Wilhelm Reich & the Frankfurt School?

[malgosia askanas]

Far be it from me to question your contributions to this list; I just happen to
doubt that your assessment of Reich's later work is correct.  As far as I 
know, the existence of energy in massfree forms -- i.e. energy not associated 
with matter -- can be demonstrated both experimentally and theoretically, and
there is nothing mystical or crackpot about these forms of energy -- they
can be scientifically isolated, defined and studied.  I think that, like
every scientist worth his salt, Reich was in many respects wrong, but
I seriously doubt he was in any way a "crackpot".  But yes, there is no reason
why this would be a topic for this list.


-m 

Ralph wrote:

> I didn't think extended discussion of Reich's ideas would be appropriate 
> for this list, apart from any intersection they may have with the 
> Frankfurters.  But indeed, given time, I could provide a very detailed 
> analysis of Reich's later works, which I suggest unequivocally represent a 
> deterioration from his earlier ones.  First, his "scientific" writings on 
> orgonomy, physics, cloudbusting, etc., are pure nonsense.  Much more 
> interesting are his philosophical statements, in which he attempts to 
> distinguish the orgonomic perspective from both mechanism and mysticism, 
> which he considers the twin ideological diseases of the human race.  He 
> attempts to provide a natural scientific translation for mystical concepts, 
> which at the same time is very clever but in the end irrational and 
> obsessive.  I think Reich's fate as desperate paranoid in Cold War America 
> (as an exile from fascist Europe) presents yet another object lesson for 
> the inability of bourgeois society to mediate the dichotomy between 
> positivism and life-philosophy (scientism and Romanticism).  So yeah, I can 
> provide as firm a foundation as you need, but I can't do it in one or two 
> paragraphs.  At least I am contributing something to this list; I see 
> little productive thought going on here otherwise.  Care to offer some 
> thoughts of your own on any subject of your choosing?
> 
> At 04:40 PM 4/10/2003 -0400, malgosia askanas wrote:
> > > Reich's later deterioration into crackpot vitalism is
> > > interesting for the lessons it unintentionally teaches, even though it
> > > doesn't have the positive features of his early work.
> >
> >Does this sentence have any firm foundation?  What is your definition of
> >"vitalism" and "crackpot"?  And what have you studied of Reich's works?
> >
> >-m
>