An Orgonomic Theory of Good and Evil – The Orgone Directional Thesis

From: Andrew Johnson

Date: 2016-09-02 19:39:11

Attachments :Having become more familiar with the work of Wilhelm Reich, I found this essay/article by Leon OC-Research to be fascinating…  I know some folks might be sort of put off by the religious references, but this is a rare article that covers aspects of theology, science, energy, orgonomy, consciousness and UFOs – how could it NOT be interesting??? Take your time!! I even asked Leon if I could repost it on checktheevidence and he said “yes”!    An Orgonomic Theory of Good and EvilThe Orgone Directional Thesis ‘Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.’Genesis Chapter 3‘This greatest riddle in nature’Reich (referring to consciousness) in Character Analysis  IntroductionOne can define goodness as thoughts, intentions and acts that lead to benefit, happiness and value. Evil can be defined as thoughts, intentions and acts that are undertaken to cause harm or to destroy value. Although good and evil are hard to define exactly most people would agree that they exist.Orgone is a life-energy discovered by Wilhelm Reich. In my work I define it slightly more broadly than Reich did as a life-force – a continuum of spirit, energy and matter properties. I argue previously that such a continuum itself possesses consciousness rather than just giving rise to consciousness mechanically or energetically. I call this the, ‘Orgone-As-Conscious-In-Itself,’ view and it forms the basis of an Orgone Continuum, Life-force Theory of Consciousness. I believe that orgone is a conscious, universal and physical life-force. If orgone is such a continuum, the basis of reality, this brings to mind a key philosophical problem. This is a problem common to all philosophical and religious views: why does evil actually exist? In the terms here, if a universal, creative life-force exists, why is there also evil?Reich had two theories which could lead to an orgonomic theory of good and evil. One based on desert formation and one based on an experiment called the Oranur Experiment. I shall call these the Desert Thesis and the Oranur Thesis respectively.Desert ThesisThe Desert Thesis was based on Reich’s experiences during his cloudbusting operations. He noticed that deserts were prickly, oppressive environments that are thirsty and water depleted. He observed that plants in the desert developed hardened exteriors and hollowed out interiors, like a cactus. He put forward an analogy with certain hardened, dried-out and hollow character types in people, part of a process which Reich called character armouring. He likened some of these character types in people to a certain ‘desert-like’ structure. Reich didn’t develop this idea but it formed the creative basis of Demeo’s in-depth Saharasia study.Based on Reich’s work, Demeo’s PhD anthropological study found a cross-cultural, statistically significant link between desert cultures and armoured character structures going back some five millenia. This was especially reflected in the way children and young adults were treated. In the Desert Thesis we have a sequence of steps that leads to suffering and therefore evil. Firstly, there is a change in the type of environment – desertification. This causes widespread trauma as generations of people in previously lush areas compete for now scarce resources or starve. Warriors take over what resources remain and raid the fallen cities and towns before invading the non-desert regions next to them. So the next stage is mass societal trauma over many generations. In reaction to this mass trauma humans armour. This is both a physical armouring of muscles in order to suppress uncomfortable feelings and a character armouring. This armouring gets structured into families and then into societies which reproduce the armouring in each generation. This creates ongoing suffering and evil.In synopsis we have desert-trauma-armouring-societal armouring-evil. This process then repeats without the need for the initial agent (the desert). Armoured cultures being more aggressive then take over or influence less armoured cultures globally.Demeo has argued in personal exchanges that the Desert Thesis represents the ’cause’ of human suffering. Aligning causation and an aspect of a process is common to materialism and the new evolution of materialism – which I call energy-ism. I define energy-ism as the attempt to explain all phenomena through the movement of energy. I see it as an update of materialism but essentially sharing much in common with it. Energy-ism, like materialism, cannot explain the causation of armouring. It also cannot explain many other observations such as possible paranormal phenomena. Any non-local or spiritual phenomena or anything outside of time (eg. precognition) are also beyond its remit. It is very difficult to explain consciousness too with a materialist or energy-ist viewpoint (except to characterise it as an accidental epiphenomena).Epiphenomena are a mere side-effect of something else. For example, consciousness can be seen as an epiphenomena of neurons in the materialist view or as an epiphenomena of the movement of energy in the energy-ist view (for example the view of consciousnesses in Systems Theories). Both views I consider to be unsatisfactory explanations for consciousness. This is a separate topic  but briefly, we can look at a couple reasons why this is so. One, it is taking something that is a primary characteristic of reality (consciousness) and making it a secondary characteristic (an epiphenomena). Something that all organisms strive toward – expressing their consciousness – is just a side-effect of the material or energy within those organisms acting as a machine or a system. Something that appears to lead the process (consciousness) is relegated to an after-effect. In any case, the universe is not simply a machine or a system and nor are the creatures within it. A better analogy would be that the universe and the entities within it behave like organisms (Sheldrake). Secondly, it doesn’t explain why the universe creates ever greater consciousness if the universe itself is accidental and not driven by a conscious force.To return to causation, materialists and energy-ists must misclassify it as causation itself appears to be an aspect of consciousness. They do not want consciousness within their theories if it can be avoided. Therefore materialists (and energy-ists) often assign causation to material or energetic effects or agents. For example the agency of the brain is given a causative role by materialists in consciousness. An agent of consciousness, the neurons, ’causes’ the consciousness. Or DNA ’causes’ and ‘directs’ the organism like a mini-Emperor. As Sheldrake has noted this is like saying a TV set must ’cause’ its pictures because that’s where the pictures ‘are’. Never mind that organisms without any neurons at all can have the traits of being conscious (such as the dislike of harmful stimuli that even an amoeba will display). Let’s forget that people born without much of their physical brains can still be mentally normal (from MRI studies of those with greatly reduced cerebral brain matter see Sheldrake’s Science Delusion and elsewhere).  Never mind that some organisms exist prior to DNA or RNA even being created or that genetic information is transferred without DNA (such as through membranes). We must ignore that we do not know how exactly DNA creates a template for the organism as a whole, if in fact it even does do that. We must instead take a step in the chain of effects, the neural hardware (the brain) or the protein synthesis processor (DNA), and label that as the ultimate cause. One cannot in fact find causation anywhere in materialist or energy-ist theories. Causation must either be ignored, invented or dismissed as irrelevant. Sheldrake gives a deeper exposition of the unsatisfactory nature of the mechanistic view of science in The Science Delusion if one wants to examine this and related areas in depth.Demeo in Saharasia, classes the desert as an ‘agent’. An agent, as we have seen, is a step in the process of something happening. Here the desert is a step in the process of armouring. But in personal discussion he states that the desert is actually not just an agent but the cause of armouring. If that is the case then what is the cause of the deserts? The Ice Ages ending may have caused the deserts. Or perhaps a solar system cataclysm such as noted by Velikovsky caused the great desertification of 4000BC to present. But what then caused the Ice Ages or the solar system cataclysm? Obviously this is a never ending series of ‘effects’ in a chain. So are we then to conclude that mankind’s suffering is simply due to being victimised by a hostile environment? If we take the deserts as ultimately causative of armouring and thus of human evil, we are indeed the victims of external circumstance. It should be noted that I am not saying here that deserts are not an immediate precipitating factor in the appearance of armouring.Even if we say alternatively that there is a functional identity or functional relationship between deserts and armoured society then this means that the psychic phenomena of evil and the physical phenomenon of a harsh desert environment arise from one Common Functioning Principle (CFP). So we haven’t bypassed consciousness at all in the Desert Thesis but merely relocated it a step backwards as the CFP (of which the desert is a variation), see illustration below. Desert Thesis – Common Functioning Principle of Evil   The desert becomes a variation of evil consciousness (represented physically by Oranur/DOR) if a causative theory is to be had within the Desert Thesis. Although there is convincing evidence for the Desert Thesis in Demeo’s Saharasia and as useful a theory as it is, I don’t believe it is a causative theory on its own. This is not a criticism. Saharasia does not have to be a causative theory to be successful. I believe it is a sequential theory as it describes a sequence of effects.As we have discussed, causation is problematic in any material or energetic theory. Classical Western philosophy has questioned if causation can lie within the material or energetic planes. Perhaps causation can only be found within consciousness.  Oranur Thesis  Oranur is a destructive energy created when a small amount of nuclear radioactive material (NUR) is placed for some time within a powerful orgone accumulator (OR), hence the term, ORaNUR. It attacks people physically and psychologically and creates a storm of reaction within a strong orgone field. Eventually the orgone field (OR) can overcome the NUR creating a very powerfully positive substance called ORUR (ORgone treated URanium). No one has tried to investigate orur for nearly 70 years since Reich. Reich felt that orur could help provide one of the most powerful healing modalities ever known. Reich believed that orur could, ‘turn into one of the greatest healing powers humanity had ever possessed.’ (Contact with Space). There has been one single published oranur experiment since Reich which didn’t attempt to replicate Reich’s effects, even on a small scale, though it did confirm an anomaly (Milian, V. Pulse of the Planet 5). Reich did detail his oranur experiments in great detail and there were dozens of witnesses (mostly doctors) to the effects documented.Oranur, by virtue of an ability to find a person’s weak spots, may possess some kind of consciousness I believe. Reich felt oranur had an acute selective ability to find a person’s weaknesses, but he didn’t look into why it has this ability. Both orgone and oranur seem to be able to intelligently relate to the body and mind – to make conscious selections, they are not dumb energies working mechanically as Reich would be the first to admit. So an Oranur Thesis, by courtesy of perhaps already including consciousness, could be developed into a causative theory of good and evil. The orgone philosopher,Steven Katz, and myself both believe orgone and oranur to possess consciousness inherently (see also Steve’s Blog). Reich hinted at this view himself but did not develop it. I have argued in detail that orgone, the creative energy of the universe, is itself conscious in the Orgone Continuum Theory. If orgone is conscious, oranur probably is too, seeing as orgone and oranur are possibly aspects of a singular force.Katz initiated the Oranur Thesis in a theological context, alongside his mentor, Bob Passotti. Katz notes that the artificial division between physics and metaphysics had, just as Reich noted in the First Oranur Report (In Selected Writings of Wilhelm Reich, Oranur Chapter), irretrievably broken down. According to Katz, the orgone energy is the creative energy that emerges from God and oranur is itself a portal to the demonic realms. So there is a functional identity between orgone and God’s functioning and between oranur and the demonic realms according to Katz. The artificial boundary between the subjective, good and evil, and the objective, orgone and oranur, is no longer completely viable. The psychic and the physical could be one and the same. If we take those two aspects of the orgone continuum (orgone and oranur) as inherently possessing consciousness, there can perhaps be no division at all. They are not even really distinct aspects of a single entity in that case, two sides of the same coin for example (this was the position that Reich argued inContact with Space). Any differentiation between the physical and the metaphysical become merely hypothetical if the force in question is itself conscious. The physical and the metaphysical become merely two modes of looking at the same entity. Medical View of Evil Reich took what I call a ‘medical view of evil’ and this is actually the consensus throughout religion and philosophy. An alternative view, that I call the ‘eternal warfare view of evil’ has few modern supporters. In the medical view of evil, it is assumed that there is a singular God or singular universal mind, or in secular terms, a universal nature. Although this singular entity is omnipresent (everywhere) and omniscient (in all awareness) it is not omnipotent (all powerful). Contrary to the simplistic, strawman arguments of the militant athiests, most religious views do not see God as the 17th century version – an omnipotent ‘High God’ supreme creator being. The High God concept so loved by Dawkins would be considered idolatrous by most modern theologians (because it reduces God to a human-like being). God is also not omnipotent in at least one sense because all beings are said to have their own free will, to do good or evil. In addition, many consider God to be transcendent of all human terms including good, evil, existence or non-existence. Omnipotence is another human concept which would be transcended by such a God. Most monotheistic views would agree that individual beings have their own minds and can follow their own paths. There are a few religious and materialist exceptions which advocate complete determinism but these are the exceptions as the implications are nonsensical to most people. Some implications of materialistic determinism is that we are all merely robots living in a machine universe and one can predict absolutely everything theoretically. Consciousnesses is merely a convenient illusion in this view.To return to the medical view of evil, at a deep level, we can all be said to be aspects of one entity. Individual aspects of this entity can become isolated, lose their wholeness or simply choose an evil path. Just as a body or cell can become diseased so can aspects of reality – an organism, an environment, become less whole, less ordered, less vital. So being in a state of evil is therefore a disease, a ‘medical’ issue philosophically. Most religions and humanities take this medical view of evil.An alternative view (the ‘eternal warfare view of evil’ as I call it) is that the universe reflects a conflict of eternally opposing forces. Generally, a good, constructive force, God, and an evil, destructive force is forwarded. The physical universe is not one singular entity but is the juxtaposition of two or more competing forces. The medical view of evil is more compatible with the monotheistic viewpoint and the eternal warfare view is more compatible with dualistic systems such as Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism from ancient Persia. However some forms of religion, such as Gnosticism, seem to have a mix of the two views of evil mentioned above. Some religions in practise have a mix of the above views even if their theology does not.It is noted that the dualist view of evil (the eternal warfare view) is not similar to that of polytheism however. Many apparently polytheistic traditions such as Hinduism and native beliefs are ultimately monotheistic in that they posit a singular universal source, for example, Brahma or the Great Spirit. The various ‘gods’ in polytheism are merely conscious entities, like ourselves, but of a different order. Brahma or the Great Spirit is not a ‘god’ but the universal source, similar to the monotheistic God. Virtually the entire human race takes a monotheistic position ultimately. This is interesting philosophically. I would include Buddhism here and even some agnostics and atheists as the post-modern theological view of God as a transcendental force is very similar to the Buddhist view of the state of Buddhahood. Even many agnostics (including Darwin and Einstein) would likely agree, or at least not reject, the difficult to understand and subtle definition of God that modern theology describes. Dawkins and his colleagues are attacking a 17th century concept of God and a Biblical literalism which is scripturally incorrect anyway (the Bible doesn’t have to be read entirely literally, this was not how it was originally intended to be understood by Judaic scholars, theologists argue). It seems virtually all the greatest scientists in history have been theists or at least agnostic. I personally include Reich as a theist. His position, especially in his last years, would be close to the post-modern theological view in my opinion. The dichotomy between truth in religion and in science is false and always has been false. However science and religion have also been unified in subtle, almost underhand ways. For example, I view the Big Bang theory as a religious theory (because I don’t accept it as empirically evidenced and it implies a creator God). Most people however view it as a scientific theory and take the implications onboard unconsciously (a mechanical universe created by a supernatural God).I also believe it is important for orgonomy as a science to be able to comprehend consciousness and spirituality – the vast majority of the human race believes there is something beyond the material and energetic planes. Most humans on this planet believe in a spiritual reality. Atheism is not the norm of the human race. Consciousness and spirituality as the mere side-effect of a non-conscious energy or of a dumb inanimate matter just doesn’t stack up for most of humanity. Reich never put forward an orgonomic explanation for consciousness – his theory about perception was an early Systems Theory (see Orgone Continuum). In this theory, orgone moves around inside a membrane, and consciousness somehow arises. Although this theory may well describe part of how perception functions in an organism it is not a very suitable theory for explaining the existence of consciousness itself. I think Reich knew this.Most orgonomists would agree that orgone is a living energy – a life-force. One can measure the real effects orgone has on plants and environments to increase their life potential. But how can one have life without consciousness? Is it not impossible for a living energy to also not be conscious in itself? Life automatically implies consciousness I believe. Should not a life-force be a consciousness-force also then? Does this living force which itself creates matter, require a boundary of matter before it can be conscious? Is matter therefore more important than orgone in the creation of consciousness? In the current theoretical view of consciousness in orgonomy, it is indeed matter that is more important. This is I believe incorrect. Orgone is primary in genetic terms to matter and is probably inherent to consciousness too. The current position in orgonomy is also internally contradictory. All medical orgonomists tacitly accept that memory is somehow within the orgone. The dissolution of armouring brings to the surface the memories that created it – as every therapeutic orgonomist knows. Therefore memory and consciousness are not local to any single material structure in the body but are somehow connected to the free flow of orgone in the body as a whole (and probably outside it too).To return to good and evil, there are problems with the medical view of evil. If one says that a certain state of life is an illness that is making a judgement. However unpleasant or dysfunctional that state is seen as being it is still just a state of life. Someone might say that being evil is just a part of life – it is not in itself an illness. If that is a person’s judgement it is hard to disagree. Anything that exists is in effect natural – including armouring and the current few thousand years of evil behaviour and abject suffering of our unhappy and cruelly mistreated world. Our misguided society does not exist outside of nature in a vacuum. Nature has created the circumstances of the universe which has allowed our state of life to exist – even if it is an aberration, it is a natural aberration. Or one could say in illness, or in an evil state of life, one’s functioning is impaired. But again who is to say which set of functions are the proper, full set and which are the impaired, partial set? So the medical view of evil is perhaps unscientific. It is saying in effect, “these are the preferable states of life, we’ll call these ‘health’ and they are ‘good’. These are the ‘bad’ states of life we’ll call these ‘disease’ and they are ‘bad’ states”. There may be good reason for these judgements, they may even be universally agreed – but they are still judgements.Although evil is quite separate to goodness, there does not seem to be more than one cosmic energy in the experimentation of orgonomy. There does not currently appear to be a life-force and a death-force with separate and competing consequences. Reich saw evil arising out of the blocking of the path of the creative orgone. Physically, muscular armouring (or brain armouring/immobilisation in schizophrenia) would perform this blockage. Emotionally, this blockage would be maintained by the character structure. So this blockage, armouring, would come into place through these mechanisms Reich described. Humans put these mechanisms into place in reaction to prolonged trauma. So in orgonomy, evil arises from reaction to external trauma (producing armouring) which then places blockages on the free flow of orgone.  Common Functioning Principle (CFP) of Good and Evil According to Reich (Diagram by Southgate)   The round core of the base arrow (the CFP) represents the orgone energy of the organism. Reich rejected Freud’s death drive and masochistic drives saying that humans had but one drive – towards pleasure, health and life but that this drive becomes blocked and then expresses itself in a twisted manner in masochism and other situations. Freud’s death drive then became illusory for Reich, the processes being merely the thwarting of the orgone energy in its quest for healthy expression (as illustrated above).Ultimately, in theological terms, there does not appear to be a supreme good versus a supreme evil – a life drive versus a death drive. Reich’s singular cosmic life-force would rather correspond to the existence of a singular good force of a creative universe. From an orgonomic viewpoint, there appears to be just one cosmic energy that functions creatively (orgone) or destructively (oranur). This doesn’t explain why evil exists however – even if we go through all the mechanics or energetic components – desert-trauma-armour-armoured society. This is still a list of agents in a chain.The singular force of orgone also doesn’t explain why one cosmic force can manifest in a dualistic way (creativity versus destruction, life versus death, orgone energy versus oranur energy). Our experienced universe is undoubtedly dualistic, we cannot deny that – so why is that so when we can observe only one cosmic force, orgone, and not two forces, an orgone life-force and a separate oranur death-force? We can counter this by arguing that why the universe is dualistic is not important, the point being to change our circumstances. But I would argue that we are inherently inquisitive creatures and in any case, understanding our predicament better may assist us in our struggles. Orgone Directional Thesis What I feel is that we have one force – the orgone continuum, but that this force manifests in two distinct ‘directions’. One can have Spirit-Energy-Matter, the creative, ‘good’ direction of orgone. I agree with Katz, that the creative good direction of orgone may ultimately originate from God. And one can have Matter-Energy-Spirit the destructive direction of orgone or ‘evil’ which is ‘pulled’ back towards the spirit realm by negative consciousness. Orgone Directional Thesis  Spirit-Energy-Matter (Orgone energy, Creativity, Life, Goodness) –>  <-- Matter-Energy-Spirit (Oranur energy, Destruction, Death, Evil).  Nuclear fission corresponds to the evil direction as does conventional electrical forces – both entail the destruction ofmatter or matter being in a highly overcharged, unstable state (splitting of the nucleus or loss/overflow of the charged particle/field respectively). This leads to release of energy in the form of nuclear radioactivity or excess electrical charge, which then impacts consciousness in various ways (spirit). So again, Matter-Energy-Spirit.In the good direction I propose that we have an outburst from consciousness or spirit which manifests into orgone energyand then into matter, Spirit-Energy-Matter. In the evil direction you have consciousness as the ‘attractor’, or ‘consumer’ of energy but the process first becomes manifest with matter. There is the destruction of matter, which then moves into the realm of orgone energy as excitation (oranur) or depletion (DOR). This energetic change then stimulates and is absorbed by consciousness or spirit as I call it. So in both the good and evil directions, the causation I believe lies in spirit or consciousness. (I define spirit as physical consciousness – see The Orgone Continuum Theory).In goodness the cause, within spirit, is prior to the processes in energy and then matter. In evil the cause is subsequent to the process (of Matter-Energy-Spirit). It is still a causative process in evil but instead of being a prior ‘initiator’, it is a subsequent ‘attractor’ or ‘consumer’. In terms of time one is before the process (goodness) and one afterwards (evil) but in terms of cause, the cause lies within consciousness and is the primary principle. So the cause is independent of the time events, especially in the evil direction. Spirit or consciousness lies outside of time I believe. It is only energy and matter that lie within time I contend. This is why I believe precognition is a logical occurrence incidentally.Nuclear radioactive material within a highly charged orgone environment creates oranur. This corresponds to the evil direction too. Matter breaks down (nuclear destruction) this creates orgone energy overcharge (oranur) which then impacts consciousness (spirit), so Matter-Energy-Spirit. X-rays can also create oranur in a high charge orgone environment. This too corresponds to the evil direction. X-rays, like electricity in general, are a destruction or overcharge/overflow of matter – electrons or charged particles in intense movement. This antagonises the orgone energyfield thus creating an overcharged atmosphere (oranur energy) which then affects the body and mind (spirit). So the evil direction applies of Matter-Energy-Spirit. The CERN lab incidentally is likely to create large amounts of oranur – the equivalent of a city’s electrical charge rushing around the high orgone environment of the Swiss/French border.The Desert Thesis also corresponds to the Directional Theory. The desert reflects a breakdown in the planetary balance ofmatter – a change in the water balance of the planet as a whole. The change in water availability turns a previously lush life environment into a harsh oranur, death environment energetically. As the water levels change the plant and animal life is destroyed and complexity is reduced, life becomes scarce. Ecological cooperation is reduced and competition becomes the key in a fight for individual survival. The life environment, exposed to the sun without cloud-cover becomes overcharged or depleted, an oranur or DOR environment respectively. In reaction to this deadly change and in order to protect themselves from it, humans become armoured, physically and in character type. This armouring becomes embedded and recreated by society and the rest, as they say, is history, sadly. So water depletion (matter) leads to an oranur/dor type environment (energy) which in turn leads to armouring and character changes (spirit) – Matter-Energy-Spirit. There is an energetic change before a matter change but the evil process is only manifest when the matter changes so therefore I take matter as the beginning of the process in the evil direction.

Related articles...

Comments are closed.