tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post9056516513513516058..comments2023-11-02T05:09:39.083-07:00Comments on kino fist: socialism must not exclude human sensual pleasure from its programme!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-35723982562012621722007-08-23T01:47:00.000-07:002007-08-23T01:47:00.000-07:00OT (but on the topic of kino fist): Have you seen ...OT (but on the topic of kino fist): Have you seen Guy Maddin's extraordinary seven-minute silent film, <I>The Heart of the World</I>?<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAbtEQxFow4<BR/><BR/>- commissioned in the year 2000 for the 25th Anniversary of the Toronto International Film Festival.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-62475315114896678392007-07-10T08:51:00.000-07:002007-07-10T08:51:00.000-07:00People still seem unwilling to think about the ide...People still seem unwilling to think about the idea of totally doing away with the Oedipal triangle, which is curious. <BR/><BR/>don't get me wrong, it's not that I WANT TO keep with it, and I try to not view Lacan as a Messiah, believing everything he says blindly, it's just that I notice the Oedipal thing is damn sturdy, and whoever provides an argument otherwise isn't very convincing (from ''collective gay saunas'' to Reich's communes, all those projects somehow crashed). If you say that's because people didn't yet fully adopt Marxism, the answer to my question is merely postponed.Dejanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11960835065614594014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-89785562311394885592007-07-07T10:28:00.000-07:002007-07-07T10:28:00.000-07:00Dejan: living in a block of flats or having flatma...Dejan: living in a block of flats or having flatmates is not equivalent to the collective raising of children, which rightly or wrongly is what the early Reich was advocating...<BR/><BR/>The question of space - very interesting points on the excess of collectivism. But the Soviet collective living experiments that Reich was very much familiar with (and to which he was still sympathetic until the reactionary turns of 1932-4, as you can see from <EM>The Sexual Revolution</EM>) were interesting in that they didn't posit cramped cityblocks at all, but spaciousness: gardens, open areas, collective facilities, high ceilings, lots of glass and light in buildings, etc. There's a very big difference between a Viennese Mietskaserne and what was being proposed in the USSR from 1927-30. There was, though, for better or worse, a certain amount of limiting of <EM>private</EM> space (though at the same time - the very advanced suggestion that men and women, even if married, should have separate rooms). It's a deeply flawed idea, but one that I think generally gets patronised.<BR/><BR/>People still seem unwilling to think about the idea of totally doing away with the Oedipal triangle, which is curious.owen hatherleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06943115307136493045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-5200910941810706652007-07-05T10:53:00.000-07:002007-07-05T10:53:00.000-07:00Jacques Lacan,quel écrivain!Tous ses Écritssont ra...Jacques Lacan,<BR/>quel écrivain!<BR/>Tous ses Écrits<BR/>sont ratatouilles.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-65146710993446115372007-07-05T10:39:00.000-07:002007-07-05T10:39:00.000-07:00Owen, the paper you quote is from 1929, when Reich...Owen, the paper you quote is from 1929, when Reich (then 32) was still an active - very active - member of the CP. By about 1935, his interests had started to shift from the political to the biological, not least because he Nazis were by then unshiftably in power and he had been forced to emigrate. He had also been dismayed to see what had become of the Revolution after he visited the USSR around the time that book came out. <BR/><BR/>- Sorry, I have to cut this short for the moment. But one point about socialism and collective living: while running his free Sexpol clinics in the crowded slums of Vienna, Reich had noticed what might be described as an excess of community: people just couldn't get away from each other. If they had any "utopian" yearnings, top of the list was some space to themselves - and one thing that was making them sick (and frustrated) was a dire lack of it. (Here it seems not irrelevant to mention that the world's population has more than <I>tripled</I> since 1929; and it's just been announced that 50% of the world's 6.6 billion people now live in cities.)Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-45405020747887139582007-07-05T10:25:00.000-07:002007-07-05T10:25:00.000-07:00why is this so? And should a socialist politics tr...why is this so? And should a socialist politics try and reclaim such experiments for its programme? <BR/><BR/>well I'm not sure in the first instance that such experiments are entirely absent from capitalism, for here in Holland, due to the high density of population as well as a strong tradition in caritas as well as socialism, communal living is an inevitability. Isn't the real question: howcome people do end up living together and yet remain strangers? <BR/><BR/>I am afrad bloody Reich is of limited use here, and we will have to consult bloody Lacan as well!Dejanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11960835065614594014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-2642949412695578732007-07-05T06:08:00.000-07:002007-07-05T06:08:00.000-07:00Late in the day here, I know, but just wanted to m...Late in the day here, I know, but just wanted to make one point: <BR/><BR/><EM>Reich never came close to advocating anything remotely like a Mühlian commune, and I think he would have seen very clearly how that was bound to end. "Ein verwachsener Baum wird schwerlich wieder grade."</EM><BR/><BR/>Well, I'm by no means an expert on Reich (have only read a couple of the early works) but in Dialectical Materialism and Psychoanalysis he states the following: <BR/><EM>‘The Oedipus complex is a socially conditioned fact which changes its form with the structure of society. The Oedipus complex must disappear in a socialist society, because its social basis, the patriarchal family, will itself disappear, having lost its raison d’etre. Communal upbringings, which form part of the socialist programme, will be so unfavourable to the forming of social attitudes as they exist within the family today- the relationship of children to one another and to the persons who bring them up will be so much more many-sided, complex and dynamic- that the Oedipus complex with its specific content of desiring the mother and wishing to destroy the father will lose its meaning.’</EM><BR/><BR/>Now, while this may not envisage on of Muehl's fiefdoms, it certainly does posit some kind of model of collective living, much as <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narkomfin_Building" REL="nofollow">theorists elsewhere were trying to establish</A>. And this is surely part of the point of the original piece. Such arrangements are now considered utopian/impossible/implausible, and the interesting question (as opposed to dead-end arguments about whether Reich was a vitalist or commensurable with bloody Lacan) is - why is this so? And should a socialist politics try and reclaim such experiments for its programme?owen hatherleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06943115307136493045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-4160554745446444712007-07-04T22:25:00.000-07:002007-07-04T22:25:00.000-07:00It is essentially a farce - Carry On Coming - and ...It is essentially a farce - Carry On Coming - and the protagonists are set up to be knocked down. Milena, like Otto Mühl, only has [is only allowed to have] a garbled understanding of what Reich meant when he talked about "sexual liberation".<BR/><BR/>Warszawa you have to substantiate this claim, instead of presenting it as a blanket statement. I find it a stupefying film which is far more than just farce precisely because of the juxtapositions with documentary material. The film parallels Reich in the way it subverts all expectations.<BR/><BR/>I know that Reich's is a functionalist theory, and this is why I don't really believe in it.Dejanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11960835065614594014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-66647439126666952582007-07-04T17:00:00.000-07:002007-07-04T17:00:00.000-07:00I didn't have a chance to see WR - I'm not sure wh...I didn't have a chance to see WR - I'm not sure what Makaveyev's intention was, politically - he's surely pro-Reich to make the film at all? I'm favourable to the idea of leading into a documentary with a sex-farce. This is maybe what Lacan's estate could get if they <I>did</I> hire Dejan.catminthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-19763995973352455742007-07-04T16:37:00.000-07:002007-07-04T16:37:00.000-07:00"Also, are you involved with Reich's estate - the ...<I>"Also, are you involved with Reich's estate - the Orgone foundation, or whatever...? "</I><BR/><BR/>Oh please, catmint. Why are you even asking this question? (The answer is no, I'm not involved in anyone's estate.) So now why not ask Dejan if he's "involved with Lacan's estate"? Why not ask IT if she was paid by Dusan Maveyev to promote his film...? <BR/><BR/>I only accept some of Reich's claims. I think he gave a fuller and more detailed and accurate and convincing account of what sex actually is that any other writer I know. And he rooted the libido in biology and thus in matter. He is neither a mystic nor a mechanist, neither a reductionist nor an obfuscator. His later work is very interesting indeed, but I'm not really qualified to make a first-hand judgment on it. Reich was really working on the edge of science by that time; but so is almost every serious scientist, at almost any time. And although 'orgonotics' is often dismissed out of hand as a 'pseudoscience' (by people who've never read Reich, and by the likes of Francis Wheen) it is probably more accurate to call it a protoscience. Few people have continued Reich's scientific work, not least because it's hard to find funding when the original researcher had his books burned by the FDA before landing in jail, and is still largely anathema. In recent years, the only two independent peer-reviewed experiments to test Reich's orgone accumulator were carried out at German universities in the 80s and 90s. Both confirmed that there were measurable effects they could not otherwise explain - and both recommended further research. <BR/><BR/>Tachyons, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, gravitational field energy... a whole host of phenomena have only been noted and investigated since Reich's death, and in all of these there are very strange and striking parallels to what WR called 'orgone energy'. It dioesn't necessary require that label, which tends to induce an outbreak of tittering in the average hearer. -But a blog comments box is no place to discuss this in any depth, and in any case I'm not a physicist.<BR/><BR/>Reason I posted here was: I've seen the Makaveyev film twice and found it interesting but annoying. It is essentially a farce - Carry On Coming - and the protagonists are set up to be knocked down. Milena, like Otto Mühl, only has [is only allowed to have] a garbled understanding of what Reich meant when he talked about "sexual liberation". So it's a bit exasperating when the comical fictional failures and mishaps of a few goofy puppets are taken to demonstrate the vanity of Reich's endeavours.<BR/><BR/>For me, by far the most interesting parts of the film are the documentary sequences: the interviews with WR's son and his co-worker (later biographer) Myron Sharaf, etc. And those extraordinary snippets showing a whole bunch of people undergoing the "orgasm reflex" (which is not an orgasm). What's going on there? <BR/>What, exactly?Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-52282361707268157672007-07-04T15:09:00.000-07:002007-07-04T15:09:00.000-07:00Qlipoth, are you accepting all of Reich's claims (...Qlipoth, are you accepting all of Reich's claims (e.g. Orgone energy) and arguing they're part of a materialist conception of reality? Or are you arguing that the materialism conception isn't correct? Or do you only accept some of Reich's claims?<BR/><BR/>Also, are you involved with Reich's estate - the Orgone foundation, or whatever, or do you only know Reich from books?catminthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-50918964923946590432007-07-04T13:17:00.000-07:002007-07-04T13:17:00.000-07:00"Q, isn't this vitalism? "What do you mean by 'vit...<I>"Q, isn't this vitalism? "</I><BR/><BR/>What do you mean by 'vitalism', catmint? And what if it were? Would the application of the label suffice to invalidate the argument? I don't think so. ("Isn't this the Spice Girls? They're so 90s.")<BR/><BR/>Reich in fact always described himself as a functionalist:<BR/><BR/><I>"Self‑perception is an essential part of the natural life‑process. It is not nerves here, muscles there and vegetative sensations in a third place; rather, the processes taking place in the tissues form an indivisible functional unity with their perception. <BR/><BR/>This is, indeed, one of the essential guiding lines in our therapeutic work. Pleasure and anxiety represent a certain state of functioning of the total organism. We have to distinguish clearly between functional thinking and mechanistic thinking which cuts things apart and will never grasp living functioning. Let us put down four principles of a functional concept of nature:<BR/><BR/>1. Every living organism is a functional unit; it is not merely a mechanical sum total of organs. The basic biological function governs every individual organ as it governs the total organism.<BR/><BR/>2. <B>Every living organism is a part of surrounding nature and functionally identical with it.</B><BR/><BR/>3. Every perception is based on the consonance of a function within the organism with a function in the outer world; that is, it is based on vegetative harmony.<BR/><BR/>4. Every form of self‑perception is the immediate expression of objective processes in the organism (psychophysical identity)."</I>Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-44971401297538810082007-07-04T12:26:00.000-07:002007-07-04T12:26:00.000-07:00"Freud had also hypothesized the existence of a bi..."Freud had also hypothesized the existence of a biological sexual energy in the body. He called it “libido,” and described it as “something which is capable of increase, decrease, displacement and discharge, and which extends itself over the memory traces of an idea like an electric charge over the surface of the body.”<BR/><BR/>But as the years passed, Freud and his followers diluted much of this concept, reducing the libido to little more than a psychological energy or idea. By 1925, Freud had concluded that “the libido theory may therefore for the present be pursued only by the path of speculation.”<BR/><BR/>Reich’s clinical work convinced him otherwise. He devoted himself to matters of technique in an attempt to overcome the limitations of psychoanalysis in treating neuroses. And in doing so he observed that sexual energy is more than just an idea, and that sexual gratification, in fact, alleviated neurotic symptoms. He discovered that the function of the orgasm is to maintain an energy equilibrium by discharging excess biological energy that builds up naturally in the body."<BR/><BR/>Q, isn't this vitalism?catminthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-74267650912410723942007-07-04T11:57:00.000-07:002007-07-04T11:57:00.000-07:00"really, I think Vitalism's basically reactionary....<I>"really, I think Vitalism's basically reactionary."</I><BR/><BR/>Who mentioned 'Vitalism', catmint? Only you. "Like, Vitalism kinda sucks, if you ask me." Um, whatever. Because you don't say <I>why</I> your dislike of something nobody has even mentioned should interest me or anyone else. -- Are we on MySpace? "Really, I think the Spice Girls reunion is a kewl idea." Um, whatever. <BR/><BR/><I>"I don't know why you want to insist on its obviousness and usefulness (if that's what you're doing) and at the same time despise (quirky, impractical) Deleuzian ideas about circular breathing* and permanent orgasms."</I><BR/><BR/>Why on earth should an interest in Reich entail a belief in "(quirky, impractical) Deleuzian ideas" about anything at all, least of all about "circular breathing and permanent[sic] orgasms"? <BR/><BR/>Never mind olms, catmint; your argument is a zpoing:<BR/><BR/>http://umusicimages.ca/wackyanimals/microsite/info4.jpgQlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-63820017494508104972007-07-04T11:28:00.000-07:002007-07-04T11:28:00.000-07:00Evidence for the Reported Benefits of Castrating C...<A HREF="http://www.avma.org/reference/backgrounders/castration_cattle_bgnd.asp" REL="nofollow">Evidence for the Reported Benefits of Castrating Cattle</A><BR/><BR/>Throughout history, farm animals have been castrated to eliminate indiscriminate breeding and reduce aggressive behavior. The procedure reduces management problems associated with aggressive and sexual behaviors, and decreases the incidence of dark-cutting meat. Intact male cattle (bulls) tend to produce lower quality grade, less consistent, less marbled, and less tender meat. In addition, carcasses from bulls command lower prices at market when compared with carcasses from steers.<BR/><BR/>Although castration is considered to be a model of pain in animals, it is also generally accepted that the procedure results in improved overall welfare for the animal and that its economic benefits outweigh its short-term welfare costs.catminthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-27765164354594551602007-07-04T11:09:00.000-07:002007-07-04T11:09:00.000-07:00Reproducible pornography is a discourse thats affe...Reproducible pornography is a discourse thats affectivity derives from the apprehension of a disturbing social reality outside its diegetic plane.<BR/><BR/>This pornography can only suggest, because it cannot realise:<BR/><BR/>1. the existance elsewhere of a general social pathology (along the lines of Foucault's <I>scientia sexualis</I>)<BR/><BR/>2. the existance of a real world of libertinism likewise outside pornography<BR/><BR/>(there is no libertinism, only a discourse about libertinism)<BR/><BR/>The affectivity of pornography is built around a double bind: pornography both incites and censures a libertinism it doesn't really relate to. Libertinism is here determined twice: as substance of indictment and as protocol of experiment.<BR/><BR/>For this reason the current form of reproducible pornography is probably vulnerable to gratuitous parody, as all commodities are vulnerable to gratuities.catminthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-86108932534857397702007-07-04T11:07:00.000-07:002007-07-04T11:07:00.000-07:00Q - "a permanent intake of breath"really, I think ...Q - <BR/><BR/>"a permanent intake of breath"<BR/><BR/>really, I think Vitalism's basically reactionary. I don't know why you want to insist on its obviousness and usefulness (if that's what you're doing) and at the same time despise (quirky, impractical) Deleuzian ideas about circular breathing* and permanent orgasms.<BR/><BR/>*for instance <A HREF="http://www.club100.net/species/P_anguinus/P_anguinus.html" REL="nofollow">the olm</A> who lives in caves in Slovenia and breathes through gills.<BR/><BR/>pornography:catminthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-68317973835232848362007-07-04T09:02:00.000-07:002007-07-04T09:02:00.000-07:00This is excellent, on Reich, Marx, work, sex and t...This is excellent, on Reich, Marx, work, sex and the body:<BR/><BR/>TOWARD A DIALECTIC OF SENSUALITY AND WORK<BR/><BR/>Arthur Efron <BR/><BR/>http://people.sunyit.edu/~harrell/billyjack/marx_crt_efron.htm#rt*<BR/><BR/><I> 1. Reich and Work. <BR/><BR/> Wilhelm Reich began by defending Freud's concept of libido as a quantifiable bodily energy; he went on to change that concept fundamentally so that it implies, in his writings, a dual biological aim: sexual expression and work expression. There is an "oscillation of biological energy", he thought, between those two aims, and no need for a forced (repressed) transformation of raw sexual energy into constructive activity. One way he put it, in The Function of the Orgasm, just at the place in the book in which this oscillation is diagrammed, is this. "Work and sexuality are not antithetical they foster one another by building up self-confidence." (Translated by Vincent T. Carfagno, New York, 1973, p. 184). I don't know if I can quite accept Reich's wording, but the point is the connection itself, not the precise terms. The better-known feature of Reich's theory is that sexual gratification through orgasm is necessary for adult health and for the performance of work in a manner that further fosters human loving an the creation of a true community. It is an idea that emerged when Reich saw that his patients could not go on doing rotten, alienating work once they had begun to be orgastically potent. The less recognized aspect-- ignored in the almost irresistible temptation to simplify Reich's thought--is that the relations of work and sex were envisioned as reciprocal. Doing "mechanical, forced, dull, work . . . deadens the sexual desires and is opposed to them." ...'</I><BR/><BR/>http://people.sunyit.edu/~harrell/billyjack/marx_crt_efron.htm#rt*<BR/><BR/>(The whole thing is well worth reading.)Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-82117026312641873242007-07-04T04:32:00.000-07:002007-07-04T04:32:00.000-07:00"Qlipoth, your point of view might seem more credi...<I>"Qlipoth, your point of view might seem more credible if you hadn't already been far too disdainful of frog sex disneyland "</I><BR/><BR/>Aha! Well, catmint, if it really was just three toads being toads in springtime, good for them and I hope they had fun. But I don't see how this makes my 'point of view' any less 'credible'. Maybe you could elaborate. <BR/><BR/>There's one really striking thing about all these responses to Makaveyev's film: the only part of it anyone even <I>mentions</I> is the fictional, 'parodic' Carry On Tito strand, featuring plenty of risqué jokes, some nice 'crumpet' in various states of undress, and a large cast of lovably wacky characters for everyone to laugh at (naive idealistic girl / pompous ideologue / robotic soldier /Stalin / etc.). Last time I saw it, I kept expecting Kenneth Williams to appear, shouting: "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me." Togas, indeed.<BR/><BR/>The other half is documentary.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-58667124334675996352007-07-04T00:02:00.000-07:002007-07-04T00:02:00.000-07:00If anything Sexpol magazine shows a bourgeoisie st...If anything <I>Sexpol</I> magazine shows a bourgeoisie stripped of roman togas - a very pure version of <I>homo economicus</I> - humanity without accumulated wealth or powers of coercioncatminthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-86749836807317118062007-07-03T16:24:00.000-07:002007-07-03T16:24:00.000-07:00...I thought your article was brilliant, by the wa......I thought your article was brilliant, by the way<BR/><BR/>the <I>Sexpol</I> magazine cover seems ugly to me though, maybe deliberately so, it doesn't make me want to join Sexpolcatminthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-30949445733939770562007-07-03T16:06:00.000-07:002007-07-03T16:06:00.000-07:00"but Reich himself was a lifelong serial monogamis..."but Reich himself was a lifelong serial monogamist, and he would have been disdainful (to say the least) of Mühl's little sexual Disneyland"<BR/><BR/>Qlipoth, your point of view might seem more credible if you hadn't already been far too disdainful of <A HREF="http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2007/06/three-heads-bad.html" REL="nofollow">frog sex disneyland</A>catminthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02817599862112800290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-43788587691020773212007-07-03T14:51:00.000-07:002007-07-03T14:51:00.000-07:00But as the years passed, Freud and his followers d...But as the years passed, Freud and his followers diluted much of this concept, reducing the libido to little more than a psychological energy or idea. <BR/><BR/>This isn't really true of Freud, only of his followers!Dejanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11960835065614594014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-13123664170730376052007-07-03T14:43:00.000-07:002007-07-03T14:43:00.000-07:00"Deleuze also hyposthesized... It is a continuatio...<I>"Deleuze also hyposthesized... It is a continuation of Reich's thought, ...Makavejev presciently put...And Freud by the way..."</I><BR/><BR/>It took you precisely six minutes to speed-read my post, not follow the link, respond not at all, combine four double-quick namechecks with some free association, and then post the results.<BR/><BR/>Dejan, I'm going out for a pint before you start telling me about Lacan.Qlipothhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17343878659776948134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2039096198679139361.post-59068353014561615392007-07-03T14:34:00.000-07:002007-07-03T14:34:00.000-07:00For Reich, the libido was biological energy, somet...For Reich, the libido was biological energy, something as real as electricity or blood-pressure or magnetism; and something with an actual function in a living body.<BR/><BR/>Yes Deleuze also hyposthesized (correct spelling?) the existence of biological, physical, measurable energy that he termed the Affect. It is a continuation of Reich's thought, which Makavejev presciently put in the film. And Freud by the way also felt there were correlates in the brain for his psychic constructs, so I don't know what you're adumbrating on about. Surely Reich was leaning on Freud's pressure model.Dejanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11960835065614594014noreply@blogger.com