Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [stoics] Re: Article on phronesis (practical wisdom)

Expand Messages
  • Kevin
    Jan regarding blind-spot 2. What evidence is there to support this view? Kevin
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Jan regarding blind-spot 2. What evidence is there to support this view?

      Kevin


      ------------------------------
      On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 1:04 PM EST Jan Garrett wrote:

      >Yes, context is important and our culture's fixation on following
      >rules is deeply problematic. (It is, to speak truly, mainly for the
      >"little people," not the elites who direct covert ops and dirty tricks
      >operations in the legal-political sphere, where anything goes if it
      >promotes the real values of the elites.)
      >
      >But the general virtue ethics approach which is behind the emphasis on
      >practical wisdom has two blind spots: (1) is the fact that "moral"/
      >political thinking is fundamentally divided between two distinct value
      >orientations, which have been called Strict Father Family model values
      >and Nurturant Parent Family model values (by George Lakoff) and
      >Dominationist and Partnership values (by Riane Eisler). (Lakoff's
      >analysis and probably Eisler's as well is more complicated than these
      >two models would suggest but they provide the basic axis around which
      >rotate other models, which never seen to go entirely mainstream but
      >can be found in specialist contexts, say, policy-wonkery and economics
      >departments, where the irrationality of "rational" egoism prevails.)
      >
      >The other blind spot (2), which is deeper and harder to challenge and
      >seems to affect Lakoff's thinking more than Eisler's, is the failure
      >to understand the effect of the suppression of genitality and pleasure
      >in human beings beginning in infancy. Once the power structure has us
      >trained to deny the positive significance of this connection--which it
      >does when it makes us hide the genital organs and revealing them is
      >taught as shameful, except in very constrained circumstances, and
      >"going there" is strictly verboten, we are well on our way to creating
      >an uncurious population, ready to accept all sorts of fairy tales
      >about unreal global conspiracies, the non-existence of climate change,
      >and so on.
      >
      >Of course, "we" do "go there" anyway--witness the consumption of
      >pornography in our society--a poor substitute for what is verboten by
      >the morality police. And the pornography of the regime of permanent
      >warfare and planet trashing that characterizes our current political
      >economy. (Aggression is a function of the suppression of healthy
      >natural drives.)
      >
      >Only if we confront the second blind spot will we be able to
      >understand that what often passes for virtue among the masses is not
      >simply a function of ruling class interests and the "fact" that the
      >ideas of every epoch are the ideas that the ruling class has worked to
      >impose, as a Marxist analysis might lead us to think, but that the
      >solution to the problem of promoting responsible rationality among the
      >masses of humanity requires understanding the current structure of
      >their psyches that makes taking responsibility (and not looking for an
      >authority to tell them what to do) in many cases impossible. Right now
      >it would be accurate to say "in most cases" but maybe this is not
      >hardwired in our genes and can be changed.
      >
      >I know very little of this is "Stoic," but if it is informed by the
      >alleged interest of every philosophy of human nature in emancipation,
      >salvation, freedom from unnecessary suffering, disalienation, etc. So
      >Stoics, if they are really rational animals, ought to be able to think
      >about the issues I am raising.
      >
      >Feliz Navidad (o Saturnalia) a todos y todas.
      >
      >Jan
    • jan.garrett@insightbb.com
      Kevin, I ve been away from my computer for several days, so I missed your question. For what aspect of my discussion of blind-spot 2 do you wish (more)
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Kevin,

        I've been away from my computer for several days, so I missed your question. For what aspect of my discussion of blind-spot 2 do you wish (more) evidence? Regarding my claim that this blind spot is greater in Lakoff's analysis of political morality than in Eisler discussion of partnership and domination models of human community, the evidence is in their books--several of which of each author I have read closely. About the general historical phenomenon of the suppression of genitality, one place to start would be W. Reich's "Imposition of Sexual Morality," contained in his Sex-Pol Essays 1929-1934, ed. Lee Baxandall. (It's also available in stand-alone editions.) Reich draws on anthropological studies of "savage" societies in the Trobriand Islands by Bronislaw Malinowski, which imply that conservative sex-morality evolved in tandem with social stratification and the evolution of private property, insofar as it was inherited in the male line.

        Riane Eisler's main contribution is her fascinating book Sacred Pleasure, though she does stress the centrality of this suppression to the extent that Reich does.

        Further evidence of this suppression can be found in the history of psychoanalysis. Freud started out to take this phenomenon very seriously --and to oppose it--but gradually drew back from his initial inclinations, as the psychoanalytic movement he founded became institutionalized and less inclined to take positions that religious conservatives (who are also almost always sexual conservatives) would find outrageous. By the time of Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud himself was inclined to say that sexual repression was necessary for civilization. Freud's hypothesis of the existence of a Death Instinct was part of his retreat.






        --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Jan regarding blind-spot 2. What evidence is there to support this view?
        >
        > Kevin
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------
        > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 1:04 PM EST Jan Garrett wrote:
        >
        > >Yes, context is important and our culture's fixation on following
        > >rules is deeply problematic. (It is, to speak truly, mainly for the
        > >"little people," not the elites who direct covert ops and dirty tricks
        > >operations in the legal-political sphere, where anything goes if it
        > >promotes the real values of the elites.)
        > >
        > >But the general virtue ethics approach which is behind the emphasis on
        > >practical wisdom has two blind spots: (1) is the fact that "moral"/
        > >political thinking is fundamentally divided between two distinct value
        > >orientations, which have been called Strict Father Family model values
        > >and Nurturant Parent Family model values (by George Lakoff) and
        > >Dominationist and Partnership values (by Riane Eisler). (Lakoff's
        > >analysis and probably Eisler's as well is more complicated than these
        > >two models would suggest but they provide the basic axis around which
        > >rotate other models, which never seen to go entirely mainstream but
        > >can be found in specialist contexts, say, policy-wonkery and economics
        > >departments, where the irrationality of "rational" egoism prevails.)
        > >
        > >The other blind spot (2), which is deeper and harder to challenge and
        > >seems to affect Lakoff's thinking more than Eisler's, is the failure
        > >to understand the effect of the suppression of genitality and pleasure
        > >in human beings beginning in infancy. Once the power structure has us
        > >trained to deny the positive significance of this connection--which it
        > >does when it makes us hide the genital organs and revealing them is
        > >taught as shameful, except in very constrained circumstances, and
        > >"going there" is strictly verboten, we are well on our way to creating
        > >an uncurious population, ready to accept all sorts of fairy tales
        > >about unreal global conspiracies, the non-existence of climate change,
        > >and so on.
        > >
        > >Of course, "we" do "go there" anyway--witness the consumption of
        > >pornography in our society--a poor substitute for what is verboten by
        > >the morality police. And the pornography of the regime of permanent
        > >warfare and planet trashing that characterizes our current political
        > >economy. (Aggression is a function of the suppression of healthy
        > >natural drives.)
        > >
        > >Only if we confront the second blind spot will we be able to
        > >understand that what often passes for virtue among the masses is not
        > >simply a function of ruling class interests and the "fact" that the
        > >ideas of every epoch are the ideas that the ruling class has worked to
        > >impose, as a Marxist analysis might lead us to think, but that the
        > >solution to the problem of promoting responsible rationality among the
        > >masses of humanity requires understanding the current structure of
        > >their psyches that makes taking responsibility (and not looking for an
        > >authority to tell them what to do) in many cases impossible. Right now
        > >it would be accurate to say "in most cases" but maybe this is not
        > >hardwired in our genes and can be changed.
        > >
        > >I know very little of this is "Stoic," but if it is informed by the
        > >alleged interest of every philosophy of human nature in emancipation,
        > >salvation, freedom from unnecessary suffering, disalienation, etc. So
        > >Stoics, if they are really rational animals, ought to be able to think
        > >about the issues I am raising.
        > >
        > >Feliz Navidad (o Saturnalia) a todos y todas.
        > >
        > >Jan
        >
      • jan.garrett@insightbb.com
        Correction to one sentence in my reply to Kevin: Riane Eisler s main contribution is her fascinating book Sacred Pleasure, though she does **NOT** stress the
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Correction to one sentence in my reply to Kevin:

          Riane Eisler's main contribution is her fascinating book Sacred Pleasure, though she does **NOT** stress the centrality of this suppression to the extent that Reich does.

          --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, jan.garrett@... wrote:
          >
          > Kevin,
          >
          > I've been away from my computer for several days, so I missed your question. For what aspect of my discussion of blind-spot 2 do you wish (more) evidence? Regarding my claim that this blind spot is greater in Lakoff's analysis of political morality than in Eisler discussion of partnership and domination models of human community, the evidence is in their books--several of which of each author I have read closely. About the general historical phenomenon of the suppression of genitality, one place to start would be W. Reich's "Imposition of Sexual Morality," contained in his Sex-Pol Essays 1929-1934, ed. Lee Baxandall. (It's also available in stand-alone editions.) Reich draws on anthropological studies of "savage" societies in the Trobriand Islands by Bronislaw Malinowski, which imply that conservative sex-morality evolved in tandem with social stratification and the evolution of private property, insofar as it was inherited in the male line.
          >
          > Riane Eisler's main contribution is her fascinating book Sacred Pleasure, though she does stress the centrality of this suppression to the extent that Reich does.
          >
          > Further evidence of this suppression can be found in the history of psychoanalysis. Freud started out to take this phenomenon very seriously --and to oppose it--but gradually drew back from his initial inclinations, as the psychoanalytic movement he founded became institutionalized and less inclined to take positions that religious conservatives (who are also almost always sexual conservatives) would find outrageous. By the time of Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud himself was inclined to say that sexual repression was necessary for civilization. Freud's hypothesis of the existence of a Death Instinct was part of his retreat.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Kevin <kevin11_c@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Jan regarding blind-spot 2. What evidence is there to support this view?
          > >
          > > Kevin
          > >
          > >
          > > ------------------------------
          > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 1:04 PM EST Jan Garrett wrote:
          > >
          > > >Yes, context is important and our culture's fixation on following
          > > >rules is deeply problematic. (It is, to speak truly, mainly for the
          > > >"little people," not the elites who direct covert ops and dirty tricks
          > > >operations in the legal-political sphere, where anything goes if it
          > > >promotes the real values of the elites.)
          > > >
          > > >But the general virtue ethics approach which is behind the emphasis on
          > > >practical wisdom has two blind spots: (1) is the fact that "moral"/
          > > >political thinking is fundamentally divided between two distinct value
          > > >orientations, which have been called Strict Father Family model values
          > > >and Nurturant Parent Family model values (by George Lakoff) and
          > > >Dominationist and Partnership values (by Riane Eisler). (Lakoff's
          > > >analysis and probably Eisler's as well is more complicated than these
          > > >two models would suggest but they provide the basic axis around which
          > > >rotate other models, which never seen to go entirely mainstream but
          > > >can be found in specialist contexts, say, policy-wonkery and economics
          > > >departments, where the irrationality of "rational" egoism prevails.)
          > > >
          > > >The other blind spot (2), which is deeper and harder to challenge and
          > > >seems to affect Lakoff's thinking more than Eisler's, is the failure
          > > >to understand the effect of the suppression of genitality and pleasure
          > > >in human beings beginning in infancy. Once the power structure has us
          > > >trained to deny the positive significance of this connection--which it
          > > >does when it makes us hide the genital organs and revealing them is
          > > >taught as shameful, except in very constrained circumstances, and
          > > >"going there" is strictly verboten, we are well on our way to creating
          > > >an uncurious population, ready to accept all sorts of fairy tales
          > > >about unreal global conspiracies, the non-existence of climate change,
          > > >and so on.
          > > >
          > > >Of course, "we" do "go there" anyway--witness the consumption of
          > > >pornography in our society--a poor substitute for what is verboten by
          > > >the morality police. And the pornography of the regime of permanent
          > > >warfare and planet trashing that characterizes our current political
          > > >economy. (Aggression is a function of the suppression of healthy
          > > >natural drives.)
          > > >
          > > >Only if we confront the second blind spot will we be able to
          > > >understand that what often passes for virtue among the masses is not
          > > >simply a function of ruling class interests and the "fact" that the
          > > >ideas of every epoch are the ideas that the ruling class has worked to
          > > >impose, as a Marxist analysis might lead us to think, but that the
          > > >solution to the problem of promoting responsible rationality among the
          > > >masses of humanity requires understanding the current structure of
          > > >their psyches that makes taking responsibility (and not looking for an
          > > >authority to tell them what to do) in many cases impossible. Right now
          > > >it would be accurate to say "in most cases" but maybe this is not
          > > >hardwired in our genes and can be changed.
          > > >
          > > >I know very little of this is "Stoic," but if it is informed by the
          > > >alleged interest of every philosophy of human nature in emancipation,
          > > >salvation, freedom from unnecessary suffering, disalienation, etc. So
          > > >Stoics, if they are really rational animals, ought to be able to think
          > > >about the issues I am raising.
          > > >
          > > >Feliz Navidad (o Saturnalia) a todos y todas.
          > > >
          > > >Jan
          > >
          >
        • Kevin
          Jan ,my question centers on this effect you propose... we are well on our way to creating an uncurious population. It isn t clear to me how shame of
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Jan ,my question centers on this effect you propose... "we are well on our way to creating an uncurious population." It isn't clear to me how shame of sexuality-- per se-- taught by authoritative segments of a society results in somehow retarding the inquisitiveness of a population.
             
            Regards
             
            Kevin

            From: "jan.garrett@..." <jan.garrett@...>
            To: stoics@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2012 5:31 AM
            Subject: [stoics] Re: Article on phronesis (practical wisdom)

             
            Kevin,

            I've been away from my computer for several days, so I missed your question. For what aspect of my discussion of blind-spot 2 do you wish (more) evidence? Regarding my claim that this blind spot is greater in Lakoff's analysis of political morality than in Eisler discussion of partnership and domination models of human community, the evidence is in their books--several of which of each author I have read closely. About the general historical phenomenon of the suppression of genitality, one place to start would be W. Reich's "Imposition of Sexual Morality," contained in his Sex-Pol Essays 1929-1934, ed. Lee Baxandall. (It's also available in stand-alone editions.) Reich draws on anthropological studies of "savage" societies in the Trobriand Islands by Bronislaw Malinowski, which imply that conservative sex-morality evolved in tandem with social stratification and the evolution of private property, insofar as it was inherited in the male line.

            Riane Eisler's main contribution is her fascinating book Sacred Pleasure, though she does stress the centrality of this suppression to the extent that Reich does.

            Further evidence of this suppression can be found in the history of psychoanalysis. Freud started out to take this phenomenon very seriously --and to oppose it--but gradually drew back from his initial inclinations, as the psychoanalytic movement he founded became institutionalized and less inclined to take positions that religious conservatives (who are also almost always sexual conservatives) would find outrageous. By the time of Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud himself was inclined to say that sexual repression was necessary for civilization. Freud's hypothesis of the existence of a Death Instinct was part of his retreat.

            --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Kevin <kevin11_c@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Jan regarding blind-spot 2. What evidence is there to support this view?
            >
            > Kevin
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------
            > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 1:04 PM EST Jan Garrett wrote:
            >
            > >Yes, context is important and our culture's fixation on following
            > >rules is deeply problematic. (It is, to speak truly, mainly for the
            > >"little people," not the elites who direct covert ops and dirty tricks
            > >operations in the legal-political sphere, where anything goes if it
            > >promotes the real values of the elites.)
            > >
            > >But the general virtue ethics approach which is behind the emphasis on
            > >practical wisdom has two blind spots: (1) is the fact that "moral"/
            > >political thinking is fundamentally divided
            between two distinct value
            > >orientations, which have been called Strict Father Family model values
            > >and Nurturant Parent Family model values (by George Lakoff) and
            > >Dominationist and Partnership values (by Riane Eisler). (Lakoff's
            > >analysis and probably Eisler's as well is more complicated than these
            > >two models would suggest but they provide the basic axis around which
            > >rotate other models, which never seen to go entirely mainstream but
            > >can be found in specialist contexts, say, policy-wonkery and economics
            > >departments, where the irrationality of "rational" egoism prevails.)
            > >
            > >The other blind spot (2), which is deeper and harder to challenge and
            > >seems to affect Lakoff's thinking more than Eisler's, is the failure
            > >to understand the effect of the suppression of genitality and pleasure
            > >in human
            beings beginning in infancy. Once the power structure has us
            > >trained to deny the positive significance of this connection--which it
            > >does when it makes us hide the genital organs and revealing them is
            > >taught as shameful, except in very constrained circumstances, and
            > >"going there" is strictly verboten, we are well on our way to creating
            > >an uncurious population, ready to accept all sorts of fairy tales
            > >about unreal global conspiracies, the non-existence of climate change,
            > >and so on.
            > >
            > >Of course, "we" do "go there" anyway--witness the consumption of
            > >pornography in our society--a poor substitute for what is verboten by
            > >the morality police. And the pornography of the regime of permanent
            > >warfare and planet trashing that characterizes our current political
            > >economy. (Aggression is a function of the
            suppression of healthy
            > >natural drives.)
            > >
            > >Only if we confront the second blind spot will we be able to
            > >understand that what often passes for virtue among the masses is not
            > >simply a function of ruling class interests and the "fact" that the
            > >ideas of every epoch are the ideas that the ruling class has worked to
            > >impose, as a Marxist analysis might lead us to think, but that the
            > >solution to the problem of promoting responsible rationality among the
            > >masses of humanity requires understanding the current structure of
            > >their psyches that makes taking responsibility (and not looking for an
            > >authority to tell them what to do) in many cases impossible. Right now
            > >it would be accurate to say "in most cases" but maybe this is not
            > >hardwired in our genes and can be changed.
            > >
            > >I know
            very little of this is "Stoic," but if it is informed by the
            > >alleged interest of every philosophy of human nature in emancipation,
            > >salvation, freedom from unnecessary suffering, disalienation, etc. So
            > >Stoics, if they are really rational animals, ought to be able to think
            > >about the issues I am raising.
            > >
            > >Feliz Navidad (o Saturnalia) a todos y todas.
            > >
            > >Jan
            >



          • TheophileEscargot
            I saw this review of a new biography of Wilhelm Reich recently, quite interesting. http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article850819.ece
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
               I saw this review of a new biography of Wilhelm Reich recently, quite interesting.



              --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, jan.garrett@... wrote:
              >
              > Kevin,
              >
              > I've been away from my computer for several days, so I missed your question. For what aspect of my discussion of blind-spot 2 do you wish (more) evidence? Regarding my claim that this blind spot is greater in Lakoff's analysis of political morality than in Eisler discussion of partnership and domination models of human community, the evidence is in their books--several of which of each author I have read closely. About the general historical phenomenon of the suppression of genitality, one place to start would be W. Reich's "Imposition of Sexual Morality," contained in his Sex-Pol Essays 1929-1934, ed. Lee Baxandall. (It's also available in stand-alone editions.) Reich draws on anthropological studies of "savage" societies in the Trobriand Islands by Bronislaw Malinowski, which imply that conservative sex-morality evolved in tandem with social stratification and the evolution of private property, insofar as it was inherited in the male line.
              >
              > Riane Eisler's main contribution is her fascinating book Sacred Pleasure, though she does stress the centrality of this suppression to the extent that Reich does.
              >
              > Further evidence of this suppression can be found in the history of psychoanalysis. Freud started out to take this phenomenon very seriously --and to oppose it--but gradually drew back from his initial inclinations, as the psychoanalytic movement he founded became institutionalized and less inclined to take positions that religious conservatives (who are also almost always sexual conservatives) would find outrageous. By the time of Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud himself was inclined to say that sexual repression was necessary for civilization. Freud's hypothesis of the existence of a Death Instinct was part of his retreat.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Kevin kevin11_c@ wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > Jan regarding blind-spot 2. What evidence is there to support this view?
              > >
              > > Kevin
              > >
              > >
              > > ------------------------------
              > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 1:04 PM EST Jan Garrett wrote:
              > >
              > > >Yes, context is important and our culture's fixation on following
              > > >rules is deeply problematic. (It is, to speak truly, mainly for the
              > > >"little people," not the elites who direct covert ops and dirty tricks
              > > >operations in the legal-political sphere, where anything goes if it
              > > >promotes the real values of the elites.)
              > > >
              > > >But the general virtue ethics approach which is behind the emphasis on
              > > >practical wisdom has two blind spots: (1) is the fact that "moral"/
              > > >political thinking is fundamentally divided between two distinct value
              > > >orientations, which have been called Strict Father Family model values
              > > >and Nurturant Parent Family model values (by George Lakoff) and
              > > >Dominationist and Partnership values (by Riane Eisler). (Lakoff's
              > > >analysis and probably Eisler's as well is more complicated than these
              > > >two models would suggest but they provide the basic axis around which
              > > >rotate other models, which never seen to go entirely mainstream but
              > > >can be found in specialist contexts, say, policy-wonkery and economics
              > > >departments, where the irrationality of "rational" egoism prevails.)
              > > >
              > > >The other blind spot (2), which is deeper and harder to challenge and
              > > >seems to affect Lakoff's thinking more than Eisler's, is the failure
              > > >to understand the effect of the suppression of genitality and pleasure
              > > >in human beings beginning in infancy. Once the power structure has us
              > > >trained to deny the positive significance of this connection--which it
              > > >does when it makes us hide the genital organs and revealing them is
              > > >taught as shameful, except in very constrained circumstances, and
              > > >"going there" is strictly verboten, we are well on our way to creating
              > > >an uncurious population, ready to accept all sorts of fairy tales
              > > >about unreal global conspiracies, the non-existence of climate change,
              > > >and so on.
              > > >
              > > >Of course, "we" do "go there" anyway--witness the consumption of
              > > >pornography in our society--a poor substitute for what is verboten by
              > > >the morality police. And the pornography of the regime of permanent
              > > >warfare and planet trashing that characterizes our current political
              > > >economy. (Aggression is a function of the suppression of healthy
              > > >natural drives.)
              > > >
              > > >Only if we confront the second blind spot will we be able to
              > > >understand that what often passes for virtue among the masses is not
              > > >simply a function of ruling class interests and the "fact" that the
              > > >ideas of every epoch are the ideas that the ruling class has worked to
              > > >impose, as a Marxist analysis might lead us to think, but that the
              > > >solution to the problem of promoting responsible rationality among the
              > > >masses of humanity requires understanding the current structure of
              > > >their psyches that makes taking responsibility (and not looking for an
              > > >authority to tell them what to do) in many cases impossible. Right now
              > > >it would be accurate to say "in most cases" but maybe this is not
              > > >hardwired in our genes and can be changed.
              > > >
              > > >I know very little of this is "Stoic," but if it is informed by the
              > > >alleged interest of every philosophy of human nature in emancipation,
              > > >salvation, freedom from unnecessary suffering, disalienation, etc. So
              > > >Stoics, if they are really rational animals, ought to be able to think
              > > >about the issues I am raising.
              > > >
              > > >Feliz Navidad (o Saturnalia) a todos y todas.
              > > >
              > > >Jan
              > >
              >
            • jan.garrett@insightbb.com
              I have read 2000 pages by Reich as well as a careful but generally sympathetic biography by a former co-worker of Reich (Myron Sharaf, Fury on Earth) and I
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 8, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I have read 2000 pages by Reich as well as a careful but generally sympathetic biography by a former co-worker of Reich (Myron Sharaf, Fury on Earth) and I have never seen the slightest evidence for the claim that Reich recommended his "orgone accumulator" as a tool for overcoming our sexual repressions. (He never called it an orgasmatron.) "Orgone" was conceived as a life-giving and enhancing energy (and, yes, it was present in sexual experience, but not only there). He thought that exposure to it might have positive therapeutic consequences for a variety of ailments. My impression is that he developed the accumulator mainly to concentrate and make possible the study of this specific form of energy, which he thought had cosmic significance. See his books (found within one binding) Ether God and the Devil/Cosmic Superimposition.

                The idea that the orgone accumulator might provide a technological device for quickly overcoming millennia of sex-repressive culture would likely have struck Reich as an example of the mechanistic thinking that distorts modern culture and much of modern science.

                --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, "TheophileEscargot" <snailman100@...> wrote:
                >
                > I saw this review of a new biography of Wilhelm Reich recently, quite
                > interesting.
                > http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article850819.ece
                > <http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article850819.ece>
                >
                > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, jan.garrett@ wrote:
                > >
                > > Kevin,
                > >
                > > I've been away from my computer for several days, so I missed your
                > question. For what aspect of my discussion of blind-spot 2 do you wish
                > (more) evidence? Regarding my claim that this blind spot is greater in
                > Lakoff's analysis of political morality than in Eisler discussion of
                > partnership and domination models of human community, the evidence is in
                > their books--several of which of each author I have read closely. About
                > the general historical phenomenon of the suppression of genitality, one
                > place to start would be W. Reich's "Imposition of Sexual Morality,"
                > contained in his Sex-Pol Essays 1929-1934, ed. Lee Baxandall. (It's
                > also available in stand-alone editions.) Reich draws on anthropological
                > studies of "savage" societies in the Trobriand Islands by Bronislaw
                > Malinowski, which imply that conservative sex-morality evolved in tandem
                > with social stratification and the evolution of private property,
                > insofar as it was inherited in the male line.
                > >
                > > Riane Eisler's main contribution is her fascinating book Sacred
                > Pleasure, though she does stress the centrality of this suppression to
                > the extent that Reich does.
                > >
                > > Further evidence of this suppression can be found in the history of
                > psychoanalysis. Freud started out to take this phenomenon very
                > seriously --and to oppose it--but gradually drew back from his initial
                > inclinations, as the psychoanalytic movement he founded became
                > institutionalized and less inclined to take positions that religious
                > conservatives (who are also almost always sexual conservatives) would
                > find outrageous. By the time of Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud
                > himself was inclined to say that sexual repression was necessary for
                > civilization. Freud's hypothesis of the existence of a Death Instinct
                > was part of his retreat.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In stoics@yahoogroups.com, Kevin kevin11_c@ wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > Jan regarding blind-spot 2. What evidence is there to support this
                > view?
                > > >
                > > > Kevin
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > ------------------------------
                > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 1:04 PM EST Jan Garrett wrote:
                > > >
                > > > >Yes, context is important and our culture's fixation on following
                > > > >rules is deeply problematic. (It is, to speak truly, mainly for the
                > > > >"little people," not the elites who direct covert ops and dirty
                > tricks
                > > > >operations in the legal-political sphere, where anything goes if it
                > > > >promotes the real values of the elites.)
                > > > >
                > > > >But the general virtue ethics approach which is behind the emphasis
                > on
                > > > >practical wisdom has two blind spots: (1) is the fact that "moral"/
                > > > >political thinking is fundamentally divided between two distinct
                > value
                > > > >orientations, which have been called Strict Father Family model
                > values
                > > > >and Nurturant Parent Family model values (by George Lakoff) and
                > > > >Dominationist and Partnership values (by Riane Eisler). (Lakoff's
                > > > >analysis and probably Eisler's as well is more complicated than
                > these
                > > > >two models would suggest but they provide the basic axis around
                > which
                > > > >rotate other models, which never seen to go entirely mainstream but
                > > > >can be found in specialist contexts, say, policy-wonkery and
                > economics
                > > > >departments, where the irrationality of "rational" egoism
                > prevails.)
                > > > >
                > > > >The other blind spot (2), which is deeper and harder to challenge
                > and
                > > > >seems to affect Lakoff's thinking more than Eisler's, is the
                > failure
                > > > >to understand the effect of the suppression of genitality and
                > pleasure
                > > > >in human beings beginning in infancy. Once the power structure has
                > us
                > > > >trained to deny the positive significance of this connection--which
                > it
                > > > >does when it makes us hide the genital organs and revealing them is
                > > > >taught as shameful, except in very constrained circumstances, and
                > > > >"going there" is strictly verboten, we are well on our way to
                > creating
                > > > >an uncurious population, ready to accept all sorts of fairy tales
                > > > >about unreal global conspiracies, the non-existence of climate
                > change,
                > > > >and so on.
                > > > >
                > > > >Of course, "we" do "go there" anyway--witness the consumption of
                > > > >pornography in our society--a poor substitute for what is verboten
                > by
                > > > >the morality police. And the pornography of the regime of permanent
                > > > >warfare and planet trashing that characterizes our current
                > political
                > > > >economy. (Aggression is a function of the suppression of healthy
                > > > >natural drives.)
                > > > >
                > > > >Only if we confront the second blind spot will we be able to
                > > > >understand that what often passes for virtue among the masses is
                > not
                > > > >simply a function of ruling class interests and the "fact" that the
                > > > >ideas of every epoch are the ideas that the ruling class has worked
                > to
                > > > >impose, as a Marxist analysis might lead us to think, but that the
                > > > >solution to the problem of promoting responsible rationality among
                > the
                > > > >masses of humanity requires understanding the current structure of
                > > > >their psyches that makes taking responsibility (and not looking for
                > an
                > > > >authority to tell them what to do) in many cases impossible. Right
                > now
                > > > >it would be accurate to say "in most cases" but maybe this is not
                > > > >hardwired in our genes and can be changed.
                > > > >
                > > > >I know very little of this is "Stoic," but if it is informed by
                > the
                > > > >alleged interest of every philosophy of human nature in
                > emancipation,
                > > > >salvation, freedom from unnecessary suffering, disalienation, etc.
                > So
                > > > >Stoics, if they are really rational animals, ought to be able to
                > think
                > > > >about the issues I am raising.
                > > > >
                > > > >Feliz Navidad (o Saturnalia) a todos y todas.
                > > > >
                > > > >Jan
                > > >
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.