|Home||About||Helping Us||Your Order||Contact||Mailing List|
"The judgement of knowledge implies a pre-existing moral and theological form,
according to which a relation was established between existence and the infinite
following an order to time: the existent as having a debt to God"
Reichianism exists under the aegis of a debt to a deity, and this is its own entitlement to judgement. Like all judgements modeled on that of God, it claims some orthodoxy and some form of debt, be it even called scientific, to a despotic signifier now occupied by the vacuum-packaged image of Reich. There is even a website that perfunctorily instructs its readers to click on a Reich icon to proceed to each of its underlying topics. Instead of a thousand flowers for Wilhelm Reich we arrive at the vacuous image of a thousand uniform Reichs.
DeMeo has passed his Reichian judgement on Aetherometry, because Aetherometry is in combat on many fronts, one of which is against (An)orgonomy, Reichianism, and the debile notions it holds regarding libidinal economy, desire, sexuality and the Aether. In DeMeo's judgement as high-priest of organized anorgonomism, this combat is objectionable and unnecessary. He begins the big finale of his 'critique', like a Jesuit, with the insidious offer to help us 'as a friend' - a friend who cannot read Reich's texts, let alone those of Aetherometry, and who has no qualms about passing judgement on the basis of identifications that only exist in his mind:
"Regarding Term-Substitution, the Lack of Clear Citations to Reich's Priority, and
Unnecessary Dismissive Commentary
The authors need to hear this, privately from a friend, as otherwise they'll eventually get it publicly from a harsher critic, in a far more embarrassing and destructive manner. There are many places in their papers where new aetherometric terms are substituted for Reich's terms as given in orgonomic theory, but they rarely clarify that the source-concepts originated with Reich. Those parts of the papers need to be changed, with appropriate citations added."
As has been shown throughout the present analysis of DeMeo's 'constructive critique', there are no objective reasons for these authors to validate the identifications which DeMeo abusively makes with the single purpose of eradicating the novel differences introduced by the experimental methodology and the conceptual conclusions of Experimental Aetherometry. The previous pages more than suffice as testimony to this.
A complete inversion is then made by DeMeo of the authors' argument:
"Also, their anger about some "Reichians" is so intensive, that they insert needlessly harsh comments which are highly over-generalized to appear directed towards anyone who retains a strong adherence to Reich's original orgonomy."
The authors would have been more than happy to give credit to any Reichians who kept loyally their adherence to Reich's Orgonomy. But these Reichians would first have had to be capable of loyalty to Reich's spirit of scientific inquiry, and to be courageous and careful workers - not cooped-up chickens busily pecking to guard their turfs. And if DeMeo can be taken to serve as a representative example of Reichianism (as we would argue he does, given the almost identical response to Aetherometry from other prominent Reichian quarters), then, after having seen his improvised interpretations, ridiculous identifications, and complete decontextualizations of both Reich's and our work, so prominently shown in the above commentaries, we have to conclude that he himself does not serve as an example of such loyalty, but of just one more distortion of Reich's burgeoning theory of Aether energy.
His distortionism of these authors' text reaches paroxystic extremes:
"In one case (p.29) the phenomenon is described, but identified as "a process heretofore unknown", which isn't correct. One can disagree with Reich's overall theory, but factually he was the first to put together all the various details which are getting so much discussion in the S2 series. Specifically, at many points the author's theoretical discussions appear to be basic repetitions of Reich's ideas, but using more classical terms. The sentences on p.2, on "the capacity or ability of cloud systems, particularly those associated with low pressure cells, to draw nonelectric energy from neighbouring localities and thus diminish the kinetoregenerative power of the medium local to the instrument", and on p.61 "we have suggested that the energy which we have shown the medium can provide to the charges trapped in the electroscope in the form of the kinetic energy they spend to perform the work of lifting the leaf against local gravity, is the same energy which cloud systems draw from the ground-level atmosphere", are clearly taken from Reich's earlier concepts and discussions. The terms are different, but the details -- of the orgone energy continuum possessing a negative entropy, a solar-excitation-lumination function, an oranur-excitability function, and cloud-forming and energy-drawing functions -- these are all Reich's. The only acknowledgement I can find about this is on the very last page (p.88) suggesting the authors feel they have provided a better theoretical understanding of those basic principles and observations."
Another fishwife's tale from DeMeo, as he fails to realize that the authors' procedure is a systematic and heuristic one, where the word of Reich is neither the last nor the first. Experimental Aetherometry is not about church-building, flag-waving and despotic signifiers, gods and theirs sons. Moreover, the authors openly acknowledge that while Reich taught them the concept of energy draw, the experimental methodology they developed in AS2-02 and AS2-04 demonstrates that the energy draw by cloud-systems (specifically cyclonic low pressure cells) and the proximity draw by living systems, specifically, by the human body, affects the levels of 'latent heat' in the local environment. Since the authors contend throughout Volumes 1 and 2 of Experimental Aetherometry that OR energy is ambipolarly charged electric energy and not the same, therefore, as 'latent heat', it would simply be malicious to credit Reich with having discovered this fact. Reich correctly claimed, yet never demonstrated, that the neighbourhood of cloud systems accelerated the rate of electroscopic leaf fall. But he did not discover, or - more properly speaking, perhaps - isolate, the kinetoregenerative phenomenon, nor the normal dependence of the latter upon 'latent heat', nor its mimicry by LFOT photons, particularly in the blue modal range of the solar atmospheric blackbody spectrum. The outcome of these authors' difference towards Reich's theory is that Aetherometry extricates the independence between the electric and nonelectric components of the Aether, whereas Reich's early (1940-1949) hypothesis of Aether=Orgone amalgamated - within the concept of OR energy - electric, nonelectric and electromagnetic energy manifestations that were incompletely differentiated. Reich was effectively unable, during this period, to separate what were orgone energy manifestations as ambipolar electric radiation, from 'electrostatic' interactions (ie from fields and fluxes of monopolar electric charges), from those of 'latent heat', and still, from those which are electromagnetic (the concept of orgone lumination was simply insufficient and too vague).
This undifferentiated state of his theory in that epoch was also part of the outcome of an heuristic procedure on the part of Reich, but one that left much to be desired, as he well knew - especially when he later tried to separate these distinct energy manifestations - the electric from the nonelectric - in his OR motor work (1947-1948), and then became confronted with the brutal reality of DOR energy in the ORANUR process.
Also we must remark that the above sentence of DeMeo's ("but the details -- of the orgone energy continuum possessing a negative entropy, a solar-excitation-lumination function, an oranur-excitability function, and cloud-forming and energy-drawing functions -- these are all Reich's") constitutes a perfect summary of the infinite torture of Reichianism and its purely nonsensical associative strings!
Confronted with such gratuitous gibberish, we must plainly state:
first, there is no orgone-energy continuum; there is a continuum of ambipolar electric aether energy, subdivided into orgone and dorgone ;
secondly, since ambipolar electric energy is electric and not thermal - not even latently so - entropy or negentropy applies neither to orgone nor to dorgone ;
thirdly, there is therefore no valid scientific reason to reduce a 'reverse orgone potential' of energy flux, in other words, the action of a draw, to the thermal concept of negative entropy ;
fourthly, the authors demonstrate experimentally that this draw acts upon 'latent heat', and as well upon monopolar charges, irrespective of their polarity, typically upon contact ;
fifthly, the entropy corollary and the informational neg-entropic subcorollary, do not apply to the continuum of Aether electric energy which exclusively obeys the First Law and nothing else ;
sixthly, 'everybody' 'knows' that 'light comes from the sun', so stringing together a set of keywords, 'solar-excitation-lumination function', does not go beyond commonsense knowledge, nor does it explain either Reich's theory of orgone being emitted from the sun and having the property of lumination, or the essence of the aetherometric theory of light and electromagnetism. In fact, these authors claim that blackbody photons are only indirectly produced by ambipolar forms of the aether. It is only through interaction with Matter, after Matter has absorbed ambipolar energy and converted it into its own kinetic energy, that the shedding of this energy in turn takes on the form of local photon production. There are therefore very fundamental differences of Aetherometry towards a loyal reading of Reich's work that is truthful to his spirit. Such a muddled, slapstick interpretation of either thought, ours or Reich's, as that which DeMeo presents, is geared only to ensure that the anorgonomy of Reichianism remains fixed in its current quagmire.
Next, DeMeo emits another grunt:
"* In S2-03, the author's use of the terms "nonelectric power of the local medium" will perhaps be more acceptable to the classically-trained theorist, but basically is a euphemism for the more "offensive" (and more accurate) term: orgone energy. Also, I do not agree with the statements, as given on p.2, that orgonotic potential is ambiguous, but it may be true that certain aspects of classical electroscopic theory remain unresolved within its contexts -- no less so that classical electroscopic theory is itself challenged by Reich's experimental observations. I do not feel every question needs to be firmly answered all at once, but rather feel it is important not to throw overboard useful concepts simply because open questions remain."
The authors did not start with any a priori assumptions when they set out to verify and widen the original observations of Reich. As it turned out, and is rigorously explained in Volumes 1 and 2 of Experimental Aetherometry, as well as in critical monographs that are forthcoming, both the electroscopic and sensible thermal anomalies can be shown to be derived from the accumulation of 'latent heat' inside ORAC devices. The effect is strictly demonstrated by us as not being an electrical effect, in the sense that it does not involve any mediation by, or generation of, monopolar electric charges of either polarity. Reich's methodology failed to employ certain of these experimental tools, such as the systematic differentiation between simultaneous leakage and seepage rates, and thus did not permit him to fully separate the monopolar effects of electrostatic interactions, from the effects of massfree energy, whether it be ambipolarly charged or nonelectric. Likewise, Reich's methodology also failed to fully separate what is Aether energy proper, electric and nonelectric, from its effects, especially those that are electromagnetic (such as LFOT photons).
Hence, had these authors amalgamated the term "orgone energy" to 'latent heat', they would have been in a very poor position indeed to understand either Reich's theory, or orgone, or 'latent heat', since they would have to use the term "orgone" to designate both nonelectric energy (referred to by terms such as 'latent heat' or 'intrinsic potential energy of molecules'), and a subtype of ambipolarly charged massfree energy - which would have been an obvious confusion, a ridiculous error and an acephalic procedure.
And had the authors made Reich responsible for their own thought by providing a reference somewhere, this would have been both a lie and a disservice to Reich himself, not to say an abuse. Only the authors are responsible for their own theory, its errors and its discoveries. The authors have consistently claimed that the OR effect of ORACs is only indirectly an orgone effect, precisely because it is mediated by 'latent heat', and, to a lesser degree, by the production of blackbody photons, whether sensible thermal (IR) photons or 'light'-producing photons. Hence, the authors are obligated as scientists to call things as they see them.
"Also, on p.3, it is stated "These definitions [orgonotic potential, orgone tension, etc.] have stood impervious to any understanding by scientists, roundly discarded as they were to the ash can of history". The sentence firstly implies that there are no scientists who find the concepts understandable, which is false. There are many scientists who have been working with Reich's ideas and concepts for years, comfortably applying the larger body of theory developed by Reich without problem or difficulty. Secondly, it is important to note, that Reich was never attacked on the basis of his experimental work in orgone physics. That body of work was factually never experimentally evaluated in any genuine manner by his critics. Historical review (as in Greenfield's book, or Martin's book WR & the Cold War) shows his critics hated him for his early rejection of Stalinism (they were closeted Stalinists themselves), or for his biological healing work with the accumulator."
Another stew!, where DeMeo makes it sound as if the authors didn't know that no enemy of Reich actually bothered to reproduce his work, and as if the authors' remarks referred to some vague totality of 'Reich's ideas and concepts' or 'Reich's experimental work in orgone physics'. In fact, the text refers, very concretely, to the org - which the authors constructively criticize and work with in AS2-07 - and to the OP, which the authors deconstruct in AS2-03, and suggest that it be replaced with their methodology of measuring 'latent heat' by employing the kinetoregenerative phenomenon, as demonstrated in AS2-05. Our text reads:
"Here Reich provides two essential definitions for the new physics of the aether (which he termed orgonometry), the definition of the org as a measure of orgone energy, and the definition of orgone tension or orgonotic potential, OP. These definitions...etc."
This, then, is yet another example of DeMeo's decontextualization - and his failure to acknowledge, or perhaps even realize - that these authors have demonstrated that the shortcoming of the OP concept, such as Reich enunciated it, is largely due to the fact that it reduces to the inverse of the concept of neutralizing ion currents in the theory of ionization.
Moreover, if what DeMeo gets from reading either Greenfield or Martin is simply that Reich was hated by Stalinists or for his therapeutic methods, DeMeo appears to be missing just about everything and every force that tried to resist Reich's work - since it was the entirety of Reich's thought and its functionalist method that posed a threat, whether to Marxists, Psychoanalysts, Physicians, Biologists or Physicists; but no less to his followers, contemporary to him or not, who try to territorialize or immobilize Reich in his late 30's ideas on bioelectricity (as DeMeo does with his argument about the 'impure' electronegativity affinity of orgone) or in his late 40's ideas on the identity between Aether and orgone (as DeMeo also does), without ever realizing the deep development and open-ended character of Reich's thought until his death in 1957.
The next point raised by DeMeo is gratuitous and moot - since Reich did not accept (erroneously, as these authors have now demonstrated) that an electroscope charged with a hair-stroked rod was negatively charged with an excess of electrons, and since Reich never described any procedure for the positive charging of electroscopes, nor referred to it!:
"* In S2-04, on p.26, in point #2, I think the authors assume a bit too much about what Reich knew, or did not know. All we can do is reference his published papers, but it would be too ambitious to assume Reich had not undertaken experiments with positively-charged electroscopes."
DeMeo remarkably and astonishingly resists admitting the obvious, as it stands in the existing record - which, incidentally, is all he or we or anyone else has to go on - that Reich never undertook experiments with positively charged electroscopes. He prefers to imagine that Reich might have done x or y... This procedure is remarkably akin to the textual exegesis characteristic of fundamentalists of all breeds and credos: one decontextualizes and then reinterprets or invents, á l'improviste, as if the sacred texts contained what they obviously do not. These are the procedures of church-builders who have something to hide (besides their own ignorance and poverty of thought). Belittling and dismissing the effective differences is the essence of DeMeo's distinctly underhanded tactics:
"* In S2-05, the authors incautiously sweep aside virtually every independent reproduction of To-T previously undertaken during or since Reich's time. This includes published studies by Ritter, Howell, Starz, Shelton, Blasband, Rosenblum, Konia, Mann (G.), Seiler, and Harman. The authors consider it all unworthy of mention: "Yes, a few private individuals have made claims of reproducibility or irreproducibility, but none of these so-called studies have had the substance that is needed to qualify their results as anything more than anecdotal. The fact is that the authors of the present study do not know of any reproduction of Reich's findings with the ORAC that deserves reference here, save that which Reich himself relates in several of his writings on the subject."(p.3) and "So, in over 4 decades there has been no irrefutable demonstration that Reich was either right or wrong in his observations."(p.4) These kinds of statements, one would expect to preface an extremely robust study which itself was indisputable in its results, in which all the major elements of the phenomenon were addressed, both the orgone-energetic and classical thermodynamic requirements. Unfortunately, the author's own papers on To-T in this S2 series fail to rise to a level of significance any higher than those which are belittled and dismissed."
Our statements stand - as in fact we do not know , nor has DeMeo made us aware, of any experiments that stringently verified the Reich-Einstein experiment, or that performed ORAC exposures to direct solar radiation and analyzed the results in terms of blackbody theory, let alone in terms of its aetherometric treatment . Clearly, we must summon a greater faith in the epoch and its reading of our work, than could be justified from contemplating the likes of DeMeo. You see, they have a vested interest in pretending to a grasp of what in fact escapes them, their control, and their understanding.
There follows more of the same ill-conceived defense of his turf, where everything is subsumed into "orgone" as the plug-all catch-all word:
"* In S2-06, more of Reich's ideas are presented, on p.16, but are identified as the author's hypotheses, rather than Reich's: "The hypothesis we shall propose in this paper, consistent with what we have discussed previously, is that these peaks [in ES discharge rates]... are due to the drawing action of clouds themselves -- which removes so much energy from the ground-level environment that the latter is unable to replenish the kinetic energy of charge trapped in conductors that is being spent performing work against gravity."(p.16) This is a simple re-wording of Reich's discovery of the orgonotic potential, at work in clouds."
DeMeo continues to throw around the term 'orgonotic potential' (OP), at times as if it were the same as 'orgonotic tension' (which it is) and, at other times, as though it referred, instead, to the energy draw phenomenon which Reich called "reverse orgone energy potential' or "reverse orgonomic potential". Only the latter applies to the drawing action, since the former is deemed to be a physical function and the latter a physical process. Reich's hoped-for hypothesis was that the OP could explain reverse potential flows.
However, the action of cloud-systems in accelerating the discharge of electroscopes irrespective of their polarity was first and exclusively demonstrated by these authors. It is incumbent upon DeMeo to prove otherwise, by citing a single prior reference that would validate his dismissive judgement:
"It is a long observed and published fact, that cloud cover lowers the orgonotic charge of the local ground-level environment, by drawing energy into itself, into the clouds, where the higher charge is to be found."
We do not know of any published study showing that cloud-systems draw 'latent heat' from the ground environment, and proving that this is so by employing a rigorous study of the atmospheric variations in the kinetoregenerative response of atmospheric electroscopes. Again, DeMeo could bother to produce a reference - if there were one! - that would address the facts to which the statement he quotes (from p. 16 of our AS2-06) pertains. And since these authors experimentally and formally demonstrate in Volume 2 of Experimental Aetherometry that OR energy is different from 'latent heat' energy, there are reverse potentials of energy flux even for Aether energy that is not ambipolarly charged .
"The phrase "kinetic energy of charge trapped in conductors that is being spent performing work against gravity" is also a parallel conceptual re-phrasing of Reich's orgone energy, using terms of aetherometric theory -- but it is never simply and clearly stated as such."
This is a crass lie: where did Reich ever state that orgone energy was simply another name for the kinetic energy of trapped monopolar electric charges, such as electrons, which these charges spent exclusively on performing work against gravity??? He simply never did.
Had we claimed such a preposterous thing - that the above was what Reich claimed - we would have been rightly slaughtered on the altar of orgonomism!
DeMeo appears to have a genuine, psychotic problem with identifications and attributions of authorship or responsibility. If orgone is massfree electric aether energy, how could it be simply any kinetic energy of massbound charges?
The somersaults of irrationality in which DeMeo engages in his 'constructive critique' leave these authors mind-boggled. His reductions are appalling, and are all effected in the name of a vacuous Reichianist orthodoxy, the same pretense as that evoked by other factions of Reichianism which have determined to denounce or ignore Aetherometry. Et pour cause.
At last comes a frankly irritated DeMeo, revealing his colors and the motivation for all these distorted and distorting commentaries he has made on our work:
"* In S2-08, there are unsupported claims that, following the oranur experiment, "Reich would be forced to revise his entire theory of a dynamic Aether, by introducing into the latter a secondary nature in the form of a dualism between "orgone energy" (OR) and its antipode "deadly orgone energy" (DOR). This dramatic alteration to the theoretical model he had been pursuing for over a decade would wreak chaos with the understanding of Reich's followers, plunging them into yet more outrageous mysticism."(p.4) These comments are themselves rather outrageous, and indeed, confused. Firstly, Reich rarely used the term "dynamic aether" or "ether" at all, except to decry the abandonment of a useful concept by classical physics. There also was no dualism in Reich's ideas or writings, but such does appear to exist in the minds of the author's conception of Reich's discovery. The accusation of "outrageous mysticism" is serious enough as to demand the authors be explicit about it, or stop making vague attacks -- in fact, it would appear the effort to render Reich's broad and interdisciplinary functional theory of life-energy, down into some mathematical abstraction, is itself a big push towards mystical thinking, the very kind of mechanistic-mystical split Reich wrote extensively about, and which currently is a plague upon humankind. And who, specifically, is referred to in the claim about "most of his followers abusively held[ideas] - uselessly duplicating the electrical disjunction between negative and positive electricity..."(p.4) Nothing specific is mentioned to support this assertion -- no names, and no citations -- and even if such a citation could be found, what is the meaning of the word "abusively"? Why the attacks on people, if the work is at issue?
The first point made by DeMeo is beyond reasonability, since the aether of classical physics was never dynamic, but stationary , and Reich never decried the abandonment of the classical stationary aether, only the fact that instead of proceeding to discover the dynamic Aether (synonymous with orgone in the Reich of 1949), aether theory became fixated in the fictions of empty space or the vacuum state. A dynamic Aether is an Aether which is not stationary but is in permanent motion, and this is what led him to postulate in 1949 that all the real characteristics of the Aether, including its permanent motion, were properties of OR energy and thus that orgone was equivalent to a nonelectromagnetic Aether that had to be understood dynamically: "if the "ether' represents a concept pertaining to the cosmic orgone energy, it is not stationary", Reich stated.
Secondly, there is most clearly a dualism of OR an d DOR energies in Reich's theory from 1951 onwards, that forms the core outcome of the Oranur experiment, and impels Reich to revise his thought and widen its horizons. From the biophysical observations of ORANUR, Reich concluded that "The OR energy itself seemed to have changed into a dangerously, deadly form of power" (Reich, W (1951) "The Oranur Experiment, First Report (1947-1951)", p. 282). Or later, in 1956, where he makes biophysical, geological and cosmological observations of a metabolism between OR energy and DOR energy, speaking even of an 'OR/DOR balance' in the atmosphere, of an energy economy at work in all biophysical processes, he states: "At the very basis of these life functions [of aging and death] we find the dying of the Life Energy itself; the change from OR energy into so-called DOR, ie the dead Life Energy" (Reich, W (1957) "Contact with Space", p. 149). And later, regarding what he did or did not know about the process of conversion of DOR energy back to OR energy, he writes: "The outcome [of the desertification of the planet] hinges clearly on whether at all, to what extent and at what step of the decay process, DOR energy can be reverted again into OR or Life Energy" (idem, p. 152).
It is precisely the transformational dynamics of the relation between OR and DOR that Aetherometry takes up anew in a fashion which is both experimental and theoretical, by resolving questions that Reich left either unanswered or answered incorrectly.
Because DeMeo cannot understand microfunctionalist physics, be these orgonometric or aetherometric, he accuses the authors of mysticism, precisely where the authors demystify both theory and experiment!
But if DeMeo so much wants these authors to accuse him, specifically, of mysticism, it is no longer something these authors will refrain from doing - since he has given such ample examples of outrageous mysticism throughout the entirety of his pauper's critique. After all, here is a man who explicitly can neither explain nor propose the energy and frequency spectra of OR energy, let alone those of DOR energy. Who confuses pretreated mice with OP. Who confuses OP with reverse orgonomic potential. Who confuses functional mathematics with mysticism. Who writes, without the slightest substance, demonstration, reference or explanation that "the orgone can, for instance, impart a magnetic charge to ferromagnetic conductors, but is not magnetic itself. It can likewise impart an electrostatic charge to insulators, but neither is it fully electrostatic in nature" (DeMeo, J (1999) Orgone Accumulator Handbook, p. 11).
DeMeo speaks of OR energy as if the 'orgone' were another signifier, another theory of everything that explains nothing. A kind of Holy Ghost to a Reich anointed as a son of God, of which he, DeMeo, would be a high priest. He speaks of magnetic charge - but what is that? No one has ever seen it - and how does he measure such a mongrel?? And he recites the same mantra which is strewn all over his commentaries on our work: this time, the orgone only imparts electric charge to dielectrics (no talk here of spontaneous electrostatic charging of conductors...), but is not fully electrostatic in nature...Does that mean that it is one-quarter electrostatic, one half, one-third? It is like the 'not completely electric' or the 'impurely electric'. This, notre cher DeMeo, is precisely the kind of language that qualifies as 'outrageous mysticism' and which has made us - quite legitimately - lose all patience with those who call themselves Reichian. For, by writing the above, you have clarified nothing and done actual harm to Reich's theory, by dissolving it in these nonsensical generalities, reductionisms and analogisms that insult scientific intelligence. Here comes another intellectual bestiality, hard on the heels of the last one:
"[the orgone] reacts with great disturbance (...) to harsh electromagnetism".Define 'harsh' as it applies to electromagnetism, please... Is a high-intensity beam of LFOTs 'harsh'? Is blacklight 'harsh'? Is ionizing radiation 'harsh'? Why these mystical and animist references that could never satisfy the spirit of any true inquiry into the nature of life and its biophysical functions?
This is the kind of depth which sadly satisfies DeMeo and his nonthought. He cannot step outside of generalities, and at that, outside of ill-digested generalities. On p. 20 of the Orgone Accumulator Handbook, he states that orgone energy is 'negatively entropic', which as we have already discussed above, is sheer nonsense, since orgone is not a thermal energy. Rather, it is 'negentropy' of sensible thermal energy that is to be explained as a secondary result of 'reversed orgonomic potentials' of aether energy draw. Entropy is a thermal concept, and all that one can say is that the thermal anomaly inside and above ORACs (an anomaly that, incidentally, DeMeo stubbornly persists in reducing to a supposed effect of IR radiation!) is nonentropic or negentropic, not that OR energy is negentropic. His confused and confusing usage of the term "energy" is so loose as to designate 'electrical sparking' and 'friction' as 'secondary energies' (sic), also on the same page! Such language is devoid of any accuracy, filled with scientifist pretensions, nothing more and nothing less.
Further on, on p. 34 of the same booklet, after many contortions of the same type, including the statement that electroscopes can spontaneously charge inside ORACs exposed to clear and sunny atmospheres (something DeMeo is yet to demonstrate...), he then credits Miller with the objective demonstration of "a dynamic aether"! The reader only needs to read the correspondence between the authors and DeMeo to realize that Miller was desperately holding onto a static view of the aether (a fact DeMeo eventually ends up realizing and admitting in that very correspondence) and that his experiments are predicated upon the two premises of the MM experiment, both of which Reich himself declared 'invalid' (sic! that is correct!) in his 1949 discussion of the relation between aether and orgone energy.
This is the same DeMeo who, in the same Handbook, purports to discuss "the effects of ORANUR and DOR" (sic) by including a list of 'orgone-irritating devices' that contains such vague references as to "computer or microcomputer', as if the LFOT frequencies of these devices induced some ORANUR effect, or to "microwave ovens", which, after all, only produce an intense IR or sensible thermal field of LFOT photons, or even to "induction devices or coils" which, as the authors will demonstrate in the upcoming AS2- 13 and following monographs, can be made to operate as emitters of OR energy!! He then proceeds to mix these devices abusively with sources of ionizing electromagnetism (X-ray machines, cathode ray tubes), with sources of HFOT photons (fluorescent lamps, etc), with sources of constant magnetic fields - with no discrimination whatsoever between the physical natures of the diverse processes involved, and with a total disregard for science. It is a totally and completely ABUSIVE AMALGAMATION of widely different and varied physical processes, performed with the royal stamp of a Reich-icon, and perpetrated in his name. This, DeMeo, IS MYSTICISM - the inability to make separations where nature made them to begin with, together with the lumping of critical differences under the umbrella of an imaginary same that serves as false unity. In the thought and writing of DeMeo, orgone has no real physical meaning. It is like the eucharistic body of Christ, the result of a consubstantiation...
The fact is that DeMeo also has little, if any, concrete, physical understanding of the ORANUR effect he speaks of so much, or of the process whose effect is the conversion of OR into DOR. For the simple reason that DeMeo has very little idea of what DOR actually is as a form of aether energy with specific ambipolar electric characteristics, nor any idea of how it interconverts with OR energy, or of the different types of lumination which each induces, ie the functional relation between HFOT and LFOT light to the exclusion of ionizing electromagnetism. But even when he appears to realize from Reich's text that ORANUR is an effect, his understanding of DOR reduces to his statement that "Reich identified this deadened energetic state as dor (sic), which was short for deadly orgone". For then, without one shred of evidence, or references, or any presentation of data, DeMeo goes on to affirm that all the devices enumerated above 'produce Oranur' (sic), which, to say the least, is ostensibly not the case for several of them. His single bit of evidence, shown in the figure on p. 54 of the Handbook, does not even provide a control for the response of the sensitive millivoltmeter, without the philodendron being the load. The observed noise from either a fluorescent lamp or a cathode ray tube can be easily picked by any load (as DeMeo even notes on p. 69!), whether living or not, the philodendron example provided by DeMeo being a case in point of a pointless artifact. Note also how the Y axis of the figure on p. 54 is measured in millivolts DC, it being obvious that the phenomenon examined, if it were not artifactual to begin with, would lie within that range of ion voltage differential which, on p. 27 of the same handbook, DeMeo dismissed as "too slight and weak to be the causative agent' (of what, he never told us, but presumably he was referring to life-energy...).
For the incautious reader of DeMeo's Handbook, all might appear to be well with the stew he made ORANUR into: mixing the results of nuclear radiation and ionizing electromagnetism, and the ORANUR process whereby they induce the conversion of OR into DOR, with the effects of blackbody radiation, some of which (HFOT) results from DOR production, and others from OR radiation - such as LFOT photons (eg in induction coils, radio transmitters and radar beams) which, if they are too intense, can also have noxious effects upon living systems, yet have nothing directly to do with the ORANUR process.
This is the same kind of 'depth' of analysis that one would expect from Keelynet. Of from supposed nemeses of DeMeo, such as Ogg or Decker.
One might quite legitimately object that being a Reader's Digest of Reich, DeMeo's Handbook could not avoid the infantilized summaries he gives of Reich's work -transposing, reducing and rearranging statements made and written by Reich - nor extricate Reich's work from its own reductionisms. We would not argue with such an assessment. But we now know that his Handbook is reductionist not just because of his desire to appeal to a larger public and sell them a weakened version of (an)orgonomism, but because DeMeo himself is imbued with true and tried Anorgonomy, with a complete closure of mind and a facile dogmatism. It is his thought, too, which has thoroughly ossified.
This is also the same DeMeo who discusses the To-T difference as a 'differential' (sic), and who reduces the thermal anomaly to these words: "an air-tight orgone accumulator will spontaneously warm up the air inside itself by a few tenths of a degree, up to several degrees" (p.98). The same DeMeo who, in the one-page discussion of the electroscopic anomaly inside the ORAC, never once mentions whether the electroscopes employed were negatively or positively charged - and we have no doubt that this is because, until we drew his attention to this fact, he never knew how he was charging them - always contentedly assuming that he had charged them with 'orgone charges'...
The complete distortion of fact authored by DeMeo in this Handbook is simply amazing -as he makes it sound with his 'spontaneously' that the To-T effect is not solar-induced and thus is not an effect derived from solar radiation, and as he makes no reference this time to absorption of "solar thermal IR radiation" to explain the temperature difference - being soft on Reich where he was 'hard' on us, when it comes time to peddle his ORAC handbook... Most amusing, and most telling with respect to his recent posture towards us.
These authors would love to see a demonstration by DeMeo of an orgone accumulator running under stringent conditions - as in our replication of the Reich-Einstein experiment where the effect of solar radiation is maximally minimized - and yet displaying a spontaneous accumulation of several degrees centigrade...That is one more challenge to DeMeo - to actually attempt to support his absurd claims experimentally and analytically -that these authors know he will never take up.
One also finds in the Handbook the unspeakable deMeian notion that the missing energy of the mythical neutrinos is orgone energy "discharged directly back to the cosmic orgone energy continuum" (p. 51). This, once more, is that priestly exegesis so characteristic of fundamentalism: he underwrites, with no questions asked, the notion there is missing energy - an error committed by the entirety of modern physics, save for Carezani's work and, of course, that of Aetherometry, which clearly show how the notion that neutrinos have substance in the context of explaining beta decay is a fiction resulting from mathematical error and a great deal of incomprehension surrounding the physics of the decay process - and he does so in order to recuperate even neutrinos into the arsenal of his crypto-orgonomic concepts... Reich will have turned on in his grave.
DeMeo invents these connections without any sense of examining them; it is all a matter of interpretation and baseless insinuation. And that, as we know, comes easy to priests bent on taking vengeance from the world and life. Such is the nature of the contagion of armoring.
But returning to the 'constructive critique, there are still a few more complaints from DeMeo against the authors:
" In S2-08 the authors statements "All light is formed by the local production of photons..." (p.32) "AtoS proposes that all light is produced locally in the form of quanta or photons" (p.35) are concepts derived from Reich's writings on the nature of light, but is not acknowledged as such. "
It is absolutely true that Reich first taught this notion (that light is a local production of photons) to the authors, who have amply credited him, in this regard, in AS2-11. But it is erroneous and a fallacy to assume that Reich first came up with this idea. In fact, Max von Laue suggested that all quanta, and thus all electromagnetic energy, were local, punctual productions of the interaction of Aether with Matter - in a letter dated June 2, 1906, where he explicitly states to Einstein that Einstein's photons only exist punctually but should not be seen as transmitting across the vacuum, nor as what transmits energy across the vacuum.
DeMeo just does not have the stature of understanding required to adequately situate the contributions of Reich to a modern biophysics of aether energy. He is too narrow-minded, too dogmatic, too confused, too eager to resort to underhanded ploys, reductions and identifications, to have the rigor required to do justice to Reich's work, and so his discourse constantly slips into yet another form of theistic cottage-industry, one just barely adequate for the politically-correct remnants of leftism. Moreover, he gives in his commentaries such a clear proof of bad faith towards these authors, that there is obviously no further point in considering him a possible candidate for productive dialogue, let alone an ally engaged in a common combat for scientific understanding.
In fact, he now wants our blood, and resorts to attempts at wounding us:
"The subsequent statements on p.35, about "Reich showed how unsure he was about the nature of both light and the orgone, and their relation", are unsupported opinions. Factually, the authors own views on "local production of light" are erected like drapery on the foundations and scaffolding of Reich's explicit empirical discussion on this same phenomenon -- but Reich is not mentioned. The failure to properly credit Reich, or to properly present his views, is appalling here. I hope the authors were simply being incautious, in a rush to publish."
No, the authors were far from being incautious here, and far from needing the absurd excuse provided by DeMeo that they were rushing to publication. The monographs to which DeMeo refers have been written over a period of four or more years, and they put forth an aetherometric theory of the production of light which is quite different from Reich's theory, precisely in its emphasis on the fact that OR and DOR both produce different types of light (LFOT vs HFOT), and in its contention that this local production is an indirect one, mediated by absorption of OR and DOR by units of matter, by the subsequent transformation of OR and DOR energies into the kinetic energy of these elements of matter, and by the ultimate release of this kinetic energy in the form of local, 'punctual' photons. This is hardly 'drapery' on 'Reich's scaffoldings', nor anything that DeMeo himself knows, or should pose as knowing. He has not written about it, nor has anyone else. And until we publish (shortly) the physics of this process of production of light from the Aether, there will be no such descriptions of this process available. Period. But DeMeo is a poseur who needs to appear as if he was able to ignore the actual physical process whereby blackbody photons are produced, and which aetherometric theory is, for the first time, bringing forward.
And, in the process of bringing it forward, aetherometric science is also smoking these Reichians out of the black holes where they have transformed une science mineure into another mass-religion, a last-ditch church. DeMeo is, after all, as unable to provide the energy spectrum of OR or of DOR energies, as he is unable to provide the energy spectrum of the electromagnetic energy quanta these OR and DOR energies produce when they interact with electrons or protons. But Aetherometry has long ago made these determinations, and those results have been published at www.aetherometry.com.
Like a good Reichian, DeMeo wants his cake and to eat it too: at once, these authors are found by him, at one and the same time, to both be fundamentally at variance with Reich's theory (and not his theories), and to have said nothing more than what Reich had already said and better. With this maneuver, DeMeo hopes to fudge the unavoidable fact that he has been, and remains, completely ignorant of the physical mechanism whereby orgone and DOR convert into light or nonionizing electromagnetic energy. He hopes to thereby mask his extreme ignorance of the subject he so much talks about and peddles. And since Reich, if he ever did actually know the exact process whereby light is produced from orgone or DOR, did not divulge it, DeMeo will have to accept that these authors are and were the discoverers of this process. That is to say, were he honest and actually capable of reading either Reich or Aetherometry - such would, of necessity, have to be his admission.
Examples of this kind of priestly dogmatism abound in more recent posts from DeMeo, and his argument over whether we should spell Aether as 'aether' or as 'ether' is as spurious and filled with irrelevant considerations as there can be, especially in light of the fact that he himself in his Handbook wrote "aether" (eg p. 36), and that it is hardly a question of either American versus British spellings, anymore than that "aether" refers to a stationary "ether" and "ether" refers to a dynamic "aether". This is more nonsense devoid of any scientific or philosophic thought. The choice of "aether" is merely an advantageous one, as it seeks to eliminate, on purely pragmatic grounds, any reason to confuse the physical concept of aether energy with the chemical concept of ether bond or compound.
Anyone who makes more of this, turns it into a battlehorse and finds in it a semantic reason for crusade, is, in our opinion, indulging in useless speculation and much religious ado about nothing. After all, the root of "aether" is the Greek aithr or aiqhr...
And, after all also, DeMeo is a very ignorant man who feels insecure in what he thinks he knows. And he should realize that he has good reason for feeling insecure. For he, like other Reichians, knows very little about what he purports to know best: orgone energy. All the more reason, one might have thought, he would be curious and eager to extend his knowledge.
If that causes him indigestion, if he now clearly recognizes himself amongst the dejecta of historical opportunism that recuperated Reich for their own base purposes, that is a problem he is still in time to resolve - by really reading aetherometric science and learning what he did not understand, does not understand, has not understood, and refuses to understand.
Of these scientific cadres or officiating priests of science, be it official or last-ditch, that constitute veritable smart lines of "front-row spectators", Debord once wrote: "they're stupid enough to believe they can understand something, not by making use of what is hidden from them, but by believing in what is revealed!"
They are the nonthought of antiproduction. In the sample at hand, a case of a Reichianist Oedipus that has befallen the tatters of (An)orgonomy.
"Combat is not war. (...) Combat is not a judgement of God, but the way to have done with God and with judgement. No one develops through judgement, but through a combat that implies no judgement." (Deleuze, G (1997) "To have done with judgement")
Aetherometry is a permanent combat against those who sit in judgement. No less than a combat against those who sit, just plain sit, sit and sit. And forget not what the poet says - "sitting on fences can make you a pain in the ass".