Contents

Talk:Orgone: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:30, 1 July 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orgone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Article probation

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. See the Arbcom explanation of discretionary sanctions on Pseudoscience articles.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Paranormal Start‑class This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Alternative medicine Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Multidel

I strongly disagree with having "Orgonite" associated with Orgone. If Orgonite is mentioned in the article, it is necessary to highlight the fact that Orgonite "devices", and all other Orgone "technology" stuff found on the net are a DISHONEST recuperation of Reich concepts to pursue fraudulent commercial activities. None of the properties or alleged effects of Orgonite have something in common with Reich's orgone investigated effects. Also the image used in the head of the article is non appropriate. for the same reasons, because associated with the Orgonite business. For Intelectual honesty and respect for Reich's work integrity, we MUST remove or denounce the Orgonite and fake/dishonest Orgone business on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.99.199 (talk • contribs)

I would be happy to agree with you...once you post some evidence that, you know, any of this is true. The evidence that the scientists that made your computer work and the internet go have somehow missed. I will anxiously be awaiting your reply. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a change which relates to Devo, not orgone as such. The text previously read that Devo "probably sarcastically" promoted orgone recyclers, but the citation, footnote 30, explicitly makes clear the interviewer's opinion that they were sincere: "(At this point I realized he was being 100% sincere and I truly had to bite my lip a bit to keep from giggling. But still, I was in awe of the guy.)" For this reason I have changed "probably sarcastically" to "apparently sincerely". The link for footnote 30 is http://www.fecalface.com/SF/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=949&Itemid=92

and the relevant passage begins

A: Do you feel that this sort of consumer-based art conflicts at all with the critique of consumer culture that you were doing with Devo?

I've also made a couple of changes of spacing and punctuation to the quote itself. Mothersbaugh's words have clearly been run together at the original website and I've separated them here. E.g. "iconit" should clearly be "icon it" Not sure what the guidelines are on this. Spicemix (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any interesting results from these hypothesis? I've seen some videos illuding to them, by argon acucmilators promoting plant growth, etc. These are easily reproducible in regular homes, I'de love to try some out. All this guess work and quotations are not very helpful. --Namaste@^? 09:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think cloudbuster should get merged in as a section of this article. they are both short, and cloudbuster is too heavily dependent on the pseudoscience of Orgone to stand alone properly (it's hard to talk about it without going into orgone theory). --Ludwigs2 16:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: sounds good to me.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subtle energy identified by Reich characterized in the same terms as biofield energy. In effect, researchers today are replicating his work and carrying it further as the study of how intentionality influences this energy and the general health of an organism. For instance, Dr. Richard Gerber noted in his book, Vibrational Medicin Page 299-300, that (to paraphrase) energy healing applied to samples of enzymes changed the bioactivity and that the direction of change amongst the different kinds of enzymes always corresponded to the greater health of the organism.

Also for the feild controlling formation, in biology see: The "Re-discovery" of Morphogenic Fields Tom Butler (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would pretty much fall under the rubric of wp:original research unless you can find some third-party source that explicitly connects Reich's orgone to other forms of subtle energy. In fact, from what I know about Reich (which is limited to some curious academic reading in the history of psychology), what he proposed was a good bit different than the esoteric conceptions of subtle energy. his character analysis work would fit into the subtle energy rubric better than orgone. We shouldn't engage in incautious generalizations without a lot of sourcing to back it up. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You dismiss based on passing interest?

See What is Orgone? which is also the first reference of the article. The reference to "bioelectricity," which evolved into orgone energy is described today as biofield energy. Both have virtually the same list of characteristics. Like mesmer's magnetism, Reichenbach's odyle and Bohm's eidolons, Reich's orgone is a fundamental field of energy which is related to life and subject to intentionality.

I don't care if you discount the relationship. I have been using Reich's encounter with the law for one of my articles and thought I would offer the above bit of information. If you have it all figure out, fine! Tom Butler (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't cast me as an opponent here, I'm just pointing out what I think needs to be pointed out. The issue I have is with the chain of logic you presented above: "The reference to [...] which evolved into [...] is described today as [...]" The kind of chain of reasoning should always be sourced. that's all I'm saying. can you give a decent source that lays out that logic? --Ludwigs2 23:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the main points of divergence are covered in the article. Reich rejected "spiritual" forms of vitalism on one hand, and also, on the other, disagreed with Alexander Gurwitsch and Harold Saxton Burr who thought that bio-communication fields were UV and EMF repsectively. Covering these differences sufficiently points to the similar theories you mention. Redheylin (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]