Tag Archive | "system theory of Consciousness"

Implications of Orgone for Consciousness Research Part 1


 

Implications of Orgone for Consciousness Research

Part 1: A Critique of Previous Consciousness Theories

Leon Southgate MSc

For in the Market-Place, One Dusk of Day,
I watch’d the Potter thumping his wet Clay:
And with its all obliterated Tongue
It murmur’d-”Gently,Brother,gently,pray!”

                                                                      -Omar Khayyam (Persian Poet)

Synopsis

A brief overview of the main theories used to explain consciousness as explored from an orgone-based viewpoint. Reich’s views of consciousness are also ascertained and reviewed. The benefits and contradictions of Reichian and mainstream theories are explored. An organism and orgone-based, pan-psychic approach to consciousness is posited as a prelude to the possible development of new technology.

Introduction:

Before exploring the technical possibilities that orgone may have in consciousness and artificial intelligence research in Part 2 of this series, it might be worthwhile to recap the more accepted of the main theories regarding consciousness from an orgonotic perspective.

Materialism:

Firstly there is the dominant theory of consciousness of the last century or so which is materialism. Materialism has long roots even though it is considered a modern theory. The Atomist school of Greek philosophy, the most well known proponent being Democritus, espoused the materialist view centuries before Christ (1). This theory, in its ancient and modern forms views consciousness as a consequence of the movement of matter (known as an epiphenomenal view of consciousness). The ancient Atomist school of materialism saw mind as created by specialised mind atoms (ancient atoms describe indestructible particles and are not necessarily the same thing as modern atoms). Modern materialism views mind as the consequence of the action of neurons, chemicals and electricity in the brain and body.

After the triumph of Newtonian physics and prior to the indeterminism of quantum theory all matter was viewed in physics as essentially predetermined, at least in theory. A mechanical universe was believed to have been set in motion by God (and then later by the Big Bang). All material events could be predicted if one had complete knowledge of the physical forces present. Consciousness is therefore merely an illusion produced in the brain by this predetermined movement of matter – a side-effect or useful phantasm.

Not surprisingly very few people truly accept this view. Only hard-line materialists such as Daniel Dennett would seriously espouse this position with all its implications, such as the lack of free will or volitional consciousness (2). According to Dennett we are just evolving machines and our consciousness is a convenient illusion. Many scientists might accept the idea of this position, called ‘strong materialism’ when working in the laboratory (that all reality is just matter) but as concerns their private life most believe that they do have free will and conscious volition (they have ideas and choose to act upon them and are not merely a pre-programmed machine). This problem of strong materialism negating volition and will is called the ‘Philosophical Zombie’ problem within philosophy.

The main argument against strong materialism in modern science is that qualia, conscious experiences, can be mapped onto physical processes but cannot be reduced to them (3). However well a subjective experience is mapped onto an objective process the two phenomena remain distinct. Materialism is not an explanation for consciousness so much as simply a denial of it. At best materialism is a correlation to consciousness. Dennett’s approach is simply to say qualia doesn’t matter, it’s just an illusion. Such a position contradicts most people’s sense of reality and is incoherent philosophically. There is only one materialist position that makes any logical sense as regards consciousness in this writer’s view. As matter and consciousness are fundamentally different categories there is no way to understand one category in terms of the other. The only logical solution, other than denial of one of the two categories, is to fuse them. So we end up with matter that thinks or alternatively, thoughts that are material. This is the theory of pan-psychism.

In the pan-psychist approach, all matter is thought to possess consciousness to some degree. The British scientist, Rupert Sheldrake illustrates the logic of pan-psychism in detail in his book on the freeing the scientific method from constraint by narrow materialist dogma (4). His experimental work on non-local animal consciousness and in learning processes (the more people that learn something the easier it is to learn it) may practically indicate the existence of consciousness fields. He has shown that chemical crystallisation also reacts in this way to previous information elsewhere (a formerly difficult substance to crystallise will become easier to form once it has already formed somewhere else). He calls these processes morphic resonance (5) and they can be argued to support a pan-psychic approach to reality.

To continue our overview, the materialism of most scientists is either not thought through or is relegated to work only. Like the general public, most scientists, to some extent, privately believe in dualism.

Dualism:

Before strong materialism gained ascendency as a theory of consciousness, dualism was the dominant theory of consciousness. Dualism was exemplified by Rene Descartes (1596 – 1650) and lasted until the Enlightenment era of the 17th and 18th centuries when industrialisation of the environment led to its demise in our thinking. After the industrial revolution we came to think of ourselves as machines, just as today we think of ourselves as computers (6). Prior to this period, Descartes was one of the most influential thinkers regarding consciousness and his adage, popularly translated as, ‘I think therefore I am,’ is still influential today (7).

The French scientist declared that the only thing that can truly be known is that we are experiencing entities. Consciousness exists, all else can be doubted. What we take for reality could be an illusion. On the other hand, the fact that we experience consciousness cannot be denied. Whether what we experience is real or an illusion, we are still experiencing consciousness. Descartes believed that there are two realms, one of mind and one of matter and that the two interact through the pineal gland in the human brain (8). He thought most animals were automata and lacked this connection to the higher realm. Mind and matter can be seen as two fundamentally different substances according to the physicalist view of Descartes. In physicalism all entities are seen as physical including matter, energy and consciousness. It is not the same as materialism which denies non-material realities (9). The perfect physical substance for Descartes was God.

The difficulty for dualism scientifically is that it is irreconcilable in practice. Dualism has mostly been rejected by the scientific community for this reason (materialism is what is known as a monistic theory). In dualism there are two fundamental substances, or two realms. However, how do these two realms ever interact if they have nothing in common? No one has been able to answer this question satisfactorily in nearly three centuries. Dualism has mostly been given up as an explanation for this reason.

Some have considered whether the two realms are forever parallel to each (parallelism) but again this doesn’t offer any explanatory value. What enables the two realms to parallel each other? No one knows this either and philosophically speaking it would seem impossible to know. So both scientifically and philosophically dualism has not been fruitful.

However, materialism has also been found to be unsatisfactory by most people as an explanation for consciousness. It is commonly used as a valid explanation of consciousness but it only has explanatory power within a very limited realm – that of machines, technology and matter on a large scale. When it approaches organisms and consciousness it can go no further than correlation or reducing conscious organisms to mindless machines as Dennett does. Although generally not aware of it, most people use a mixture of dualism and materialism as regards their view of consciousness in daily life. Despite the great strides of materialism in the technological realm most of the human race still believes in a higher power. Most people believe in a spiritual realm and view reality as a mixture of dualistic and materialistic processes. Even Darwin himself, the arch-materialist, eventually conceded that his theories did not work without a higher power,

Then you admit Professor Darwin that there is a higher power behind evolution? ‘Certainly, I admit it; I am compelled to do so, because evolution has always gone onward and upward, from lower to higher forms of life. That could not be chance; it is unscientific to postulate such a hypothesis, because chance never moves in one direction.”(10)

Quantum Consciousness Theories:

Next there are the quantum consciousness theories. This posits that because quantum physics implies there is indeterminacy in the material world consciousness could thereby impose itself on physical reality through quantum events. Biologists are enquiring if quantum processes occur in nature. In particular, the behaviour of photons in photosynthesis pathways and the action of microtubules in the brain are being examined as likely candidates. If quantum processes, with their inability to be fully determined, take place within organisms then the mind could interact and affect material systems at this subtle level (11). These types of quantum theories produce a duality. Such biological, quantum events form in effect, a new Cartesian ‘pineal gland’, a bridge between psyche and soma. The realm of mind is still separate to the realm of matter but the two might interact through possible quantum processes in nature. Even if this dualism were to be well evidenced many of the physical processes are still somewhat speculative in nature at present. In any case, a physical process is not a subjective experience. The best we can hope to get is correlation between consciousness and physical quantum processes. So these types of quantum theories of consciousness are similar to other theories of correlation (such as the neurobiological ones). The best they can hope to offer is correlation within an updated version of dualism.

The observer effect in quantum physics, that measurement affects outcome, and non-local behaviour of particles is also thought to indicate a universal quantum field which many think might be synonymous with consciousness (12). Many popular authors do point to a monistic quantum approach, such as McTaggart who summarises many of the researchers in this area. She puts forward the hypothesis that consciousness and reality are fundamentally the same at the level of a universal quantum field (13). Although much consciousness research might explore quantum physics to validate its views of a universal consciousness, quantum physics as a whole is yet to demonstrate the existence of a universal consciousness field which can be accessed technically or measured with instruments.

System Theories:

The most modern set of theories regarding consciousness are the system theories, which Reich unintentionally presaged to some extent. In the system theories, consciousness is seen as an ‘emergent property’. So we have non-living material forces which at some point coalesce into the ‘emergent property’ of ‘life’ purely through random processes. Living systems themselves then undergo similar random processes. Through the actions of living systems to evolve and compete at some point they cause the ‘emergent property’ of ‘consciousness’ to become evident. First there is a vague glimmer of perception, then as material systems (brains and neural systems) develop and become more complex, self-aware consciousness arises.

Consciousness as an Emergent Property

This is also problematic as an explanation for consciousness. Firstly it is dualistic. It says that a new realm of functioning (self-consciousness) arises out of a less-conscious realm (animal) which itself arises purely by chance from a mechanical realm (matter). There is still the irreconcilable dualism between these realms once they have emerged (actually a trilogy of realms; matter, animal and consciousness). Once the material realm has created the animal realm which in turn creates the consciousness realm how do they all interact if they have nothing in common? And if they do share commonality, doesn’t that rather support the theory of pan-psychism rather than ‘emergence’ due to the mechanical behaviour of systems? Pan-psychism would, unlike system theories, posit that the universe was always conscious.

Also, if the material world cannot help but create animal life, which itself cannot help but create higher consciousness, doesn’t that mean that the universe itself is a consciousness incubator? If the universe is pre-programmed or destined for consciousness it must itself constitute an entity for giving birth to consciousness. It is hard to believe such an entity would not itself be conscious. So consciousness cannot ‘emerge’ if it already exists.

It cannot reliably be said, from what we know about the universe currently, that consciousness arises from a non-conscious, non-living universe, as an emergent property purely by chance. This chance factor is ruled out because the universe appears to be perfectly set for life and thus consciousness in terms of its cosmic physical parameters, the cosmic ‘laws’. Some may try and get around this by saying that there are multiple universes and this one just happens to be perfect for life and consciousness to manifest but there is no scientific evidence of multiple universes. Positing near infinite universes without evidence is the ultimate violation of Occam’s law (not to multiply entities unnecessarily). On the other hand there is abundant evidence that the cosmic parameters of this universe are perfectly set for life and consciousness to appear. This is known as the ‘Fine Tuning’ arguments and is explored to some extent by Sheldrake in The Science Delusion (14). For example, if any of the more than forty precisely set cosmic physical parameters were even minutely different, complex matter and thus life would not have arisen. The parameters appear to be too finely set to be the result of chance. Materialist cosmologists do not dispute the fine setting of cosmic parameters, they rather suppose, without evidence, that there are infinite universes. This one is thus perfect for consciousness purely by chance. One could not, even in principle, have a universe which is not perfect for consciousness. If we did discover multiple universes our consciousness will have penetrated them and they would become part of the universe we inhabit, a new dimension in effect. So, even the concept of multiple universes is itself debatable.

Reich’s version of system theories of consciousness will be explored later but are also inadequate. The system theories of consciousness as an emergent property are unsatisfactory. This is because consciousness remains epiphenomena in such views or there is irreconcilable dualism. Both aspects are unacceptable – the first because we are not robots, and the second because it fails to explain what causes consciousness. The best that can be hoped for from system theories, in this writer’s view, is that they explain the mechanics of a pan-psychic universe.

Neurological Theories:

There are the medical theories of consciousness such as in neurobiology and neurology to consider. Neurology is essentially correlative. Neurons, electrical and chemical processes are thought to generate consciousness in much the same way as a bicycle dynamo generates electric power. Most people accept this explanation on a superficial level because they can see that there is indeed correlation to some extent. But correlation doesn’t mean causation. As Sheldrake notes (15) a TV set can be correlated with a favourite soap opera but that doesn’t mean the opera was created inside the TV. More advanced versions of this view are looking at how interactions between sets of neurons and the neural field as a whole, even the whole body, can be involved in generating consciousness, but the primal mistake of mixing correlation and causation still exists (16).

Neurology often uses analogies of a computer when looking at the brain, and the assumed creation of consciousness which is assigned to it. Neurology cannot locate the physical position of a single memory much less the home of self or consciousness. Areas of the brain can be correlated for a while with sets of thoughts but function can change its physical locus in the brain and it seems to be related to the whole brain and body, not any particular discrete part (17). So the brain and a computer are entirely dissimilar. A computer stores memories as discrete material changes in a single location. A brain doesn’t. A computer carries out functions by opening and closing single gates. A brain doesn’t. It works as an integrated whole. The whole ‘human as machine’ and ‘brain as computer’ analogies have had their day. A human is an organism and a brain is an organism within an organism (18). This brings us to the holistic, alternative areas of science and philosophy.

Holistic Theories:

If consciousness works as an integrated whole using the brain then maybe consciousness itself is a field. Perhaps a holographic field – so that any one part of the field can access information at any other point in the field. This is quite possible but the physical aspect of any such field is yet to be demonstrated. Non-locality and direct action of consciousness has been demonstrated, I believe most strongly by William Tiller of Stanford University (19). He has demonstrated that consciousness can directly affect matter. Tiller imprinted electronic storage devices with strong conscious intent and then used these devices to affect biological samples.

As an aside, I believe some energetic effects related to Reich’s orgone work were taking place within Tiller’s studies unreported. Tiller placed his electronic devices in Faraday cages which would act as orgone accumulators. He also used four strong meditation masters to affect each device. They would presumably have strong physical orgonotic fields. In addition any electric current running through the imprinted devices would create an electro-orgone effect known as oranur which might amplify the consciousness effects in this writer’s view.

Tiller, although scientifically showing the effects of consciousness upon matter to take place, has not determined the energy, force or entity which allows such effects to take place. He posits that there is a deeper level of reality at which these effects occur and which conditions the ordinary material world.

Summary of Main Theories:

So in summary science has no explanation of how consciousness arises or how it interacts with reality. Only correlations and vague theories have been offered. When a universal field is posited for consciousness it is not a field we can access technically or measure with instruments.

Practically speaking there is experimental evidence that memory is not stored in a discrete location in the brain, as Sheldrake discusses at length in his chapter on memory and the brain (20). Memory and by extension, consciousness are probably field functions of some sort. There is also evidence that consciousness can affect material reality directly and non-locally (21). Tiller managed to affect biological samples at a distance and to create ‘conditioned’ spaces that would also affect samples after the agent was removed. Sheldrake has demonstrated non-local field effects of consciousness in animals and non-local field effects in crystallisation reactions. It is on record in Wikileaks emails that the CIA has used Remote Viewing, which would depend on a non-local function of consciousness (22). There is mountains of evidence on paranormal psychic functions, near death experiences and reincarnation experiences, all of which point toward non-locality of mind. For example, the medical psychic, Edgar Cayce has thousands of well documented cases where his psychically accessed information proved to be successful medically well beyond the knowledge of the present era (23). It could be said that consciousness can scientifically be argued to be a field function and to have non-local properties. We know that some of the functions of consciousness are associated with the brain and the body but as Sheldrake has noted, there is no proof that the brain is the author of consciousness or that memory is located in discrete locations in the brain. In fact if we take the lack of evidence that memory is located in the brain (as material changes) together with the libraries of evidence on paranormal phenomena, distance viewing, out of body, near death and reincarnation experiences (24) it could be argued that the weight of evidence overall points toward the mind not being located in the body at all but merely attached to it.

So it can be seen that science has not comprehended consciousness beyond correlation and theoretical postulates. Valuable groundwork has been done experimentally by scientists such as Tiller, Sheldrake and others who have demonstrated that some kind of universal consciousness field exists and directly affects reality. So has pure philosophy done any better?

Idealism:

Just as strong materialism is a monistic scientific theory so there is a set of opposite monistic theories within philosophy. These are the theories of idealism. They range from Platonic idealism to classical idealism, from Christian neoplatonic idealism to Kant’s views and other philosophers of the modern period. There are many variants of idealism but in most it is posited that only ideas and consciousness truly exist, or that material reality depends on, or is contained by consciousness.

Material reality is lawful however and usually behaves in certain predictable ways hence the success of materialism in our age. If reality is a dream, it is a dream of lawful matter. Dreaming of lawful matter is the same as that lawful matter actually existing. As material reality seems to be quite persistent we may as well concede that it exists at some level and is real.

The theory of orgonotic pan-psychism that the writer has proposed elsewhere (25) has idealist aspects in that it agrees that consciousness is the basic reality and views mind and orgone as identical at the deepest level.

This brings us to the last set of theories regarding consciousness to be considered here.

Orgonomic Theories of Consciousness:

Reich’s theories on consciousness predate system theories but are actually a category of system theory. They are not orgonomic theories. Reich made a basic mistake in his early view of consciousness. Although aware of the differences, his theories conflate emotion with consciousness. It is true that there are two related and opposite functions, variants, that arise from the deeper common functioning principle of orgone energy (26). There is the subjective experience of an emotion – say pleasure. This is one variant of orgone energy movement. This subjective emotion is correctly partnered by Reich with an objective process – bio-electrical changes in skin conductivity and the movement of orgone from core to periphery, or vice versa, in an organism. This forms the second objective variant of orgone energy movement. But where does the experience of consciousness actually reside? Does it reside in the orgone energy? Or is it an effect only experienced within the body, the material container of orgone? And if it is only experienced in the latter material system, why is that so when it is the movement of the orgone energy that created the experience?

Consciousness and emotion are not the same thing. Reich, when he did consider consciousness separately, favoured the latter hypothesis in his extant writings – that consciousness arises from the system behaviour of orgone in the body. He thought that true self-aware consciousness coalesced from the integration of perceptions which themselves arose from the movement of orgone within a membrane. He stated that orgone was just an energy and not in itself capable of having conscious thoughts or of being ‘instinctive’ like a Freudian psychic drive. He did note that sometimes orgone and its counter-aspects (Deadly Orgone or DOR) resembled a Freudian drive in effect, but was not psychic in actuality (27). So Reich’s theory of consciousness was actually a materialist system theory. Consciousness is an emergent property of the orgone-material system of the body in this view. He predated the modern system theories of emergence but didn’t move beyond them. He successfully partnered subjective levels and types of emotions and objective movement of energy in the body but didn’t realise fully that this only applies to emotions not to the experience of consciousness itself. He realised that part-perceptions integrate into a full self-consciousness but he didn’t say anything much further about the existence or location of this holistic phenomena of consciousness.

Psyche and Soma in Reich’s Common Functional Principle

In the above diagram, we can see that Reich has a non-conscious biological energy, orgone, which in its movement first contains an identity of psychic and somatic functions. It then splits into the objective (soma or body) and subjective (psyche or mind). However, the biological energy is not itself viewed as conscious. There is an identity of body (soma) and consciousness (psyche) expressed by the movement of the biological energy in the first arrow of the diagram above. However the source energy in the diagram, is not considered conscious by Reich,

True, biological laws can apply in the psychic realm, but the converse is not true’(28)

This means to say that although a biological energy can affect consciousness, through the increase, decrease or movement of a quantitative energy, the reverse is not true. Ideas and thoughts cannot affect the biological energy as orgone is a non-conscious energy. This is clearly incorrect and a dead-end unless orgone is not really a true life energy.

Reich goes on to say,

This common factor cannot be the “meaning”; nor can it be the “purpose”; these are secondary functions. From a consistent functional point of view, there is, in the biological realm, no purpose, no aim; only function and development, following certain laws.’(29)

These lines could have been written by Charles Darwin. Life develops solely from certain mechanical/energetic laws and has no ‘mind’ guiding it. Purpose and meaning always relate to mind and all organisms have mind and display purpose and goals.

Referring to the negative side of orgone or DOR, (Deadly Orgone) and its relationship to Freud’s death drive, Reich stated that,

It does not matter that Freud presented here a true physical force, devoid of any kind of psychology, as “instinct”; or that it is a basic mistake to ascribe instinct to lifeless, mass-free energy…appearing later as “life” within membranes and organic fluids.’(30)

So here Reich confirms that orgone is not alive before it is in a material system, which makes the existence of a life energy somewhat contradictory. Its property of life depends on matter, before which it is non-life energy. He also affirms that ascribing aspects of consciousness (instinct) to its behaviour is incorrect. Lastly, this paragraph also underlines Reich’s view (during his middle period of work) that life is a system property – it emerges through the system behaviour of orgone within a membrane. This writer believes Reich may have changed his view on consciousness and orgone during the spiritual conversion he appears to have experienced during his prison period. This writer explores Reich’s change of heart in the conclusion of an essay on orgonomy and good and evil (31). The philosopher Steve Katz also explores this issue in Reich’s work amongst others in his blog and books exploring a life energy based theology (32).,

Reich’s position on the consciousness of orgone is somewhat unclear. He ascribes it functional rationality but denies it any awareness, negativity results purely from damming up a non-conscious, physical energy,

No reasoning or intelligence, but certainly functional rationality must be attributed to the Life Energy. Freud’s irrational unconscious is but the temporary result of the thwarted primary functioning of the cosmic energy.’(33)

Possessing rationality is not a mechanical or energetic function but a function of consciousness. One has to perceive the proper ‘ratios’ of an object or process in order to be ‘rational’. In any case, even if rationality can be non-conscious, Reich clearly states that the orgone, outside of a material system, has no consciousness. Thus Reich, up to 1956, ascribed to a materialist system theory of consciousness.

Orgonomic functionalism as a method of enquiry thus appears unable to help the understanding of consciousness. If we posit that consciousness is merely a paired function of some other opposite aspect (Reich paired it with body or soma) then the common functioning principle of both these variants (psyche and soma) would have to be a deeper but non-conscious common functioning principle (biological energy). This non-conscious entity, primordial orgone itself, would then suffer from all the contradictions of the mechanistic theories of consciousness. Most notable of which is that consciousness would be reduced to mere epiphenomena of the movement of a non-living, non-conscious, dead energy. The only ‘life’ of orgone would be the ability to create movement and matter. If one were however to insist on orgonomic functionalism as a means to understand consciousness (as a cause rather than an effect of something else) the only place that consciousness, as a whole, could be placed in an orgonomic functional diagram would be as identical with the orgone itself. This would make orgone conscious and thus contradict the traditional position of Reich regarding consciousness (that consciousness arises from the system behaviour of orgone within a body).

In practical terms, orgonomy is also contradictory on consciousness. It is noted that orgone movement within the body can contain memory (released during the mobilisation of armour) and it is admitted that orgone movement is associated with emotion, which is a perception, a form of consciousness, but it is denied that orgone, the prime mover of the entire universe and the creator of emotion is itself capable of consciousness. This seems an implausible and contradictory position. It is admitted that orgone is the life energy and despite life usually being associated with some level of consciousness, orgone is itself declared not to be conscious outside of a material system by Reich (34) and others such as Kelley (35).

Orgone is a non-conscious life energy when all life appears to be conscious to some degree. This is clearly incorrect and contradictory. Orgonomy has no chance of understanding consciousness with such a stance. It depends on materialism to explain consciousness thereby limiting itself to a non-orgonomic understanding of consciousness. It is illogical to say a living energy has no consciousness when everywhere life energies are paired with consciousness and nowhere is life paired with non-consciousness. Even an amoeba will try and avoid certain stimuli and will seek other stimuli, it’ll move and display volition and preferences. It will eat and ‘mate’ (or fuse). We see these behaviours in animals and on that basis assign them consciousness. We can say the amoeba only perceives and lacks true self-consciousness but such classifications are meaningless in this context as all perception is a form of consciousness anyway. It is the same with the amoeba, or our selves – it is just a question of degree. As organisms, consciousness might be a common factor, but how could one evidence it in a machine or in an energy outside of an organism such as orgone?

The Turing Test (if a machine can fool us into thinking it is conscious then maybe it is conscious) or any other formulaic test of consciousness is also illogical. We do not evidence our own consciousness on the basis of formulas or logic tests. The Turing Test is challenged in any case by the Chinese Room argument. This states that with sufficient ground rules and information a non-Chinese writer could fool an outsider into thinking he can write Chinese (36). The Chinese Room argument indicates that the Turing Test can be passed with mechanical rules and without comprehension thus invalidating the premise of the Turing Test.

One cannot even prove that one’s own self is a conscious being, so how can one prove it in another? All one may know is that a consciousness exists (there might be only one) and other beings who are assumed to also exist are also conscious because they behave a little like ourselves. As Descartes noted, there is only one piece of knowledge we can be certain of – a consciousness exists and we (or I) possess it. Descartes may have unwittingly provided the groundwork for assessing strong Artificial Intelligence. If a computer begins to act like an organism (in other words, like a Cartesian experiencing entity) we can reasonably begin to question if it has some degree of consciousness. There can be no test or formula to follow mechanistically.

Conclusion – A Case for Orgonotic Pan-Psychism and its Posssible Implications:

A number of scientists are beginning to espouse pan-psychism, including physicists, and cosmologists, such as Halton Arp, and of course the biologist, Rupert Sheldrake in his various books (37). The theory of pan-psychism does not deny that material reality exists but it states that this material reality is itself alive and capable of experiencing consciousness. It unifies the realms of matter and consciousness. The orgonomic theory of consciousness I have outlined elsewhere is pan-psychic and monistic in nature (38). It could be classified as orgonotic pan-psychism. In this theory I propose that orgone itself does, counter to what Reich said in his discussion of Freud’s death drive (39), actually independently possess consciousness. Further, that from this orgonotic consciousness arises the energetic and material functions of orgone. Orgone and consciousness become identical at the deepest level just as energy or matter is identical to consciousness in Sheldrake’s pan-psychism. Orgone only gains differentiation at more superficial levels which we experience as orgone energy and lastly as matter, which is a form of frozen orgone energy. Thus we have a monistic continuum in a triad from orgonotic consciousness to orgone energy and lastly to orgone-matter. This monistic continuum has three distinct aspects; orgone consciousness, orgone energy and orgone matter. All three are physical and all three are real, but the consciousness level could be said to be the most ‘real’ or the primary reality. Orgone energy and matter are specialised forms of a physical orgonotic consciousness in this view. Energy and matter still exist in their own right but are not separate to consciousness.

Reich’s theories of the integration of part-perceptions into self-consciousness, and of the relation of the pleasure-pain antithesis to energy-in-motion, are useful but nevertheless fail to comprehend consciousness (40). Alternatively, if orgone is considered to be ‘conscious-in-itself’, as well as embracing a logically consistent theory of consciousness – pan-psychism, interesting technological possibilities might be presented practically. It could help make a consciousness field useable in a scientific sense because orgone is a real field and not a hypothetical construct. These possibilities are explored in the second paper of this series.

References:

(1). Gottlieb, Anthony, (2000) The Dream of Reason, Penguin, UK.

(2). Dennet, Daniel, 1993, Consciousness Explained, Penguin, USA.

(3). August 2017 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

(4). Sheldrake, Rupert, 2012, The Science Delusion, Coronet, UK.

(5). Sheldrake, Rupert, 2011, The Presence of the Past, Coronet, UK.

(6). Ibid

(7). Descartes, Rene, 1881, The Method, Meditations, And Selections from the Principles of Descartes, William Blackwood, UK.

(8). Ibid

(9). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

(10). Abell, Arthur, Talks with Great Composers, (Chapter on Conversation between Tennyson and Darwin), Hauraki Publishing, Kindle Edition, pp28-30.

(11). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

(12). McTaggart, Lynne, The Field, UK.

(13). Ibid

(14). Sheldrake, Rupert, 2012, The Science Delusion, Coronet, UK.

(15). Ibid

(16). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

(17). Sheldrake, Rupert, 2012, The Science Delusion, Coronet, UK.

(18). Ibid

(19). Tiller, William, Psychoenergetic Science, 2007, Pavior, USA

(20). Sheldrake, Rupert, 2012, The Science Delusion, Coronet, UK.

(21). Tiller, William, Psychoenergetic Science, 2007, Pavior, USA

(22). September 2017 https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1734276_re-fw-tactical-remote-viewing-.html

(23). Smith, Robert, Edgar Cayce – My Life as a Seer, 1997, St Martins Press, US.

(24). Alexander, Eben, Proof of Heaven – A Neurosurgeons View, 2012, Piatkus, US.

(25). September 2017 http://orgonecontinuum.org/theorgonecontinuum.html

(26). Reich, Wilhelm, 1990, Orgonomic Functionalism, Volume 1, Wilhelm Reich Infant Trust Fund, USA.

(27). Reich, Wilhelm, 1956, Re-emergence of Freud’s ‘Death Instinct’ as ‘DOR’ Energy, Orgonomic Medicine Volume II, Num1.

(28). Wilhelm Reich – Selected Writings, 1960, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, pp 116.

(29). Ibid pp116

(30). Reich, Wilhelm, 1956, Re-emergence of Freud’s ‘Death instinct as ‘DOR Energy, Orgonomic Medicine Volume II, Num 1 pp 11

(31). September 2017 http://orgonecontinuum.org/good-evil.html

(32). September 2017 https://harborsforlife.wordpress.com/

(33). Reich, Wilhelm, 1956, Re-emergence of Freud’s ‘Death instinct as ‘DOR energy’, Orgonomic Medicine, Vol II, Num 1 pp11

(34). Ibid

(35). Kelley, Charles, 2004, Life-force, The Creative Process in Man and Nature, Canada

(36). September 2017 http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

(37). Sheldrake, Rupert, 2012, The Science Delusion, Coronet,UK.

(38). September 2017 http://orgonecontinuum.org/theorgonecontinuum.html

(39). Reich, Wilhelm, 1956, Re-emergence of Freud’s ‘Death Instinct’ as ‘DOR’ Energy, Orgonomic Medicine Volume II, Num1.

(40). Wilhelm Reich – Selected Writings, 1960, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Author:

Leon Southgate MSc

From a family of psychotherapists and teachers I was introduced to orgonomy at a young age. As an adult my interest was rekindled, doing an MSc research degree in Chinese medicine and orgonomy. In 2002, a double blind, placebo controlled study was completed (N = 72). It confirmed an effect from orgone devices upon acupuncture (P = 0.03). An article about the study was published in the European Journal of Oriental Medicine in 2003. The theoretical side of the study outlined dozens of new parallels. It was later published as a book by German publishers LAP.

Southgate started an orgonomic PhD but the access to laboratory work became difficult so the project ended but a comprehensive (though not complete) Annotated Literature Review of the Post-Reich Journals was written and made available for free online.

Southgate is focused on examining orgone and its relationship to consciousness.

Posted in Orgone BiophysicsComments (0)


Upcoming Conference

Subscribe Via Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Wilhelm Reich – Founder of Orgone Therapy

Annals of The Institute for Orgonomic Science (December, 2015)

Featured Book: Character Analysis

Available for purchase via the Wilhelm Reich Museum.

Browse our Archives