SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

July 2012

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Robert David Ogden <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:11:40 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (82 lines)
absolutely. Reich thought that orgone energy was the basis of the intensity of orgasm. Northside Chicago SESPA had a guerrilla theater branch called Orgone National Labs ;-)



------------------------------
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 8:33 PM CDT Romsted, Laurence wrote:

>
>Does the Orgone box prolong orgasm? Whoa! Can we market that? JOKE :)
>
>Larry
>
>From: Michael H Goldhaber <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Monday, July 23, 2012 2:29 PM
>To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Discussion about Energy
>
>Nearly 40 years ago, Carolyn Iltis, a historian of science, was in Berkeley SftP. She was interested in topics such as witchcraft, but also played around with Wilhelm Reich's concepts, and had an orgone box. Reich was of course the follower of Freud who first tired to combine his work with marxism and was interested in various bodily energies. He got in trouble with the US government and was eventually declared insane because he believed in little green men or something like that. The orgone box was a box that was supposed to trap and reflect bodily produced orgone, which was somehow related to orgasm. I suspect Wikipedia must have an article on it.
>
>
>Best,
>
>Michael
>
>On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Romsted, Laurence wrote:
>
>Mitchel:
>
>Two more things.
>
>Without searching through past emails, I want to stipulate that I misrepresented you intentions. I did not scan them before I wrote the email below either. I went on my memory. My mistake.
>
>However, you could have at any time responded to my question to you, Joel and Petros. You have not. Please do. If you need the question restated, I will locate it in my old emails.
>
>Larry
>
>From: Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:41 AM
>To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: FW: Discussion about Energy
>
>
>Mitchel:
>
>Please. I felt I should tell this list why the potential discussion disappeared.
>
>From my perspective (obviously): You started the discussion by circulating Joel email without explanation. I was struck by a passage that made no sense to me concerning energy and chemistry. I offered to discuss it on the SftP list. Joel did not want to. You lost interest. Petros was willing to discuss stuff with me off list. We are sort of doing that now.
>
>I take very seriously the idea that the fundamental ideas of science that have developed over the past several centuries do not include important energy concepts. I do not know of any. So I asked. You have not responded either.
>
>If your going to circulate statements and idea that are contrary to established scientific ideas (that is OK), explain why you are circulate them, what they are about, and what the published and reviewed evidence is for them with references. It took me several email exchanges before I learned that Orgone was the missing energy. I do not know what Orgone is.
>
>Larry
>
>From: Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Monday, July 23, 2012 4:19 AM
>To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Discussion about Energy
>
>Larry, this is untrue, at least as far as I am concerned (and I believe it holds for Petros as well). How you come to this, I don't know, as I wrote the exact opposite -- that I did not want to discuss this privately but wanted to do so on the list. Joel Carlinsky declined, not me.
>
>M.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry Romsted
>Sent: Jul 22, 2012 10:48 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Discussion about Energy
>
>All:
>
>Remember those few emails about energy that sort of started after Mitchel sent an email from a guy name Joel and I volunteered to discussion the ideas?
>
>Joel, Mitchel and Petros, also involved a bit, decided that they did not want to discuss them in a discussion list.
>
>The end,
>
>Larry
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2