The dialogue is called Gorgias, but that famous doctor of rhetoric was deflated after only a brief exchange. I guess he never got the chance to discover the glaring inconsistency in his weltanschauung because he was too busy teaching others how to be like him. For shame! One such unfortunate was Polus, who was present at the discussion. He was activated when the hot water was turned off, embarrassed himself, and then shut up like his master. Callicles was also listening – no conversation ever so delighted him – but he thought that it was modesty, not conviction, which silenced Gorgias and his disciple.
Almost two years ago, we paused right before Polus redeemed himself somewhat by assenting to Socrates’s immortal claim: it is better to suffer injustice than to commit injustice. To Callicles, no sentiment ever sounded so absurd. He asks Socrates if it’s all an elaborate joke. Doubtlessly, the Philosopher could already sense that their faculties of taste operated according to vastly different mechanisms. Therefore, he saw fit to use a commonality as a point of departure. They are both “lovers,” despite their contrasts. Notwithstanding the young men they sleep with, Socrates is lover to Philosophy while Callicles loves the demus or Athenian citizenry. Furthermore, both men are at the mercy of their respective loves and their persons are merely vessels for these antithetical wills. Socrates lightheartedly warns Callicles that he’ll never be one with himself if he is unable to refute Philosophy’s assertion!
In part one, I showed that the dichotomy between suffering and committing injustice corresponds to that existing between the genital character and the neurotic character. Again, genitality and neurosis are terms that refer to healthy and pathological libido-metabolic modes of being, respectively. Now the same antithesis appears between the two irreconcilable motivations: primary, biological drives (Philosophy) and secondary, derived drives which result from internal inhibitions imparted by a constipated, life-negating culture (the demus).
Secondary drives are easy to discern because their associated expressions never afford substantial catharsis. However, their principal characteristic, that which makes them secondary, is that they conceal the existence of more basic, repressed drives. The behaviors associated with secondary drives partially exhaust the energy reserves which would otherwise fuel more cathartic, more instinctual, more gratifying expressions. With a fraction of the energy squandered in the repressive maneuver, the somatically preferred, more cathartic expression can no longer take place completely. This is like a driver taking a convoluted route and then finding that his car cannot accomplish its maximum range because the gasoline was wasted. According to orgonomy, primary drives are those which inspire the genital character’s behaviors. Though attempts to discern what exactly these are have entailed considering people’s opinions on primitive or matriarchal societies, I believe that only analysis guided by the principles of libidinal economy can find the answer. The ensuing dialogue will give us plenty of opportunities to explore the dichotomy between primary and secondary drives.
Callicles begins by accusing Socrates of appealing to social convention when convenient, but then to Natural Law in order to corner and humiliate his opponents, and all this at the expense of finding the truth. Although he just heard the whole argument laid out (the conclusion follows from the fact that evading punishment leads to personal deterioration), Callicles insists it is merely an appeal to the weak multitude. In his estimation, Natural Law mandates that the strong exercise their powers to the utmost degree and horde resources. The weak, he says, became fed up with this and, being greater in number, deemed suffering injustice a virtue and satisfying impulses a sin. If I were one of these weaklings, I would certainly devise all kinds of rationalizations in order to prevent myself from discovering my own inferiority. Therefore, I will refrain from choosing a side and only endeavor to elucidate the mystery of primary human motivation.
Probably thousands of times, Wilhelm Reich guided people through the process which Callicles could only fantasize about:
“But if there were a man who had sufficient force, he would shake off and break through, and escape from all this; he would trample under foot all our formulas and spells and charms, and all our laws which are against nature.“
As far as I know, Dr. Reich (1897-1957) believed everyone was potentially capable of undertaking this Great Work with the assistance of a trained, orgastically potent orgone therapist. The details of the process are described at length in his writings and are touched upon in Part 1. Let us instead focus on its fruits and see if the assertion Callicles makes about instinct holds water.
Once the technique of character analysis, orgone therapy’s antecedent, was refined enough to generate predictable results, a very strange phenomenon began to appear at the culmination of every case. When patients gained the capacity to experience orgastic gratification, they began to operate according to a hitherto unknown morality! It seemed to preserve the best parts of the prevailing cultural morality but shunned whatever was antithetical to a mysterious but virtuous spontaneous behavioral mechanism now emerging from the fog of history. Where virtues such as love, kindness and industry had been mechanically aped out of duty, to elicit reciprocation, or to conceal antisocial impulses, they now were exhibited spontaneously, viz. without apparent effort (1). There is a way to be sure.
Reich reports two amazing exceptions that aren’t really exceptions. One concerns women who “had been previously capable of spreading their legs at the drop of a hat simply because they did not experience any gratification” showing monogamous tendencies upon the dissolution of sexual inhibition. While these became moral according to standards of interbellum Germany, many women who underwent the very same therapy found themselves unable to remain with their sexually disturbed husbands (2). How strange! The other exception concerns workers who engaged in what the Marxists used to call alienating labor. Their performance plummeted when genital function was restored because they could no longer stultify themselves in the factories and foundries. Meanwhile, neurotics who had been unable to work felt compelled to engage in practical, gratifying tasks, while those who already enjoyed their jobs to a degree generally became more enthusiastic and efficient (3).
These results were put forth as evidence for the idea that instinctual drives like love and work can, in fact, accord with social convention. Bearing in mind personal experience, I find this very convincing and wonder if our dysfunctional mores are not arbitrary, as many claim, but are really misguided attempts to approximate, in vain, the true Human State existing beneath all this.
Of greater moment is the final refutation of the primacy of antisocial behavior. These audits of libidinal economy reveal that the brutishness which Callicles attributes to Nature actually arises from the frustration of the instincts. Greed, violence and perversion, are distortions of the primary functions longing, self-defense and love, respectively. Reich tells us that “every seemingly arbitrary destructive action is a reaction of the organism to the frustration of the gratification of a vital need, especially of a sexual need” (4). Furthermore, these needs issue forth from a “decent core” found at the bottom of every character structure (5). I intend to see for myself if I still have one and if I am wrong, let me be locked up or destroyed, if possible.
Socrates already knows these things but asks Callicles to clarify his statement concerning the traits which those possessing the natural right to rule embody; does ‘superior’ mean ‘stronger?’ Callicles avers but is angered when Socrates shows it follows from this concession that the multitude is stronger and their esteeming of suffering over committing injustice is therefore another example of convention and Nature agreeing.
He points out that Callicles was wrong to accuse him of arguing in bad faith. Actually, inconstantly wavering between different points of view is exactly what Callicles is guilty of himself. Clearly, this is an instance of projection, a phenomenon for which orgonomy offers the most comprehensive explanation; our entire society is based on it. Though I cannot recall Reich using the word ‘projection,’ a favorite of social workers and dime-a-dozen psychologists who “just want to help people,” the idea appears in orgonomy’s conceptions of the parent-child conflict, the emotional plague, and the irrational hostility which many develop when exposed to its tenets. It can be defined as the ascription of one’s own traits to another, especially when one senses these traits within while perceiving another, but refuses to consciously acknowledge them.
The quintessential instance of this pathology is the parents’ unconscious projection of their own repressed complexes onto their children, this ultimately leading to their generational transmission. It begins with the natural motility and spontaneity of infants and children disturbing the armored parents, who unconsciously destroy such motility in themselves by chronically contracting their muscles (armoring) and working. The principal objective of orgone therapy is the restoration of this motility (6) and this is accomplished by disrupting the contractions until the affects they repress are viscerally expressed and psychically integrated by the patient’s person (7). As everyone used to know, sexual conjugation is also preceded by the relaxation of these defense mechanisms. Since neurotics continually struggle to withhold their pressurized sexual impulses by investing the energies thereof in muscle contraction and other defense mechanisms, they associate children’s motility with their own repressed perversions.
Just as a neurotic’s own potential motility, when contraction is ceased, forces repressed complexes into the conscious mind and viscerally liberates the related affects in a clinical setting, so the natural movements of children threaten to uncover these complexes in the family setting. The only problem is that the parents universally pretend they don’t harbor this hidden filth. Bizarrely, they unconsciously conclude it originates with their children and snap like the good Paggliacio, aggressing against them until they are as armored as the parents are. I might add that these aggressions contribute to the formation of the Oedipus complex (8), which the dime-a-dozen psychologists have “debunked,” forever indebting us! But don’t worry; as long as the sons and daughters depend on the idea of their parents’ love, the riddle of the Sphinx remains unsolved.
Since Dr. Reich was preoccupied with the problems of armoring and orgone energy, I have taken the liberty of applying his technique of functionalism to the mystery of reproduction. Observing that the intelligence of creatures is correlated with the durations of gestation and childhood, and with the amount of effort and love devoted to the offspring, I wonder if so-called sexual maturity actually represents a failure of the organism. Functionally, reproduction or starting anew seems to be a biological admission of the incapacity to fulfil something, or carry it out to completion. Though it seems impossible to determine what exactly this something is before we tire of our superb orgasms, I will report a few more observations for anyone who can make use of them. Controversial as it may be, reproduction is naturally coupled to sexual intercourse, the latter being an effective way to metabolize libidinal energy. In children, this metabolism instead manifests as growth, the integration of functions (learning), and various spontaneous expressions: the so-called polymorphous perversions. To the armored parents, which are certainly failed organisms, witnessing such natural expression evokes intolerable bodily excitations that call to mind whichever libido-metabolic mechanisms are proper to their offices in the universe. If it was my place to do so, I would even speculate on whether the sense of urgency accompanying powerful sexual excitations indicates an unbearable truth lurking that must be denied at all costs through orgastic dissolution, to which, embarrassingly, I am quite prone.
Ultimately the projection phenomenon can be attributed to the intolerance of orgonity, the quality of being enlivened with orgone energy, but even without radiation or the perturbation of a physical field, the neurotic’s visual perception of unarmored movement alone is sufficient to disequilibrate libidinal economy by its saturation of the nervous system. Whatever the case, there seems to be a resonance between the observed motility and the neurotic’s sepulchered motility existing as potentiality. Perception imparts or liberates a quantity of unwanted excitation (a cathexis) which inspires the neurotic to involuntary divulge his opinions on love and Life, either to himself or, if personal realization is precluded by vanity, to everyone else. As the indicator of perversion par excellence, orgonomy has suffered the same attacks as our children but it remains unscathed because no detractor has ever truly engaged with it.
It is always bitterly amusing when people think they have license to act in a nasty way toward the person who has preserved a degree of sensitivity. They say with their eyes, “you’re being bad so now I get to be bad to you with impunity!” Certainly, these are some of the worst and most infirm people in the world. Similarly, when a frigid hag unconsciously suspects a young man isn’t muscularly crucifying his genitals (as do the men which Life has deemed her worthy of meeting), she says the most pornographic things she can get away, attempting to excite him, the design of this being to either repel him or bring him to a state of libidinal constipation that even surpasses hers. The intended outcome is the disappearance of orgonity, with or without the man, such that there is nothing left to remind her of the atrocities she’s committed against her body. Maybe orgonity is just what these hags should be deprived of until the libido investments that transform Life’s most benign and precious excitations into such hideous malice have sufficiently atrophied. Anyway, these are prime examples of both projection and making contradictory appeals to Nature and convention for the sake of obfuscating the truth.
Again we find ourselves contemplating a previous topic from the dialogue: punishment as medicine for the soul. Neurotic parents, mirror people (as I call them), frigid hags &c., can only profit from acknowledging their waywardness, yet they interpret anything which makes it apparent as a hostility. They have forgotten who they are and where their skins end. As much as I would like to get along with everyone in this post-war paradise, I find myself increasingly unable to stand by while Oedipus accuses Tiresias of regicide. In the spirit of Christian Mercy and Greek Philosophy, I have resolved to show them unequivocally that it is they who are the murderers. I will participate in this great contest, this apocalyptic trial by orgone, always endeavoring to welcome such indication as the medicine I know it to be and perpetually bearing in mind that I may just be the most foolish person in the world, unlike you.
In our case, it is Socrates’s exposition of an infallible Natural Law doctrine that inspires Callicles to express his inner twistedness. Perhaps this is why Socrates thinks he’s found in Callicles the “touchstone” by which he can test the purity of his soul – though I personally don’t see how Callicles could be of much help here. It certainly explains why Callicles thinks Philosophy is a fine pursuit for youths, but that a man should abandon it before it consumes his mind and renders him unable to manage other people in the state. He even alleges that Socrates is unable to understand his sentiments because studying Philosophy has made his speech too precise. Socrates just doesn’t get it!
“Then please to begin again, and tell me who the better are, if they are not the stronger; and I will ask you, great Sir, to be a little milder in your instructions, or I shall have to run away from you.”
The Parables of the Vessels
As the perfect foil, Callicles seems entirely apocryphal until we remember that true Philosophers make of men foils which mere writers could never contrive. After a hilarious exchange about physicians, weavers and cobblers, Callicles tries out the belief that the “wise and courageous administrators of the state” should rule, and that “justice consists in their having more than their subjects.” This is a very good idea since he intends to become such an administrator by learning rhetoric from Gorgias. But before he can become another cog in the Athenian economy, he has to get the herrenmoral out of his system with Socrates, whom he will shortly accuse of being a “mob orator.” What else are Philosophers for? This inspires Socrates to ask if these administrators should rule both others and themselves (since everyone is quite obviously his own ruler), or only others. Callicles enthusiastically declares that administrators should use the resources, power and authority entrusted to them by the demus to indulge every bacchanalian whim without a hint of restraint. I would further suggest that if they could get the demus to believe these whims were statecraft, they’d have a good shot at becoming the new gods!
It is this sentiment which makes Socrates question whether “life be not death and death life.” How could he dissuade his friend from utter ruin? The Philosopher employs two enigmatic metaphors, claiming they originate with “some ingenious person, probably a Sicilian or an Italian,” as there is much to accomplish before his execution. The following interpretation is one fruit of an almost eight-year philosophical inquiry which I undertook in order to survive, deservedly, an atrocious crime committed against me. I hope people find it helpful.
The first metaphor concerns two vessels, one solid and the other perforated, as well as their capacities to store liquid. The solid and perforated vessels are symbolic of genital and neurotic libidinal economies, respectively. The liquid represents excitation. Any liquid poured into the perforated vessel (colander) flows out as quickly as it enters. This represents the neurotic’s intolerance of excitation, which I described above in relation to the parent-child conflict. To reiterate, any excess excitation must immediately be discharged in some expression, which always divulges characterological information. The holes represent the many pathological libido investments. These continually siphon energy away from the would-be cathexis that, if allowed to coalesce, would animate the organism in the accomplishment of its repressed, true will. Complementarily, if the expression affording the greatest possible catharsis is to be censored, its cathexis must be divided and the energetic fractions must be reinvested or employed in less cathartic metabolic modes, which, again, are represented by the holes in the vessel. Among these modes are the symptoms of neurosis, muscle armoring and disease, as well as nearly all economic and social production, much of speech, all managing of sexually disturbed people, all profiting off their ignorance of these things, and all obfuscation of the truth in general – and I will leave it at that because one catches more flies with honey. We will never make progress in this science if we fail to understand that cathexis (libidinal investment), as it typically is thought of, is accomplished through chronic dilute expression such as the aforementioned metabolic modes, while catharsis (divestment) is accomplished through acute, complete expression: what we normally think of as expression.
Thus the libido-economic function of leaking – the function of the neurotic character structure – is to repress authentic impulses by dividing their energy cathexes over and over again (9). Orgone therapy aims to do exactly the opposite: plug the holes, thereby unifying the energies in ever more integral libido cathexes (10), and then discharging these cathexes in cathartic expressions which are often visceral. This process is inseparable from working through the repressed complexes, recalling repressed memories, re-experiencing repressed affects in more or less the order in which they were entombed, and integrating all this into the ego (11). The process, which is not perfectly linear, imparts a deep understanding of one’s life as well as orgastic potency, the capacity to experience the orgasm reflex. Do not, however, in your confusion interpret Socrates to be implying that these cathartic and revelatory outward expressions correspond to the liquid leaking out from the holes because, rather, they are signified by the holes being plugged. Unfortunately, this symbol can be turned almost completely on its head and many will try to do this in order to remain ignorant of who they are and what they’ve done to themselves. There is, however, at least one way to be certain; the revelatory expressions are made a finite number of times and make us more beautiful and healthier while the true leaking or recursive dissociation of cathexes destroys the body, and their proliferation continues unto death if nourished by deception.
The solid vessel represents the genital or normal libidinal economy. Though many may erroneously assume its solidity is indicative of repression, it is precisely libidinal continence and tolerance of excitation which facilitates the greatest release and indicates the most hygienic (least neurotic) libidinal economy. Because the inside of this vessel is clean, the outside is clean as well. This Philosophic vessel, if you are so inclined, which was undoubtedly possessed by Socrates, can occasionally be overturned, so to speak, either in delightful orgastic convulsions, or in meaningful, involving labor. It is the holes which prevent the colander from ever containing its maximum volume. Similarly, the libidinal leakage characterizing neurosis ensures that excitation never reaches the threshold necessary to induce the orgastic convulsions, wherein alternating flexions of the upper and lower spine suggests electric currents flowing down the spinal cord, depolarizing the grey matter.
As I said before, in order to tolerate increasing degrees of excitation, ever deeper layers of character must be exposed, increasingly more authentic affects must be liberated, ever more remote memories must be recalled, and an increasingly comprehensive understanding of one’s self and, by extension, living must be developed. The Platonists call this “[knowing] thyself.” As I also said while discussing that small facet of the parent-child conflict, and while describing the general mechanism of orgone therapy, a quantity of excitation resulting from perception can aggravate repressed cathexes. Such degrees are necessarily approached and surpassed as excitation accumulates before the orgasm reflex. Anyone who has not sufficiently worked through their repressed complexes will have to, upon that excitation’s energization of the body, either express the repressed impulse (which is often very nasty) or divert and invest the excitation into the animation of some other maneuver. These investments often take the form of projection or, often as an alternative, chronic muscle contractions which physically restrain the body and prevent its accomplishment of its repressed will and ultimately the wave-like orgastic convulsions. Having said the same thing seven or eight times, let us describe the second metaphor.
This one involves two sets of vessels. One set has solid vessels which can, with great effort, be filled by small, infrequent streams, but only need to be filled once. The other set has perforated vessels which constantly leak and receive the same kind of streams as the former, but can never be filled on account of the holes, and if the person tasked with tending to them pauses in his collecting the liquid, “he is in an agony of pain.” Now it may be troubling for the orgonomist to hear that the solid vessels need not be emptied, but I see nothing wrong with this. Just as wolves do not feel the impetus to procreate when they perceive that food is scarce, Nature likely inhibits the desires of men and women who know their children would be cannibalized by this society of sexual frauds; as I implied while treating on projection, it seems only the genital character can tolerate witnessing the extent of their children’s natural motility without consciously or unconsciously abusing them. Whoever realizes this can perhaps endeavor to rectify the situation here on Earth instead of creating more neurotics. The leaking vessels represent the neurotic libidinal economy in this metaphor as well. Regarding the agony, the neurotic can’t live with or without excitation.
In both cases, Callicles says he would prefer leaking to the ways of “stones and dead men.” Socrates intended to clarify with further argument from the beginning. As always, the problem is the transvaluation of pleasure and anxiety. We shall see that Callicles fails to understand that cathexis is an inordinately prolonged catharsis of low intensity. This misconception inspires him to claim that pleasure and the good are the same, and that unpleasure and evil are the same. This is perfectly true; pleasure, the good, Life, God, truth and knowledge are all the same, but Callicles doesn’t actually mean what he is saying. By pleasure, he means preserving his pathological libido investments, which is pleasurable only in comparison to the discovery of his sickness. This, in turn, would ultimately lead to true pleasure, though to do so is painful at first.
“There is a noble freedom, Callicles, in your way of approaching the argument; for what you say is what the rest of the world think, but do not like to say. And I must beg you to persevere, that the true rule of human life may become manifest.”
Although I used to consider libido cathexes (investments) to be fixed, rigid, durable structures, these properties are not intrinsic to the phenomenon. In their most general form, cathexes are spontaneously divested from, liquidated or exhausted in expression. Only when they are divided as described above do they embody fixity and chronicity. In such instances, the rate at which the expression or divestment takes place is so slow that it gives the impression of being a solid thing. The most clear example of this is muscle armoring, the often life-long contraction of those skeletal muscles which would otherwise participate in the accomplishment of the expression their contraction represses. Though this contraction is technically an expression – one of fear, having been injured, self-censorship, and many other qualities that vary with specific bodily location – it is also a chronic investment of libido and a repressive defense mechanism. In short, chronicity and fixity are not intrinsic to investment and immediacy is not intrinsic to catharsis despite the fact that we often make these associations and expect others to understand what we mean when using these terms. We would not, for instance, let someone believe a chronic investment is cathartic in order to bind their energies and congest their sex-economy so we could rule over them. We would want them to attain power and wondrous sexual vigor so they don’t kill us or steal from us.
Since his priority is convincing his friend to disavow the way of the leaky vessel, Socrates will argue on his inexact terms, setting good and evil as two opposite polarities that cannot exist simultaneously. We are all familiar with the perilous orientation problem which Nietzsche so lovingly gave his life trying to reconcile for us. Any approximation in the Philosopher’s argument is offset by sincerity and love, and his heroic life proves that he abided by his claim that rhetoric is only useful for accusing oneself. The science of libidinal economy can finally burn away the ambiguity; Socrates is explaining the identity or unity shared by the energetic quantity constituting a cathexis and the expression it inspires, viz. the antithetical functional identity of cathexis and catharsis, orgonomically speaking.
To do this, he employs the example of thirsting and drinking. Callicles agrees that thirsting is painful while drinking is pleasurable. Moreover, since one drinks when one thirsts, ‘when’ meaning ‘at the same time as,’ drinking and thirsting take place at the same time – a perfect example of the cathexis in its general form being discharged instantly, seamlessly and instinctually. Therefore, according to the agreed upon definitions of the terms, pain and pleasure can take place in the same instant. They already agreed that good and evil are incapable of such coexistence so it follows that, by their conceptions of the words, pleasure is not necessarily good and pain is not necessarily evil.
Sex-economically, thirsting signifies a libido cathexis or inner tension (representing, interestingly, a superabundance of excitation) which ultimately inspires the cathartic expression of drinking. As with all cathexes, if the corresponding most cathartic expression is precluded, its energy must be invested in other expressions: clenching the jaw, trying to think about something else, &c. – but you should never be ashamed of proclaiming “I thirst,” especially at your all-time low. Drinking, thirsting, and any expressions which mask thirsting are therefore expressions of the same excitation or pain, as Socrates would say, and the prevalence or lack of beverages determines which particular one manifests. In all cases, the excitation is discharged seamlessly in expressions which only differ in rate. In the words of that Great Philosopher who disappeared almost a hundred years ago, Fulcanelli, a person of such extraordinary talent, forced by rhetoricians to study the lives of metals in the twentieth century: “Truly it is a strange place, this forest of Mort-Roi (Dead King), and how like it is to the fabulous and wonderful Garden of the Hesperides (12)!”
You will have to take Dr. Reich’s word for it when he says that satisfaction correlates to the intensity of excitation and the steepness or rate of its dissipation (13). Therefore, the most pleasurable thing must be Philosophy, to wit, the discovery of the repressed complexes and the final expression of the associated affects – you can worry about the orgasm reflex later. The so-called pleasures esteemed by Callicles all prevent the coalescence of that cathexis which would ultimately animate him in his most primordial impulse. They inspire little excitation and afford little catharsis – itching and scratching – and only impart satisfaction as long as the partaker inhabits just the most superficial layers of his character structure. Let us elect to say they are objectively unpleasurable and evil, and do not think we can exclude almost everything people do nowadays from this impoverishment. But Callicles is getting more and more reasonable. Now he asks, “do you really suppose that I or any other human being denies that some pleasures are good and others bad?”
“And yet I thought at first that you were my friend, and would not have deceived me if you could have helped. But I see that I was mistaken; and now I suppose that I must make the best of a bad business, as they said of old, and take what I can get out of you.”
To be continued…
(1) Reich, Wilhelm – The Function of the Orgasm, Volume 1 of the Discovery of the Orgone – Chapter V. The Development of the Character-analytic Technique – 5. The Genital Character and the Neurotic Character. The Principle of Self-regulation pg. 174-178
(2) Ibid – pg. 176-178
(3) Ibid – pg. 176-177
(4) Reich – The Function of the Orgasm, Volume 1 of the Discovery of the Orgone – Chapter V. The Development of the Character-analytic Technique – 4. Destruction, Aggression, and Sadism pg. 154
(5) Reich – The Function of the Orgasm, Volume 1 of the Discovery of the Orgone – Chapter V. The Development of the Character-analytic Technique – 5. The Genital Character and the Neurotic Character. The Principle of Self-regulation pg. 174
(6) Reich – Character Analysis – Chapter XIV. The Expressive Language of the Living – 2. Plasmatic Expressive Movement and Emotional Expression pg. 365
(7) Reich– The Function of the Orgasm, Volume 1 of the Discovery of the Orgone – Chapter VIII. The Orgasm Reflex and the Technique of Character-Analytic Vegetotherapy – 1 . Muscular Attitude and Body Expression pg. 299-301
(8) Reich– The Function of the Orgasm, Volume 1 of the Discovery of the Orgone – Chapter V. The Development of the Character-analytic Technique – 3. Character Armor and the Dynamic Stratification of the Defense Mechanisms pg. 143-144
(9) Reich – Character Analysis – Chapter XIII. Psychic Contact and Vegetative Current– 3. The Change of Function of the Impulse pg. 296-305
(10) Reich – Character Analysis – Chapter VI. On the Handling of the Transference – 1. The Distillation of the Genital-Object Libido pg. 135-136
(11) Reich– The Function of the Orgasm, Volume 1 of the Discovery of the Orgone – Chapter VIII. The Orgasm Reflex and the Technique of Character-Analytic Vegetotherapy – 1 . Muscular Attitude and Body Expression pg. 313-315
(12) Fulcanelli, Master Alchemist – Le Mystère des Cathédrales (translated from the French by Mary Sworder) – Bourges – 1 – pg. 143
Note: This utterance was inspired by a “group sculptured on a bracket” (Plate XL.) in the house of wealthy Renaissance-era merchant Jacques Coeur, said to depict the meeting of Tristan and Isolde.
(13) Reich – The Function of the Orgasm, Volume 1 of the Discovery of the Orgone – Chapter IV. The Development of the Orgasm Theory – 3. Orgastic Potency pg. 102