IED adds 145 more verbose lines to the Reich issue

[IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu]

 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