Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Financial Data · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by
bravenet.com
|
|
OML Archives-
Subject: Re: Accountability - Mon, 11 Mar 1996 01:06:03 -0500
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 01:06:03 -0500 From: GalileoII@aol.com Message-ID: <960311005555_347552124@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Subject: Re: Accountability Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Dave Huisken wrote:
<<My feeling is that before all this Carlinsky stuff came up
<<I wouldn't have known him from Adam.
<<Now that I've heard about him
<<I am forwarned [sic] in case I ever run into him....
<<I for one am glad that this issue was aired
<<because I had the oppourtunity [sic] to hear a plague attack
<< (a good one too) and because Carlinsky
<<will probably never be able to work his mischief on me....
<<It's to [sic] bad that this had to happen at Jim DeMeo's expense
<<but I think this list and Orgonomy benefitted in the end
<<because we've all been given an impression of Carlinsky.>>
=============================================================
These comments, which unfortunately can fall only in the category of the
character assassination type, seem to indicate a confirmed attitude which
some people have that stubbornly refuses to be altered by facts.
There is an implication here, and in many of posts during these past four
weeks since Carlinsky's triggering post, entitled "Orgonomy," that a man who
has dared criticize one of the darlings of the neo-orgonomy movement is --due
to imperfections of the critic's character-- not to be listened to.
Why is it that, when people don't like the message someone brings, they must
resort to killing the messenger? Is it not obvious that those who have
rushed
to the defense of the currently reigning authority in cloud-busting have
resorted to the exact same assassination tactics which the authorities of
Reich's day used to censor and eliminate him -- all because they could not,
or would not, listen to what a man who was not a card-carrying member of the
status quo had to say?
I find it extremely ironic to have observed how hatchet man have rushed in
over this past month to squash the critic for having pointed that the emperor
may indeed have no clothes. Rather than examine the issues raised in
Carlinsky's post, or send for the documentation which he freely offered to
all, assassins followed a knee-jerk strategy of undermining the character of
the critic; or they sought to distract the rest of us by introducing
tangential topics, like tring to get us to debate whether the right of free
speech includes the right to criticize an authority figure; or they
attempted to cast aspersions on the psychological health and character of
observers, like myself, who tried to maintain an open mind and keep the
discussion focused on the issues raised by a most stimulating post.
Considering how far we seem to have gotten off track, Mr. Huisken's recent
comments sent me back to re-read the original post by Carlinsky. I decided
to return to the source of all this in-fighting. Is Carlinsky really as evil
or pestilent as his detractors would have me believe?
When examined in the context of all the subsequent messages, I think it is
quite remarkable how matter-of-fact so much significant information is
presented in Carlinsky's singular posting last month. While I can understand
that certain people may be unhappy by the very publication of certain
hitherto unknown facts about DeMeo's activities, or Carlinsky's provocative
insights in the ecological impact of cloudbusting, I did not then, and I do
not now, find Carlinsky's message vitriolic or scathing in its criticism of
certain allegedly irresponsible practitioners of orgonomic cloud-busting.
If there was any incidence of a "plague" reaction, then any subsequent
analysis would most likely reveal that it was fueled primarily by the instant
negative reactions towards Carlinsky's post and the deep resistance among
those in what must be considered the "DeMeo camp" not only to consider the
validity of Carlinsky's allegations, but also to deny him (and others) the
right to air views that are not part of their promulgated new dogma.
Apparently they feel that the only way to boost DeMeo's stature is by
simultaneously demolishing Carlinsky's?
It is somewhat fascinating to note that Carlinsky, no doubt due to the fact
that he does not have access to the Internet except through some local friend
whom he must impose upon, has only posted ONE message --the one which
triggered this whole discussion. Though Carlinsky was critical of the
cloudbusting activities of a group of people he considers inept and
irresponsible, I think any objective reader would have to conclude that he
kept strictly to the issues, and he indicated a solid knowledge both of the
techniques of cloudbusting, as well as ecological factors that he says must
be considered by anyone daring to engage in such globally impactive work.
Unless one uses a very narrow definition of what it means to make a "personal
attack" on someone, Carlinsky did not personally attack DeMeo or any of his
colleagues in his public service alert to the rest of us. He did, however,
correctly predict that people unable to tolerate his critique would attempt
to undermine his assertions, not by dealing with the issues, but by launching
a punitive attack --not only his person and character, but by indirection,
upon everyone else who would even consider his viewpoint.
It is a shame that so many of us who have studied Reich's life have not yet
learned the lesson of what happens when intolerance rules the day!
Those who are so quick to disparage others by insinuation or by innuendo
--simply because they themselves may be unable to tolerate any breakthrough
insights which threaten to shatter their preconceived illusion of how things
are-- should endeavor to distinguish whether the toxicity they are displaying
in their posts is truly coming from outside their Selves, as posts like Mr.
Huisken's would have us believe, or if it is merely a projection of their
own, unaccepted character flaws which they too easily toss out onto a screen
called Carlinsky.
Going forward in this discussion does not mean getting the last word on who
is, or is not, a pestilent character; it may mean doing something more like
supporting the establishment of the orgonomic equivalent of an environment
impact study before any and all such cloudbusting is performed. If Carlinsky
can somehow transcend his animosity toward DeMeo and Company for what he
considers their disregard for the ecological impact of their work, perhaps
he, and others, can contribute their knowledge in a positive way toward the
development of the criteria for such environmental impact studies.
John-Michael Battaglia
<<Galileo II@aol.com>>
--- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page
bravenet.com