnam war, > but that doesn't mean bank robbery or the Vietnam war were good things. Of course not! And no-one would try to argue that they were! (Kate included.) Nor has anyone ever said that Reich's _ideas_ were "good things". Your analogy is, again, not apt. If Kate had written a song about someone's _book_, which _advocated_ robbery, or someone's film, which argued that the Vietnam war was somehow "good", then IED would see no contradiction in entertaining the possibility that the book (or the film) might communicate a despicable idea in an artistically fascinating way. (Btw, as in the case of _Cloudbusting_, the question here is not whether Kate's _song_ is valid, but only whether her subjects are valid.) IED sees no contradiction in such a hypothetical book or film. In fact, there are many works of art which express ideas which IED finds abhorrent, but which express that ideology in a way which IED greatly admires. If society allowed the creation only of works of art which were judged to be harmonious with officially sanctioned moral positions, it would be a woefully uncreative society with a sadly impoverished culture. > We can't read everything. Gardner's debunking of other pseudo-science > is very well researched, and that gives reason to believe his research > of Reich is also well researched. Gardner doesn't claim to debunk > Reich's psycho-analytic works, and I trust that his debunking of > pseudo-science is fair. Frankly, this sounds like a bit of a cop-out to IED. IED has already pointed out two specific proofs of Martin's unfairness in his discussion of Reich's work--and those were discovered in only a brief excerpt which Ed Suranyi happened to post in Love-Hounds. If you still prefer to "trust" Gardner's judgements, despite these proofs, and despite your own acknowledgement that those judgements bear no relevance to the question of Reich's _writing_, but only to his ideas, then there is little more to be said. IED can only hope that you will eventually take the time to _read_ some of Reich's work, and make a responsible, independent judgement based on real, personal and direct experience. -- Andrew Marvick