Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 03:07:19 -0500
From: GalileoII@aol.com
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu, JefAmherst@aol.com
Subject: Who is libelling whom?
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu

How interesting things have gotten already!  

Apparently Shawn Wilbur was so upset by Joel Carlinsky's remarks that he was
moved to declare that, in referring to Carlinsky's recently posted article on
orgonomy: "Certainly, it is not in the spirit of Reich."

Excuse me, but who is Shawn Wilbur to decide such matters?!  When Reich died,
did he somehow delegate Shawn Wilbur (or anyone else!) to carry on his work
and decide who should be blessed with an orgonomic seal of approval, and who
should banned to the nether regions of the emotional plague?  

Isn't that one of central problems that has surfaced since Reich's death:
 that there are individuals among the competing factions who are declaring
themselves to be the arbiter of Reich's will, or the rightful heir to the
throne, and they arrogantly take it upon themselves to decide what is true,
what is false, and what is blasphemous.  

Such self-proclaimed promoters (and even some appointed guardians of the
estate) seem unwilling to recognize that Dr. Wilhelm Reich did not found a
religion or foster a cult of unthinking believers of the holy orgone, nor did
he intend to.  Rather, he developed the rudiments of a new science --a
challenging new way of understanding life and the forces of nature.  If Reich
had the courage to challenge conventional ways of looking at the world, how
can the hero-worshippers who follow in his tracks justify their condemnation
of others who share that same inquisitive attitude.  Blind allegiance to
unexamined authority (including Reich) just won't make it; neither will
controlling the expression of views considered not sufficiently reverential,
 or "negative," or "critical" --even when such views are sincerely expressed
and grounded in a search for the truth.

Let's get some perspective, people.  For whatever reason, there are only a
relatively few people who are both open enough to Reich's ideas to listen
long enough to grasp the development of his thought as well as intellectually
or intuitively gifted enough to comprehend a fraction of what he revealed to
us; others, the vast majority, cannot follow Reich's thinking, nor will they
ever be capable of it.  That's why I think it is a travesty that there is so
much dissension and rancor among the few of us who have dared to travel down
the path Reich traveled, some unfortunately with a ferocity not unlike
vultures swooping in on a kill.  

Just because someone does not agree with Reich's discoveries does not
necessarily mean that they are deficient, or that they're sick, or that a
supposed true believer is justified in neutralizing an opposing point of view
merely by resorting to some catch-all, in-the-know label like suggesting that
they are a victim of the emotional plague.  Try looking in a mirror before
you label other people who don't share your point of view.  

For instance, I find it amusing and ironic that, in accusing Carlinsky of
personally attacking De Meo --a charge which, on the face of the article
itself, I do not find Carlinsky guilty of-- Shawn Wilbur himself engaged in a
very judgemental, somewhat vitirolic attack on Carlinsky's character, on his
ideas, on his style, on the person who provided the computer access for
Carlinsky's views to be aired in the forum, and on just about anything else
Mr. Wilbur apparently doesn't agree with and doesn't want to examine.  

Not to key in on Mr. Wilbur so much, for I do not wish to invoke his or
anyone else's wrath for my current remarks, but don't people like Mr. Wilbur
understand the concept of psychological perception?  It would appear, on the
basis on his letter, that Mr. Wilbur, a human being, may have been projecting
qualities of himself that he is unable or unwilling to accept onto someone he
finds "disgusting."  Is it not obvious to an astute reader that Mr. Wilbur is
accusing Carlinsky of doing something which the very style and content of
Wilbur's own letter makes HIM guilty of.  There is no psychological
difference in the make-up of authoritarian, government officials who
suppressed the publication of Reich's books because the ideas expressed in
them didn't match up with their particular view of the world, and Mr.
Wilbur's attempt to censor, denigrate, or otherwise attempt to restrict
attempts by someone like Carlinsky (whose views he obviously finds too
challenging to consider) to find an audience for his views.  

There is a considerable difference between discussing the scientific work of
another person (like Dr. de Meo) in order to reveal its flaws or inadequacies
and in making ad hominem personal attacks at the character and personality of
the critic, as Mr. Wilbur has done.  In substance, in tone, and in style, I
think what Carlinsky did was essentially no different than a book reviewer
writing about a book, or a film reviewer discussing a movie.  The book's
author and his fan club may not like what the critic writes about his work,
but, in doing so, the book reviewer is no more guilty of libel than Carlinsky
is in this particular essay.  Mr. Wilbur, however, ought to watch out.  He,
and others who follow in his tone, may be crossing the line.

Words to the wise.  Eliminate the name-calling and the persecution.  Deal
with the issues.


     --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page

Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Financial Data · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by bravenet.com