reviews of neither left nor right
"Spot on. Insightful, brilliantly researched and written, a book that anyone who loves this nation needs to read."
-former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
"A book that all Americans worried about the fate of this nation should read before it is too late."
-Dennis Miller
"A must read for all who value freedom."
-Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America

The Application of Mechanistic Materialism in the Natural Sciences is an Expression of the Emotional Plague

Charles Konia, M.D.
Reprinted from the Journal of Orgonomy
The American College of Orgonomy        

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to show the sharp distinction between the science of orgonomy and the mechanistic approach to the study of nature. Materialistic science postulates that all natural phenomena are based on material process. The question becomes: what is the nature of material processes?  Functional thinking asserts that they are based on mass-free energy functions whereas mechanistic materialism states that they are based on mechanical principles.  In this article, both of these views are compared with each other to show which one better corresponds to observations of the real world.

Introduction

Despite the many positive contribution that modern science has made, considering the many destructive consequences that it has wrought on social life, is modern science as it is currently conducted somehow an expression of the emotional If so, how are we to make sense of the fact that today’s science  has both constructive and destructive consequences on human life?

With the development of bi-pedal locomotion, the upper limbs of the ancestors of the human race became freed to fashion an endless variety of tools.  Other organisms, for example, birds and insects, can use their body as tools.  Some non-human primates birds can even fashioned simple tools, but only human beings are able to construct and  to fashion tools from a wide range of materials other than their own body. The ability to make tools has extended human functioning in his environment almost without limit.  Humans can even build tools in the form of machines and computers to make other tools in endless fashion to adapt to almost any kind of environment.   It is this tool making capacity that must have impressed on our early ancestors the materialistic view of the world, a view that emphasized the importance of matter in the day-to-day survival of human beings.

The materialistic view of nature was correct insofar as it did not contain any distortion.  What happened around the end of the 18th century, however, was the introduction of a tragic error. The constituents of matter were no longer only material particles, but now, all matter, including living matter,   was believed to behave in a mechanical, machine-like fashion.                 The materialistic view of nature was supplanted by mechanistic materialism.  In reciprocal fashion, this view had a destructive mechanizing effect on human beings. Reich states: “All the concepts of himself which man has developed our borrowing from the machines which he has created.  Building and handling machines has given man the belief that, through the machines and beyond them, he is developing to a ‘higher’ plane.  On the other hand,       his machines show the appearance and the mechanics of man. … The product of his mechanistic technique thus is an expression of man himself.            The machines, are, in fact, an enormous expression of his biological organization.  They enable him to master nature to a far higher degree than he could with his hands alone.  They get him mastery of time and space.  Thus, the machine has become a part of man himself, a beloved and highly esteemed part.  He has the perennial dream that the machines will make life easier for him and will give him an increase enjoyment of life.  And the reality?  In reality, the machine has become man’s worst enemy.  It will remain his worst enemy unless he differentiates himself from the machine (1). Today, the victory of the mechanistic – materialistic view of nature in every one of the natural sciences is complete.  It has attained the status of complete legitimacy and reigns supreme.  To question it is tantamount to scientific heresy.

How did this distortion come about and what are its practical consequences?  These questions cannot be answered without knowledge of orgonomic        bio-psychiatry and an understanding that ocular armor results in perceptual and cognitive rigidity and distortions. For example, the rigid application of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that in nature, energy always flows down-hill from higher to lower potentials, is an example distorted thinking, a product of the armored functioning of the mechanistic scientist  That energy does flow down-hill in certain cases is correct.  But the statement that all energy functions in nature flow in this manner is not only untrue, but it leads to support the application to mechanistic principles in all of nature since, in the area of mechanics, all energy functions actually do flow from higher to lower potentials.  Furthermore, the application of mechanistic principles in natural science and the view that nature is no different than a machine is highly destructive to human life since it is an obstacle to recognizing the essential functions of life, to seeing the uniqueness of each individual and to understanding that functions such as self- perception and spontaneous movement have nothing whatsoever to do with mechanics.

The idea that a vital force exists in nature (“vitalism”) was introduced in the 17th century in an attempt to explain these unknown natural functions but this concept was repeatedly rejected because the energy functions responsible for this “life force” were not understood at the time. Today, the idea of a life force is in disfavor in scientific circles   but nevertheless mysticism continues to creep unawares into scientific thinking.

With the introduction to mechanistic thinking into the life sciences, all observations and theories about nature were made to fit into this preconceived view.  Since all machines and machine made products are identical down to the minutest detail, and since human beings are distortedly viewed as no different than machines, it logically follows in medical scientific circles, despite all observational evidence the contrary, that the body is composed of the number of replaceable parts identical in every respect.  Thus, the idea that the triumphs of modern surgery are true advances in medical science is correct from a mechanistic, but not from a biological point of view, since the causes of disease that are treated with these impressive surgical interventions continue to be eluded and will always remain a closed book to the mechanistic physician (see later).

As recently as 50 years ago, biology textbooks defined the essential properties of the living in functional terms such as its reactivity to stimuli, excitability and so on.  Today, the criteria defining life have been replaced by structural concepts such as the ability of an organism to form a membrane, growth, reproductive capacity and so on.  These structural concepts go hand-in-hand with the structural tenants of molecular biology that the DNA molecule is identical to life.  If observations of the living cannot be made to fit into the mechanical paradigm they are either ignored or discarded. Some of these properties that cannot be understood are bio-lumination functions such as mitogenic radiation, pulsatory functions, and spontaneous motion. Mystically distorted ideas of purposefulness are then introduced into mechanistic thinking to fill in the gap. The idea of purposefulness or teleological thinking also originates from the tool making ability of humans.  Since the purpose of tools is to extend human functioning in their environment, it is believed by some that nature, in turn, must also have a purpose in relation to humans.  This anthropocentric view of nature is a projection, and is responsible for many erroneous notions such as, for example, that human functions must be purposeful.  “What is the purpose of sex?” is an oft -quoted question raised in the mechanistic science literature.  A teleological (mystical) explanation such as “sex makes natural selection more effective by increasing genetic variation” (2) is then supplied which seems to answer the question but this explains nothing.  The correct answer is different and quite simple: there is no purpose to sex.  Since life simply functions, sex is one of the many functions that constitute life.  In the sexual orgasm, the organism functions to regulate its own energy metabolism.

Mechanistic and mystical thinking are expressions of the ocular armor in the natural scientist. Both operate together to maintain his distorted worldview.  This view is passed on as gospel to the credulous public via the media.  The question logically arises: what is the function of the mechano-mystical thinking of the armored natural scientist?  Before we can answer this question, it is necessary to discuss the characteristics of this form of thought.

The Characteristics of Mechanistic Thinking

Mechanistic thinking is perfectly valid in the fields of machines and machine technology.  Mechanistic thinking in natural science is thinking about nature as if it were no different than a machine.  The following are some of the axioms of mechanistic thinking in the natural sciences.

1.  All realms of nature are predictable at least in principle.

Since the mechanistic scientist views nature as if it were a machine, and since in order for a machine to operate it must be flawless, it follows that if nature is machine-like, it must be predictable and perfect in all respects.  According to classical physics, if an event in nature is not mechanically repeatable and predictable, it is not capable of being understood. If the phenomenon nevertheless must be investigated for practical reasons, such as the important fields of quantum physics and meteorology, then statistical techniques are used in order to achieve some degree of predictability.  Using statistical methods such as the probability -based Schrödinger equation and weather models to solve problems in quantum physics or meteorology gives the mechanistic scientist partial control over his object of study, and, in some cases, even provides the illusion that the phenomenon under investigation is, in fact, understood. Nevertheless, the natural functions underlying quantum phenomena and meteorology are in the realm of orgonomic science. They are outside the realm of mechanistic science.

The science of mechanics belongs in a more superficial realm and is therefore less inclusive than the broader realm of the natural, including the biological sciences.  The flaw in mechanistic thinking is that it views mechanistic materialism as the basis for all natural events instead of recognizing that mechanical science covers only a small part of the world. There are areas in nature where energy actually does flow downhill and therefore physical processes can be mechanically understood according to the principles of electromagnetic or thermodynamic theory, but they are only a part of nature.  There is another sphere where energy flows uphill from lower to higher potentials involving the creation of non- living and living systems that is off-limits to the mechanistic view of nature.  In these areas, the Creationists and others with their mystical framework come in and try to fill the gap.

2.  All forms of energy result from matter.

The mechanistic scientist views matter as being primary in the universe. Therefore, all forms of energy are secondary to material processes.  With this axiom, the mechanistic scientist denies the existence of spontaneous movement. However,   spontaneous movement is the essential characteristic of living systems.  Denial of this movement is dramatic and conclusive evidence for the presence of ocular armor in the mechanistic scientist. Armor gives rise to his distortions in perception and thinking.  The mechanistic biologist is literally unable to observe without immobilizing the life that he sees in front of him and feels within his organism. Unable to perceive the spontaneous quality of this movement, he cannot recognize the difference between living and non- living matter.  Furthermore, perception of spontaneous movement would force upon him the conclusion that the second law of thermodynamics cannot be universally valid since the existence of spontaneous movement is, itself, a violation of the universal application of this law. He would then have to conclude further that there must be two directions of energy movement in nature, one that moves from lower to higher energy levels — which Reich designated as the orgonomic potential -and one that flows from higher to lower levels — the mechanical potential of classical science.

Finally, from this simple observation, the mechanistic scientist would have to be forced to acknowledge that there must be another kind of energy in the universe to account for this direction of movement from lower to higher-levels, an energy that is mass -free. Wilhelm Reich first identified the spontaneous movement of the energy of living systems as one of its essential characteristics. Reich named his discovery orgone energy, and went on to identify many of the qualitative and quantitative functions which distinguish it from secondary, mechanical forms of energy. As an example, the following diagram depicts the relationship between the orgonomic potential of orgone energy and the mechanical potential of secondary energy:

                                      Orgonotic capacity level

              Orgonomic potential                      Mechanical potential

Since the movement of orgone energy from lower to higher levels is spontaneous, it is unpredictable.  An example is the growth of an orgonotic system such as a cloud or living organism. In contrast, the movement of energy from higher to lower potentials is, by its very nature mechanical and, since it follows the second law of thermodynamics, it is predictable.

When the mechanistic psychiatrist misapplies the second law to biological systems, he arrives at many highly erroneous and destructive conclusions. Ideas such as that the brain controls and directs all biological functions, that thinking itself originates from the brain rather than from the body or  that disturbances in the body have nothing, whatsoever, to do with psychiatric disorders are some examples.  This view of the brain provides the mechanistic psychiatrist with a rationale for treating psychiatric disorders exclusively with medication targeting the brain and it serves to deny the crucial importance of emotional factors in psychiatric disorders.  When the mechanistic sociologist misapplies the second law to social systems (nations) he is, in effect, in favor of the idea that all nations in the world should be governed ( controlled) “from the top” by a centralized entity, the United Nations.  He is opposed to any attempt by individual nations (particularly theUnited States) to determine their own destiny.  Again, this view of the world is an accurate reflection of the armored biophysical state of the mechanistic sociologist, in whom the brain controls and directs the body.

3.  The direction of natural research leads to ever increasing complexity.

There are only two directions of investigation in natural science: toward the common functioning principal (CFP) or toward the variations of the common functioning principal as shown in the following diagram:

Toward the Common Functioning Principal.

Toward the Variations.

Research in the direction of common functions leads to greater comprehensiveness of understanding.  Research in the direction of the variations of the leads to greater complexity. This is the direction taken by mechanistic science. Since the mechanistic believes matter is primary in nature, his thinking and research is always in the direction of identifying the endless differences (variations) of the material systems under investigation.  Mechanistic natural scientists are compulsive gatherers of facts. Since nature is functionally ordered, the uncovered facts have little or no functional relationship to each other.  The direction of research is toward ever increasing degrees of complexity and greater detail and there is no possibility of providing a unified functional understanding of nature. The mechanistic psychiatrist focuses on the differences between a hodge-podge of symptom -based diagnostic entities.  The mechanistic sex -researcher investigates the limitless variety of disturbed sexual behaviors of armored humans. The mechanistic cancer researcher looks at the differences between one type of cancer cell and another and overlooks what all types of cancers have in common  The molecular biologist examines the differences between one DNA molecule and another or one type of virus and another while overlooking their common function.  Since he is confined to studying the interactions of material particles and not energy functions, he is limited to the investigation to the structural elements of life, hence his focus on molecular biology. The mechanistic researcher cannot delve into or integrate the common energy functions that unite a particular area of nature.  Nor can he bring antithetical functions, such as individual and society, religion and sexuality or psyche and soma into harmony by investigating what these functions have in common. This characteristic of the mechanistic researcher is the reason that rigid boundaries are set up between the various branches of science, and why it is impossible to arrive at unifying principles that integrate them into a single comprehensive body of knowledge.

In contrast, the functional approach to natural science deals primarily with energy functions.  Material structure is seen to arise secondarily from energy functions through the processes of freezing or superposition. As a result, functional thinking can proceed in both directions in natural research, either toward the direction of the more complex variations in nature or toward the underlying CFP that integrates these variations depending on the research objective.

4.  Space Is Empty.

According to mechanistic- materialistic thinking the ultimate constituents of the universe are material particles. In the absence of matter, space is empty. The discovery of electromagnetism in the 19th century questioned this conclusion since the propagation of electromagnetic waves requires the presence of a medium through which the radiation travels.  This was a perfectly rational assumption.  For example, sound waves require a material medium through which they travel.  Sound waves do not travel in a vacuum.  Therefore, some form of medium was postulated (the ether) through which electromagnetic radiation traveled.

The predictive successes of Einstein’s theories made it possible to ignore the existence of a medium through which electromagnetic radiation was propagated.  This rejection of the ether theory, which went against the time honored principles of materialistic thinking, amounted to a mystical leap of faith, to a belief in something unknowable. It meant that a physical medium was not required to account for the physical process of electromagnetic propagation and that these waves traveled “in empty space.” For the first time in the history of modern science, mystical thinking became fully incorporated into mechanistic science.

The ether problem was solved in 1939 by Wilhelm Reich when he demonstrated the existence of an all pervasive physical energy in space. The discovery of this new kind of energy made it possible to understand many physical phenomena that were unexplainable to mechanistic science. By demonstrating that space was not empty, Reich opened the way to an understanding of the energetic properties of space.  Space is neither empty nor is it an abstraction, as in “space-time”.  It has physical properties that can be experimentally investigated.

5.  Quantitative properties are more important than qualitative ones.

Quality and quantity are two properties of all natural functions. The mechanistic scientist consistently ignores or overlooks qualitative properties in favor of quantifying nature. If as much effort were spent teaching the qualitative properties of physical laws, as is regularly done focusing on their quantitative properties, the student in physics would have a more pleasurable time learning and have a greater understanding of the material taught in physics classes. In the medical sciences, qualitative properties related to health and disease such as functions associated with vitality, putrefaction and stagnation are not commonly recognized.  Mechanistic sociologists do not permit using qualitative terms such as good and evil.  Their focus is exclusively on quantitative statistical factors.  To them, vital statistics are more important than the energetic vitality of a social system.  Qualitative properties of nature are relegated to mystically oriented psychologists and other mystics, people who deal with the subjective states of the mind.  Not being fully in contact with energy movement within his armored organism, the mechanistic psychologist cannot accurately observe or objectively measure the subjective movement of emotions and sensations which flow through his body. Since he cannot trust his observations, (he uses double-blind studies), his measurements are confined to the most superficial level of human functioning, such as behavior, intelligence and aptitude testing all the while ignoring the underlying biological basis for these functions.  This limitation in his ability to rely on his senses is also the reason that an understanding of the emotional problems of humanity lie outside of his framework of thinking.

In contrast to the mechanistic natural scientist, and the unarmored functional scientists has the ability with the tool of orgonometry to study both quantitative and qualitative properties of nature with equal facility.  With sufficient knowledge, he can formulate   complete orgonometric equations which include both properties.

The function of mechanistic thinking in the natural sciences

 The perceptual functioning of the researcher in natural science is of crucial importance in determining the result of scientific investigation. According to Reich:

“The inclusion of the structure of the observer in the judgment of natural phenomena is a very important, if not decisive, step forward toward the integration of the subjective and the objective, the psychic and the physical.  It is chiefly ignorance on the part of mechanistically oriented scientists of the biophysical and depth — psychological functioning of the observer, which has led them into the dead end street, where theoretical physics finds itself today.  These scientists, who otherwise have demonstrated such an excellent critical sense of inquiry,… are unaware of the great progress which has been made during the first part of this century, in connecting the functions of perception with the functions of the emotions, and in connecting the emotions with bioenergetic, i.e., truly physical processes in the observing and reasoning organism.  Natural-scientific research is an activity which rests on the interaction between observer and nature, or, expressed differently, between orgonomic functions within and the same functions without the observer.  Thus, the character structure and the senses of perception in the observer are major, if not decisive, tools of natural research” (3).

We are forced to conclude that the application  of mechanistic thinking in the natural sciences functions as an ideology, a belief system about nature arising from the distortions in the perceptual apparatus of the mechanistic scientist. The articles of faith in mechanistic-materialistic ideology are defended with the ferociousness of religious doctrine.  Anyone seriously challenging these principles is either made marginal, ridiculed or turned into an object of an emotional plague attack.

As with all ideological systems, mechanistic materialism has three components.  1) a rational desire for knowledge about nature, which is a core function; 2) this original impulse for knowledge splits up into two components, one retains the original impulse, the desire for knowledge, and the other functions as a defense against knowledge. Arising from ocular armor, the defensive impulse originates from the terror of observing nature without distortion.  It takes the form of not accurately seeing (psychologically, denying) the object of observation. 3) Finally, there are the predetermined mechanistic ideas about nature, the axioms of mechanistic ideology that are applied to science.  Words serve as rationalizations justifying the distorted mechanistic perceptions of nature.  This is shown as follows:

          Mechanistic ideology (3)

                                         Ocular armor (2)

                                                              Desire for knowledge (1)

The ideology of the mechanistic scientist, functions as a defense against experiencing anxiety and hatred that inevitably results when the natural phenomenon under observation (such as the spontaneous movement of the living) is actually observed.  For him or her, organ sensations, which are the tools of natural research for the functional scientists have been deadened by armor. The protective function of mechanistic thinking is recognized by its defensive avoidance of   observations that do not conform to the mechanistic view of nature.  Terror of spontaneous movement is the reason that he must first immobilize the living before he can study or deal with it.  It happens, when he observes living specimens under the microscope by staining the preparation, when he routinely uses medication to suppress symptoms as the treatment of choice of psychiatric disorders, or when he breaks the contact between the newborns  mother in the delivery room by separation.  The reasons given for these practices are merely rationalizations justifying his actions, never the real reason, which is to avoid coming into contact with his terror of the spontaneous movement of the living.  The mechanistic scientist must exclude sensation, emotion and perception from his object of study because he cannot fully grasp or tolerate them without introducing distortions in thinking.  The spontaneous, pulsatory movement of living systems goes completely unnoticed and this is why life must remain forever, a close book.

 Mechanistic Thinking in Natural Science and the Emotional Plague.

The emotional plague is defined as human destructiveness on the social scene.  Since the mechanistic scientist’s reasons given for the interpretation of any natural function are defensive originating from his or her character structure, not the true reason, and since this defensive practice of supplying different reasons than the actual ones are an indication that the emotional plague is operative, the question arises is mechanistic ideology in natural science itself a manifestation of the emotional plague?  Evidence of the destructive consequences of mechanistic thinking in the life sciences provides the conclusive answer.  The following interaction between the pharmaceutical industry, the medical profession and the public is given as an example to illustrate that mechanistic thinking in nature is, indeed, a manifestation of the emotional plague. This relationship functions to instill and actively perpetuate the mechanized view of nature in the public’s mind.

The public at large is no and indoctrinated by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession to believe in the principles of allopathic (mechanistic) medicine. Mechanistic medicine asserts that the signs and symptoms of disease are synonymous with medical illness and that prescribing the appropriate medication is the treatment of choice. This often gives rise to the mistaken notion that these medical illnesses are, in fact, understood and that they result exclusively from biochemical abnormalities in the patient. The possibility of recognizing the underlying bioenergetic  source of the illnesses is evaded. Therefore, the administration of chemical substances such as pain killers, tranquilizers, and so on, either naturally or artificially produced by the pharmaceutical industry becomes the treatment of choice.

This relation between the public and the pharmaceutical industry and that of the public and the medical profession is one of attractive opposition based on their mechanistic -mystical orientation to medicine:

Public                                            Pharmaceutical Industry.

Public                                            Medical Profession

The same relationship exists between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry.  Freelance medical writers are hired by pharmaceutical companies to write articles promoting their product.  This practice is an open secret in medicine. Many of the articles written in scientific journals are actually written by ghost writers in the pay of drug companies.  The seemingly objective articles, which doctors around the world use to guide the care of their patients, are often part of a marketing campaign by drug companies to promote a product or play up the condition it treats (4).

The pharmaceutical industry is concerned primarily with its own economic survival.  It manufactures biochemical substances that are generally targeted to suppress the distressing symptom and this practice is commonly believed by all to be curative. Since it focuses on eliminating symptom, it is not concerned with the emotional health of the patient or the underlying disease process. As a result, the disease can reappear in another form once the symptom has been suppressed by the medication. As an example, consider the effects of anxiolytic medication, which eliminates anxiety, but often produces a loss of sexual drive and emotional liveliness in the patient.  Many of the undesirable side effects of allopathic medications are manifestations of the underlying disease process taking other forms.

The pharmaceutical industry uses highly aggressive advertisements to promote its products on prime time television and in print to create. Sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration, it creates the false and highly destructive impression that pharmacologically produced medication is the treatment of choice for all medical and emotional illnesses.  To make matters worse, with the support of the government, the medical profession sets strict guidelines regarding what medications are considered acceptable medical practice.  In effect, the government controls how medicine should be practiced.

Thus, mechanistic thinking in the natural sciences that is perpetrated on the public by the pharmaceutical industry in collusion with the government and the medical establishment serves as an expression of the organized emotional plague. It operates by misleading and confusing the public and it has brought progress toward understanding the origin of illnesses such as cancer and heart disease to a complete standstill.  A report by the International Consortium on the Human Genome states:

“Despite the ever — accelerating pace of biomedical research, the root causes of common human diseases remain largely unknown, preventative measures are generally inadequate, and available treatments are seldom curative”(5).

Mechanistic thinking has all but destroyed the spirit of the natural sciences. This aspect of the emotional plague is responsible for discouraging generations of young talented people from entering into a career in science because they are turned off by the deadening effect of mechanistic science. According to mechanistic materialism, everything in the natural sciences is already known at least in principle. There are no exciting new frontiers in science left to be discovered. All that still needs to be uncovered are the details. What gives the appearance that today’s science is robust and prospering are the numerous technological advances that continue to be made not from new discoveries, but from pre- existing knowledge.  However, since these advances do not deal with the core functions of nature and they have no bearing on improving the quality of life or on genuine scientific progress.

Mechanistic thinking in the field of mechanics and machines is perfectly rational because machines function mechanically, but it cannot have any place in the natural sciences.  Educating the public regarding the true nature of science is of only partial help because the underlying problem confronting humanity has to do with the fact that armored people think in an armored fashion.  They have lost the ability to know, deep down, that mechanistic- materialistic thinking in the natural sciences is inimical to life. Until this pathological condition is recognized and addressed, there can be no hope of developing a genuine natural science, one that is in the service of protecting and furthering unarmored life.  Nor can there be any real hope of addressing the emotional and medical illnesses of humanity from a preventative standpoint.

For almost one hundred years the development of natural science has been progressively coming to a halt because mechanistic thinking has crept into every one of its branches.  Today, various mystical alternatives are appearing as a reaction to mechanistic science to no avail.  Mysticism is as one-sided in its rigid view of the world as is mechanism. The only possible way that the scientific spirit can return to natural science is by replacing mechanistic thinking with a functional approach to the understanding nature.  Before this can happen, however, a major restructuring of the individuals in their early developmental years is required.  Children must be allowed the freedom to observe and to sense their outer and inner worlds without distortion.  Only by applying our knowledge of the emotional plague into this field of human endeavor will this restructuring come about.

References.

1. Reich, W.  The Mass Psychology of Fascism

2. Hoekstra, R.  “Why Sex Is Good.” Nature, 434, 31 March 2004. pp. 571-573.

3. Reich, W.; Ether, God and Devil.  p. 124.

4. Mathews, A, W.: At Medical Journals, Writers Paid by Industry Play Big Role.

The Wall Street Journal, 13 December, 2005.

5. A haploid map of the human Genome, The International HapMap Consortium Nature, and  VOL. 437,  27  Oct. 2005, pp 1299-1305.

3 Comments

  1. I do consider all of the ideas you’ve presented to your post.
    They are really convincing and will definitely work.
    Nonetheless, the posts are very brief for beginners. Could you please prolong them a little from subsequent time?
    Thank you for the post.

    For the best response please check-out this page :: equivita

    • I suggest reading my latest book, Neither Left Nor Right to get a better understanding of my blogs.

  2. I likie the helpful information you provide in your articles.

    I will bookmark your weblog and check gain hhere frequently.
    I am quite sure I’ll learn lots of new stuff right here!

    Best of luck for the next!


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Email Subscription

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 49 other subscribers