Will Blog for Food

Wilhelm Reich, Orgone Energy, Dark Matter and Spontaneous Generation

Wilhelm Reich had a theory that a life energy, what he called orgone energy, permeated the universe. He invented a device called an orgone accumulator to  concentrate this energy and then a person could sit inside it and reap the healthful benefits. He claimed that it could cure disease and make a person more healthy, vital and full of energy. Later outgrowths of his work were bioenergetics, Rolfing and primal therapy. Reich never claimed that orgone energy was a precursor of life or that it gave rise to life. Other related claims for life energy or spiritual energy are the Chinese concept of qi or chi, the Indian Chakra, the Japanese concept of Reiki. There are also many other related concepts.

Charles Darwin invented neither the concept of evolution nor the concept of the "spontaneous generation" of life. Others before him including Lamarck also believed in it.

Darwin was not the first to develop a theory of evolution. More than 50 years before him the French zoologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that the various species had not been created in their current forms all at once, as was commonly believed, but had evolved through time by natural processes. He also embraced the principle of spontaneous generation propounded by Aristotle: Living things came into being directly from nonliving matter. Lamarck supposed this occurred on a minute scale unobservable to human eyes.

The general idea is that life had to come into being from non-life or be spontaneously generated. Another term for this is abiogenesis. This theory as well as others are concerned with the origin of life on earth from a primal soup. None of these theories postulate a universal life energy that permeates the entire universe and is a precursor for the development of life wherever circumstances are propitious such as on the planet Earth. The purpose of this blog entry is to propose such a universal precursor, and, I think, proof of it would have to be sought at the quantum level. Is there such a field as quantum biology? That's what I'm proposing. In fact it might be related to the dark mass/energy which makes up a considerable part of the universe and has physicists stymied. There may be some particle of mass/energy similar to a quark which is ubiquitous in the universe (as is microwave background radiation) and is capable of combining with "physical" particles such as quarks and electrons to form elementary life forms. Nothing like this has ever been observed because biologists are only looking at the molecular level. They need to be looking at a level many orders of magnitude smaller, the level of quantum physics rather than the level of molecular biology.

Physicists have yet to observe a Higgs boson or a graviton although they think they know so much about the fundamental particles. They have no idea what dark matter or energy is. If you have a scientific mentality, you would have to believe that life is capable of not only existing anywhere in the universe where conditions are favorable, but could come into being by natural means anywhere in the universe. For that to be the case, there must be one or more precursors that are ubiquitous and I speculate that they would be similar to the fundamental particles and might be incorporated into the Standard Model, which is a listing of all the particles and forces known to physicists.

Strictly speaking, the term particle is a misnomer because the dynamics of particle physics are governed by quantum mechanics. As such, they exhibit wave-particle duality, displaying particle-like behavior under certain experimental conditions and wave-like behavior in others (more technically they are described by state vectors in a Hilbert space; see quantum field theory). Following the convention of particle physicists, we will use "elementary particles" to refer to objects such as electrons and photons, with the understanding that these "particles" display wave-like properties as well. All the particles and their interactions observed to date can be described by a quantum field theory called the Standard Model. The Standard Model has 40 species of elementary particles (24 fermions, 12 vector bosons, and 4 scalars), which can combine to form composite particles, accounting for the hundreds of other species of particles discovered since the 1960s. The Standard Model has been found to agree with almost all the experimental tests conducted to date. However, most particle physicists believe that it is an incomplete description of Nature, and that a more fundamental theory awaits discovery. In recent years, measurements of neutrino mass have provided the first experimental deviations from the Standard Model.

I suggest that physicists incorporate the investigation of life at the level of quantum mechanics so that the Standard Model would include not only all the physical forces such as gravitation and electromagnetism and particles such as quarks and bosons but a "precursor of life" mass/energy as well. Maybe this is what makes up dark matter and energy. And Wilhelm Reich, although he never made the connection between orgone energy and spontaneous generation, deserves a posthumous apology from the federal government which incarcerated him, banned his literatrure and destroyed his orgone accumulators. He died in federal prison in 1957. One of the things I'm proudest of is that in the late 1960s a group of us, who published the San Diego Free Press, also obtained a copy of Reich's Mass Psychology of Fascism (from Canada) when it was still banned in the US and published and distributed a number of copies. The Mass Psychology of Fascism is especially relevant today in light of the character structure of the Bush Asdministration.

In February 1954, the FDA filed a Complaint for Injunction against Reich in the Federal Court in Portland, Maine. The Complaint declared that orgone energy does not exist, and asked the Court to prohibit the shipment of accumulators in interstate commerce and to ban Reich’s published literature which they claimed was labeling for the accumulators. After considerable thought and discussion of this matter, Reich responded with a lengthy letter to Judge John Clifford, explaining that he could not appear in Court, since doing so would allow a Court of law to judge basic scientific research. He wrote: “Scientific matters can only be clarified by prolonged, faithful bona fide observations in friendly exchange of opinion, never by litigation... Man’s right to know, to learn, to inquire, to make bona fide errors, to investigate human emotions must, by all means, be safe, if the word FREEDOM should ever be more than an empty political slogan. Furthermore, Reich asserted, if his painstakingly elaborated and published findings “...over a period of 30 years could not convince this administration, or will not be able to convince any other administration of the true nature of the discovery of the Life Energy, no litigation in any court anywhere will ever help to do so. I, therefore, submit, in the name of truth and justice that I shall not appear in court as the ‘defendant’ against a plaintiff who by his mere complaint already has shown his ignorance in matters of natural science.” Judge Clifford did not accept Reich’s letter as a valid legal response, and on March 19, 1954, a Decree of Injunction was issued on default as if Reich had never responded at all. But the Injunction itself was even more excessive than the initial Complaint: it ordered orgone energy accumulators and their parts to be destroyed it ordered all materials containing instructions for the use of the accumulator to be destroyed it banned a list of Reich’s books containing statements about orgone energy, until such time that all references to orgone energy were deleted After the initial shock, Reich continued his research, traveling to Arizona to experiment with the cloudbuster in the dry desert environment. While he was there, and without his knowledge, one of Reich’ students—Dr. Michael Silvert—moved a truckload of accumulators and books from Rangeley, Maine to New York City, a direct violation of the Injunction. As a result, the FDA charged Reich and Silvert with criminal contempt of court. Following a jury trial, both men were found guilty on May 7, 1956. Reich was sentenced to two years in federal prison, Silvert was sentenced to a year and a day. The Wilhelm Reich Foundation—founded in Maine in 1949 by students and friends to preserve Reich’s Archives and to secure the future of his discovery of the Cosmic Life Energy—was fined $10,000. While Reich appealed his sentence, the government carried out the destruction of orgone accumulators and literature. In Maine, several boxes of literature were burned, and accumulators and accumulator materials either destroyed or dismantled. In New York City, on August 23, 1956, the FDA supervised the burning of several tons of Reich’s publications in one of the city’s garbage incinerators, including titles that were only to have been banned. Among the materials burned were: Orgone Energy Bulletin (12,189 copies) International Journal of Sex Economy and Orgone Research (6,261 copies) Emotional Plague Versus Orgone Biophysics (2,900 copies) Annals of the Orgone Institute (2976 copies) The Oranur Experiment (872 copies) Character Analysis Cosmic Superimposition Ether, God, and Devil Listen, Little Man People in Trouble The Cancer Biopathy The Function of the Orgasm The Mass Psychology of Fascism The Murder of Christ The Sexual Revolution This destruction of literature constitutes one of the most heinous examples of censorship in United States history. On March 8, 1957, Reich signed his Last Will and Testament. Among its stipulations was the establishment of The Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust Fund as the legal entity charged with operating Orgonon as The Wilhelm Reich Museum; protecting, preserving, and transmitting his scientific legacy to future generations; and safeguarding Reich’s Archives. All appeals denied, on March 12, 1957—two weeks shy of his 60th birthday—Wilhelm Reich was temporarily incarcerated at the Danbury Federal Penitentiary in Connecticut. On March 22, he was taken to the Federal Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. He died there of heart failure on November 3, 1957, and was buried at Orgonon.

Fractal Voting

Fractal Voting (FV) is a voting method I developed. It is one of a class of utilitarian methods similar to range voting (RV) in some respects. Other utilitarian methods are approval voting (AV) and Evaluative Voting (EV). RV, AV and EV are all special cases of FV. Utilitarian voting methods involve a ranking of candidates or alternatives from most preferred to least preferred. In general there are two types of rankings: ordinal and cardinal. Ordinal ranking involves a list such as ABCD where the position of the letter, for example, indicates its preference ranking in this case A is preferred to B is preferred to C etc. Cardinal ranking also indicates how much A is preferred to B and how much B is preferred to C etc. This "how much" is also referred to as preference intensity. With utilitarian methods  numbers are usually asssigned to the candidates and the differences between the numerical rankings of two candidates indicate the preference intensity. One of the differences between FV and RV is that voters don't assign numbers to the candidates but indicate  preference intensities graphically.

Fractal Voting consists of a graphical user interface (GUI) or we could call it a graphical voter (GVI) interface (we will use the terms voter and user interchangably) and underlying software which translates the voter's preferences into numerical values which can then be used to sum up the votes for  each candidate and  determine the winner. Range Voting involves a system defined scale such as 0-99, 0-9 etc. The voter assigns a number contained in this scale to each candidate, and then the numbers are summed for each candidate to determine the winner. With Fractal the voter determines the scale and the scale can be more finely determined or less finely determined in different segments as the voter wishes. For example, if the voter wants to differentiate among candidates near the top of the scale more finely, he or she can subdivide that portion of the scale more finely in order to make these distinctions. The fineness of the scale is called the sensitivity level.  The sensitivity level, in general, will differ for each voter depending on how finely a voter can distinguish between two candidates or alternatives. This concept can be generalized to include fine distinctions between tastes or smells for example. A person might be asked to distinguish and rank several wines. Some people would be able to distinguish them very finely and others would only be able to make rough distinctions, say between good and bad. With RV, the system defines the sensitivity level which is the same for all voters. RV with a scale 0-99 has a higher sensitivity level than RV with a scale 0-9 and allows finer distinctions among candidates to be made. For example, candidates A and B might each be given ratings of 5 with RV (0-9) but given ratings of 51 and 57 with range (0-99). So finer distinctions can be made the more levels are available. 

With Fractal, the user or voter has complete control over the sensitivity which is variable over the whole scale. For instance, at the beginning of the voting process, the first thing a voter would do is to choose the number of levels he or she would like to start out with. This might be just two - good and bad. So there would be two "buckets" if you will, the good bucket and the bad bucket. All candidates in the good bucket would be indistinguishable from or indifferent to each other. However, before choosing the number of levels or buckets, the voter would first choose their most preferred or favorite candidate or candidates and least preferred candidate or candidates. Then all others would be relative to those. So initially a screen would be presented to the voters with two buckets - one for most preferred and one for least preferred. The voter would drag appropriate candidates onto these buckets from a list arbitrarily located on the right side of the screen. Then the voter would choose how many buckets or levels to start with. Please note that, if the voter chose 100 buckets and didn't go any deeper or finer than that in terms of sensitivity level, the voting method would be the same as RV. After the initial choice of number of buckets, that number of buckets appears on the screen as well as the buckets at either end denoting most preferred and least preferred. Now the voter drags other candidates from the list onto the buckets. Then the voter has the option of clicking on any one of the buckets and further subdividing this segment of the  scale. Let's say that the voter started with 10 buckets, and, in all but one bucket, there is only one candidate. In one bucket there are 4 candidates. The voter may choose to click on that bucket and then choose to subdivide that bucket alone into, for instance, 4 finer levels. These buckets then appear on the screen along with the list of the candidates who were in the original bucket. The voter then drags candidates from this list onto one of the buckets that represent subdividions of the original bucket. This process can be repeated indefinitely leading to finer and finer distinctions. When the voter is satisfied he or she can terminate the process and submit his or her vote.

The final vote can be printed out as a paper ballot showing an overall scale subdivided as the voter has indicated and all candidates listed in order of preference, preference intensity and fineness of distinction or sensitivity. The underlying software can be implemented in terms of a push down stack where the first word in the stack contains the number of words in the stack. Initially, this would be 2 for most preferred and least preferred. These words might contain the numbers 1 and 0, respectively. As the voter adds levels or buckets, words are added to the stack.  The stack would be popped up to the level where the voter indicates that he or she wishes to add levels, and then the number of levels added that the voter has indicated. For instance, if the voter initially wants to order candidates just in terms of good and bad (a binary decision), two words would be added to the stack between the words corresponding to least preferred and most preferred. One might contain the number 1/4 (corresponding to the mid-point of the "bad" bucket) and one might contain 3/4 (corresponding to the mid-point of the "good" bucket). Continuing on in this way, the buckets are each defined in terms of a numerical value in a process that is totally transparent to the voter who just has to deal with a simple GUI and repeat the same process over and over to as many levels as he or she wishes. Then each candidate is associated with a pointer that points to the appropriate numerical value in the stack.

Since the process is the same for the voter no matter how deeply he wishes to proceed in terms of sensitivity level, we call this method Fractal Voting. Think of it as branches on a tree some of which are subdivided into smaller branches which are further subdivided and so on. At each stage the voter performs the same steps so the process is simple and intuitive for the voter.  This is the essence of the fractal process: no matter what the depth, the procedure is the same. At completion each candidate will be asssociated with a pointer which represents his numerical rank. The pointer will point to a word in the stack which will contain a value between 0 and 1 which represents the intensity  of that rank. Note that, unlike RV, the voter never has to assign numerical values to candidates making the provess simpler and more intuitive akin to punching a hole on a ballot or putting a check mark next to a candidate. When all voters have submitted their ballots, the numerical values associated with each candidate are summed and the one(s) with the highest value win(s).

The advantages of Fractal over Range are the following:

1) There are no "partial strength" votes. A partial strength vote is submitted in Range when a voter does not pin his most (least) preferred candidates to the limits of the range.

2) The voter has a simpler and more intuitive while at the same time more sophisticated interface which allows him or her more options in the voting procedure.

3) The voter can choose his or her own sensitivity level and can continue to refine this as the voting process continues.

4) The voter can go into detail selectively in those parts of the overall ranking that concern him or her while doing a rough ranking in other parts of the overall scale.

5) The voter need not be concerned with numbers at all, but only with a visual on-screen representation of the preference rankings and intensities.

Fractal Voting lends itself to delegable proxies since various parts of the tree could be designated and filled in by trusted parties who have pre-voted and whose results are only a mouse click away. For instance, the voter could select certain candidates, indicate he wished to make a proxy vote and then select Ted Kennedy from a list of proxies. Then these candidates would be added to the screen in exactly the way that Ted Kennedy had previously indicated he would vote. This method would lend itself either to touch screen or computer screen voting. Security of the vote could be guaranteed by different methods, but this is really a separate issue. Issuance of a paper ballot and receipt would be a start.

In summary Fractal Voting is a generalization of AV, EV and RV and a voter could choose to vote in any of these styles if so desired. It is a utilitarian voting method since the placing of each candidate on a line in order of preference ranking and intensity reveals the voter's utility for each candidate in some sense. Social utility could be measured for each candidate by simply adding up the numerical values asssociated with that candidate in the stack over all voters. This would not represent a social utility in an absolute sense but in a relative sense. The voter is allowed to make either fine or rough distinctions among the candidates according to his or her sensitivity levels and/or knowledge of the candidates, and also to rely on the advice of trusted experts who have studied the issues and/or candidates more closely. Both the GUI and the underlying software are easily implemented.

Is Human Nature Basically Good or Basically Bad?

Thom Hartmann, a talk show host on Air America, is always referring to the conundrum about human nature: is it basically good or basically evil. I think "evil" is a loaded word so I transcribe the question to good vs bad. Hartmann then goes on to say that the traditionally liberal position is that human nature is basically good and the traditional conservative position is that human nature is basically bad. This leads to liberal positions that government should be a "backstop", something that provides help for people in need such as universal health care etc, and conservative positions that government should be a police force or military, something that protects the good guys from the bad guys.

My question is: why can't government do both? Provide social protection such as education, health care, social security and provide police protection from the bad guys. In fact most governments do both so there isn't such a dichotomy as Hartmann imagines.

Returning to the basic question, I don't think there is such a thing as human nature in general. I think there is an aggregate of many human natures, and human nature spans the whole spectrum from good to bad. Some people are basically good and some are basically bad. Most are somewhere in between. The real question is "is the median human nature more good than bad or more bad than good or absolutely neutral, that is neither good nor bad." If bad is on the extreme right end of the spectrum and good is on the extreme left end, let zero represent the neutral point, negative numbers represent good points and positive numbers represent bad points. So the question becomes where does the median or average human nature lie.

My answer is that the average would be somewhere slightly to the right of zero or slightly bad. The reason is that I think people in general are basically selfish. For a person to be on the good side of the spectrum, he or she would have to balance selfishness with compassion, self-interest with caring for others. Since compassion and caring for others seem in short supply, on average, I don't think human nature is, on average, basically good although there have been examples of people who are basically good such as Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa, people who have devoted their lives to  caring for others, people of immense caring and compassion.

However, just because the average human nature is more bad than good is no reason to say that government should be just a police force and that's it, that people should fend for themselves. You would have to be pretty far to the right on the spectrum before I would say that you don't deserve any help from society but only deserve punishment. Shouldn't liberal government serve the bad as well as the good, especially when the bad aren't totally and thoroughly bad? I think so. It just need not be suckered. There are people who will abuse and subvert any service. This has to be guarded against. So while serving with the left hand, government has to be willing to punish, if need be, with the right.

From a Darwinian perspective, human nature has evolved in such a way that under certain conditions bad people are more successful than good and under different conditions good people are more successful than bad. Under primitive, less civilized conditions, in conditions of lawlessness, bad people tend to win out. For several centuries after the fall of the Roman empire, for example, war parties and raiders massacred peaceable people, pillaged, raped and stole their property. Bad people prevailed driving out good. In more civilized societies where the rule of law prevails, good people tend to drive out bad by either imprisonment or execution. However, bad people because of their ruthlessness, tend to rise to the top and gain powerful positions in large organizations including government. They, therefore, are in a position to wreak havoc on entire human civilizations. At the same time many small individual selfish decisions can lead to destruction of the environment by ignoring the welfare of the commons and only being concerned with selfish welfare. Both of these tendencies could cause the extinction of the human race just as 90% or more of the species that have ever existed have become extinct.

Whether humans can rise the level of compassion and cooperation necessary to  realize that their own collective selfishness is a threat to their quality of life and the cultivation of the commons is an enhancement remains to be seen. In some parts of the world, they seem to "get it." In other parts, not. It's a drama whose final  chapter has not yet been written.