Hey Webmasters! New Photo Album Service Launched - Check it out!
|
|
|
OML Archives-
Subject: Re: Psychopathia Carlinskialis - Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:52:27
-0500
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:52:27 -0500
From: Kenn Thomas <skthoma@umslvma.umsl.edu>
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Psychopathia Carlinskialis
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
>who is Shawn Wilbur to decide such matters?!
Shawn is entitled to his opinion and I for one agree with him 100%
>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.
Which is, of course, perfectly fine with you when Carlinsky does it.
>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.
Carlinsky has been slandering people--including Reich--for years while
they have been seriously going about their business using orgonomy to
explore a more truthful picture of nature than is available from
mechanistic science. These people are not ignorant or unmindful of
constructive criticism, but they are rightly pissed off that Carlinsky
passes his remarks off as such.
Read what he says: James DeMeo is murderer. Is that constructive scientific
criticism? That is libel, and DeMeo should sue. As carefully as the OML has
tread around issues like the copyright of Contact With Space and
the court records, not daring to challenge the museum's claim on them, and
it can post this kind of vicious accusation about an admirable
orgonomic scientific worker without a pause?
Even Carlinsky's "criticism" of DeMeo's scientific work: has Carlinsky
published any countervailing scientific data? Or is this just Carlinsky's
ego parade, his own distorted view of Reich? He idly writes these things in
long-hand on yellow legal sheets with the spelling skills of Oswald and the
rest of us are supposed to respond to it as if it were studied, scientific
work? It is shameful and disgusting that he has taken advantage of
someone's naivete in getting them to type his bullshit and post it here.
You should be ashamed of yourself for coming to its defense.
Have you read Carlinsky's attacks on Reich in the so-called skeptics press?
Do you call that constructive criticism? Carlinsky has done more harm to
the public image of orgonomy than anyone. I have my suspicions
that he's been assigned and is payed for this role he plays, but I think
that gives him too much credit for competence. Then again, Oswald was made
to look like an illiterate boob.
>Let's get some perspective, people.
You need the perspective, bucko. I've gone through months of Carlinsky's
whiny voice calling me up at all hours to demean Jim Martin, James DeMeo,
et. al. They have been enduring his barbs for years and years. Carlinsky
has told me that he has spied on them, intercepted their mail, threatened
to do them violence; he's been arrested for robbing the museum, and he's
proud of that. As much criticism as we have had of the museum, would any of
us do that? Is that constructive orgonomic activity?
>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.
It's just outrageous that you could cast anyone that Carlinsky attacks in
this role. It is precisely what Carlinsky has done to many young
people with a fledgling interest in Reich and what he has now done with the
OML.
>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
The opposition to Reich is bountiful. Carlinsky casts himself
as a proponent of the orgonomic view, and yet has all this vitriole and
hatred of Reich. You don't have to call it emotional plague to see that it
is sick.
>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
So what was that remark about DeMeo being responsible for the deaths of
people in the middle east?
>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.
None of this makes any sense. You don't want to single out Wilbur, then
you single him out. You give some half-assed concept of "psychological
perception" and try to say that Wilbur's honest outrage about Carlinsky
turns him into Carlinsky, but Carlinsky's not such a bad guy after all.
>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.
It's one thing to say Oliver Stone made a bad movie; it's quite another to
say that he personally killed JFK.
>Mr. Wilbur, however, ought to watch out. He, and others who follow in his
tone, may be crossing the line.
I say bravo to Shawn Wilbur. If I didn't want to discuss real issues of
concern to people interested in Reich and orgonomy, I would say that I hope
there are others on the list who understand that bold scientific work
and good people have been needlessly slandered.
>Words to the wise.
...from the foolish. I do not say that because of the reknown lack of
manners on the Internet, either. I would like a forum for adults to
discuss orgonomy-related issues, not petulant, inane defenses of that creep
Carlinsky. He will not define the issues in orgonomy and you are a fool to
try to let him.
>Eliminate the name-calling and the persecution. Deal with the issues.
Robert Anton Wilson once told me that LBJ used to accuse his political
opponents of being swinophiliacs. When asked what that was, he responded
that he didn't know--but at least he could get people to deny it. This is
what we have here, some sad loser trying to get us all to chase
our tails over nothing. Apologies are in order to Jim DeMeo, Jim Martin
and everyone else Carlinski has attacked and defamed.
kt
--- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page
bravenet.com