importance in regard to the main theory) and contrastability (a possibility to verify its results).

                   The origin of the discoveries is the basis of such disqualification. They were reached through the application of operations that are excluded from standard scientific practice because of their subjective character. Especially, direct observation without instrument mediation.

The Observer’s Role

                   “… but nobody asks about the nature of sensations, or rather, about the structure of the living perceptive apparatus. Orgoneic Biophysics has given a clear answer to this question: the human being free from an armor sees himself/herself and the world around in an essentially different way from the armored organism.” [1]

                   Now then, what are the reasons to have disposed of direct observation of nature as a cognitive-worth procedure within standard science? Why was direct assessment of qualities replaced by the use of instruments equipped with quantitative scales? Such rejection is based on the classical discussion of philosophical rationalism about the deception of the senses.

                   Basically, the core of such arguments is the mutable character of the perception by the senses, that vary from person to person, and also by the same observer, according to his/her psychophysical condition. We all know the perceptive alterations (greater or lesser) that we can experiment during panic attacks, somnolence, fatigue, fever conditions, drunkenness or drug consumption.

                   Rationalism limited itself to disqualifying all the data coming from the senses, and to opposing its doubtful assurance to the absolute certainty of mathematics, its “clarity and distinction”. This legacy of rationalism from the seventeenth century, together with the mechanicism that is born from the same roots, prevails even nowadays in the western philosophy. Orgonomy may be the first step to rescue the value of the senses within strict, reliable knowledge.

                   Maybe the fundamental contribution made by Orgonomy has been the consideration of the observer’s psychophysical condition interference in observations. This is the old problem of the deception of the senses posed in a positive way. We could call it the New Problem of Knowledge through the Senses.

                   An interesting aspect of our proposal is that besides presenting the discussion on more rational bases (who could deny that most of the knowledge that keeps us alive every day comes from the senses?) is that it is all about a restatement on the basis of empirical, not any longer philosophical, arguments.

                   To summarize, Orgonomy is built over direct observation, not mediated by any instruments that has been gradually disposed of by the official science same as the data obtained solely through this means. It is what we can call an illicit (cognitive) operation. However, questioning of orgonomic percepts does not end here. It is about observations that are not accessible to every observer in the same way. That is, they require of a certain special perceptive ability, an ability that not everyone has.

                   If we present this question in a more graphical way by means of a simple example, it would be like this. If we have an old portable radio and another one, that is so state-of-the-art that no longer looks like a radio, through which I can tune in all radio stations in the world, what correct conclusions can I deduce from this set of data? Shall I conclude that only the frequencies tuned in by the old radio are real? That the new one is not a radio? Or shall I try to find out what technical advances make them different from one another? In the case of instruments the problem is simplified since technical improvements are created on the basis of previous knowledge, and justify the different performance of the devices. But we could pose a similar reasoning, at least in a hypothetical way, as regards the interference of the work of the perceptive apparatus to perform the observations.

                   Reich studied the relation between the observer’s psychophysical condition and his/her observations in a group of well-differentiated perceptive phenomena. If this is clearly understood, this is the marrow of every psychological therapeutic practice: to detect the perceptive distortions of the patient, and accompany him/her in the process that will make him/her get rid of them. Some of such perceptive phenomena are: his patients’ self perception or body image and their variants, for instance, during hyperventilation; the relation between the energetic phenomenon (that he called orgoneotic currents and the sensations experimented during orgasm, as well as in pleasure and sexual arousal (Reich’s lab experiments in Norway about bioelectrical currents on the skin and their relation with the sensations of pleasure and arousal); observation of orgone energy (probably the most discussed): orgonoscope, observations inside accumulators, lumination in vacuum tubes, observations of orgone in the atmosphere, and so on; orgoneotic contact (empathy, affectionate relation, that includes the direct comprehension of body language; with this name, Reich referred especially to the relation of the mother with her baby, but it is applicable to interpersonal relations in general, to the relation therapist-patient, and also to the perception of the different atmospheric conditions).

                   In the description of each of these phenomena Reich compares the observations done by different people and concludes that the psychophysical condition (armored condition, in Reich’s words) determines the degree of sensibility or threshold, and the emotional reaction in front of observations. For example, in Cancer Biopaty he describes the panic reactions that are typical of armored people that had been asked to make observations as control subjects inside the orgone accumulator.

                   Here we reach the point when Reich begins to get aside from standard science practices: when he remarks that a certain psychophysical condition is necessary to perform orgone energy observations. At present the interference of the observer’s psychophysical condition in observations is not taken into account in standard scientific practice: individual differences are considered irrelevant, but the instruments used whose specifications are included in protocols are not.

                   This necessary condition, of a certain psychophysical condition to perform observations, may be acceptable or not, according to how it is understood. If it is interpreted in an undetermined way and this condition of the perceptive apparatus is considered as a kind of extra sensorial faculty, mystical or iniciatic, it should obviously be rejected. Reich himself would have done that: he rejected mysticism in such a definite way, as he rejected mechanicism. If that were not done, Orgonomy would be a kind of sect or occult science.

                   The psychophysical condition that makes it possible to carry out the observation of orgonomic objects is called functional conditioning.

                    Functional conditioning consists in including a characterization of the observer’s perceptive apparatus within the orgonomic protocols in the same way as scientific protocols include a description of the instruments used, such as microscopes, spectroscopes, telescopes, and so on. We do not think of an anatomic description but a functional one, a description of the working mode of the observer’s perceptive apparatus, since the results obtained depend on it in the same way as in standard science the results depend on the characteristics of the instruments. The history of science provides a number of examples. We are going to consider one among all of them: the first microscopists had access to a much more limited universe than what current electronic microscopes offer. The same may be said about telescopes and other instruments.

                   Reich refers to functional conditioning with the expression vegetative motility. What does that mean? Basically, that the flow of energy is not chronically obstructed in the observer’s bio-system. This brings about -among other consequences that the musculature is free from chronic stiffness (body armoring), at least flexible enough for the perceptive threshold for energetic phenomena to be overcome.

                             One example can be useful to clarify this. We all know that the focusing of our eyes depends on the dynamic and suitable deformation of the crystalline. Such deformation is produced by the tension of several muscles that cause the traction of the ocular globe. We also know that some visual impairments  (myopia, presbyopia) are a consequence of a chronic deformation of the ocular globe. Orgonomy goes even further, together with some natural medicine currents as to assert that the cause of such deformation is the reduction in muscle mobility.

                   We can clearly see that a chronic alteration of the musculature (muscular armoring) brings about a reduction of the perceptive ability: a certain set of phenomena stays out of the perceptive field. The relation between functional conditioning and the accessible percepts is then clear, that is, the interference of the observer’s psychophysical condition in the resulting observations.

Towards a Subjective Science?

                   “If we are consistent and assert that the physical character structure    is responsible for the mechanicist view of life, we should wonder the     following: What is the nature of the mechanicist character structure? What specific qualities support its inability to observe nature? ” [2]

                   Standard science has constructed its building on the basis of an objectivity claim: science is based on scientific facts (observations, experiment results) linked in a logic-mathematic structure. Such observations should be contrastable. What does that mean? It means that every observer that repeats the experiment, carefully respecting the protocol instructions, will necessarily get the same results. Scientific objectivity is based on this and it is a respectable value, since it has allowed that along the years and in spite of distance, each scientist has been able to make his/her contribution to the same research field, thus adding individual contributions to the collective undertaking of the construction of scientific knowledge.

                   There exists, as for every text, a context of scientific protocol, that remains implicit but that is as necessary as the explicit conditions for the achievement of identical results. Some of these contextual conditions are: 1) that just ‘licit’ operations be applied to the object; 2) to share the language; 3) enough training in instrumental management and lab techniques; 4) to share a perceptive mode. The first three conditions are satisfied by the researchers’ academic formation, the fourth is the hidden condition of objectivity and constitutes the problem we are dealing with. The homogeneity of the perceptive mode is provided by culture.

                   We have the following opinion: individuals belonging to one culture share a functional conditioning of their characteristic perceptive apparatus: for this reason they share a view of the world, and for the same reason, individual differences may be considered worthless in most cases.

                             However, some individuals present perceptive modes that deviate more or less from average: in such cases the individual feature contrasts with the collective, and allows us to perceive the difference. Such different perceptive modes (for example, Van Gogh, the Greco, or St Francis of Assisi, children, mad people, Copernicus, Reich?) have been generated at random. The perceptions of these people came to be too particular, ‘subjective’ for their contemporaries.

                   Our question should be now if Reich proposes a subjective science, of ‘special observers’, ‘gifted’, ‘perceptive geniuses’, to sum up, Subjectivity, where observations would be no longer contrastable: nobody else (or just those belonging to the chosen group) would be able to get the same results. The answer is NO: there exists a set of empirical procedures that allow to evaluate the state of armoring of an individual and act on him/her gradually leading him/her to states of greater vegetative motility, to states characterized by less muscular paralysis, and a subsequent increase of an ability of dynamic adaptation to stimuli (remember the focusing description: the dynamic adaptation of the crystalline and the regulation of the light entry allow vision. This adaptation should be nearly instant and suitable to stimuli so as to make vision possible). This greater vegetative motility implies a functional conditioning of the perceptive apparatus that we call perception displacement. When a person reaches a certain point in the process, he/she can perceive the orgone energy in its different forms and would be ready to repeat Reich’s experiments “mechanically”.

                   Such condition, perception displacement, only real access to Orgonomy, has been, up to now, his source of weakness. Immediate rejection of Reich’s theories is mostly based in disqualifying perceptive data, the empiric basis supporting them (the theories). It seems to be enough to argue against Orgonomy that orgone vesicles are just microorganisms that sail in the eye fluids, that the phenomena inside the orgonoscope are just defects of vision in the dark, and so on.

                   To sum up, the rejection of observations that support orgonomic theories is based on the fact that Orgonomy percepts do not belong to the set delimited by the cultural perceptive mode. This is true. What is disputable is that just because these percepts do not belong to the set of those admitted by culture, they should lose their character, their identity.        

                             If the cultural perceptive mode is the only possible one by definition, any percept alien to it is impossible. The same can be said about science: it selects (would it be an overstatement to say, ‘generates’?) by means of ‘legal’ operations and the use of instruments, the admissible and inadmissible percepts and by the same act excludes the inadmissible ones.

                             On the other hand, it is worth remarking that the set of percepts accepted by scientists is not identical to that admitted by culture. However, since science is a valued and authoritative product with respect to knowledge, it does not pose any conflict.

                   The point of discussion is then, the possibility or impossibility of the coexistence of different perceptive modes, and their relative reliability. The controversy about Orgonomy scientific character and legitimacy is partly about this question.

                   The core of debate is that classical Orgonomy developed a set of arguments through which the discussion can be carried out successfully. They are spread across Reich’s writings, although they occupy a secondary place. We firmly believe that all the Orgonomy should be reorganized around this axis if it wants to have a new –and more promissory beginning.

                   The question about the coexistence of different perceptive modes and their relative reliability implies a restatement of the opposite pair: subjectivity-objectivity, and of the knowledge problem. It also implies the delimitation of the orgonomic object and the legitimacy or not of orgonomic knowledge.

Mechanicism-Mysticism: two emergency exits of Orgonomy

           The problem of legitimacy of orgonomic knowledge and its implicit and conflictive character has taken orgoneomists to find factual solutions throughout the years, in front of the lack of theoretical legitimacy. Such factual solutions, well or badly based, are partial and subjective in all cases, since they fill a personal, individually felt vacuum. Factual legitimacy (which is a contradiction in itself) follows two fundamental lines, according to the orgoneomist’s bias: the legitimacy through similarity or affinity with traditional esoteric doctrines on the one hand, and the legitimacy sought           through the search for immediate efficacy (welfare, health, adaptation to culture) on the other hand.

                             Both orientations are respectable and non-excluding but they intend to justify the ‘truth’ of Orgonomy by its results or by its affinity with ancient doctrines, and on doing that, they stop the progress of Orgonomy that will thus continue ‘incomplete’ or ‘illegitimate’

                             It is our wish to solve this problem with Orgonomy’s own resources. This will also protect us from the risk of slipping down the precipice of Mechanicism (in search for fast efficacy) or Mysticism (tempted by the illusion of transcendence and the easiness of irrationalism).

                             In our following section we are going to deal with another Rreichian shadow that still nowadays rules Orgonomy’s fate, and that may be the undisclosed reason that hindered the discussion about perceptive transformation. It is about the tension between the historical and the physicalist explanations, where the pair subjectivity-objectivity reappears under a new aspect.

2.           Methodological Level

                             The coexistence of the model of historical explanation and the model of physicalist explanation within the orgonomic theories. 

                     “… I felt as strange as Peer Gynt. I thought of his fate as the most probable result of getting away from the roads of the official science and traditional thought. If Freud’s theory of the unconscious was correct (which I did not doubt) then the internal, the physic infinitude, could be apprehended. One became a little worm within the sea of one’s own feelings. I felt all this very vaguely, not at all “scientifically”. Scientific theory considered from the point of view of life as it is lived, offers something artificial, where to get hold of in the chaos of empiric phenomena. As such it is kind of psychic protection. One is not so prone of sinking in chaos if one has subdivided, registered and described his statements and thinks that he/she has understood them. Through such procedure one can master chaos up to a certain extent.”6

                   In the previous paragraph, Wilhelm Reich describes his mood when he faced an alternative of devoting to Psychoanalysis. Two different fears fuse into one: fear of heterodox consequences and a deeper one, the fear of getting stranded “like a little worm” in “the sea of one’s own feelings”

                   The interior threat (emotions) and the threat from the external world (chaos of empirical phenomena) are besought by means of just one resource: scientific theory that is a kind of “psychic protection” and through which “you can master chaos up to a certain extent.” It is hard to silence the spontaneous question where does chaos rule? In the empiric phenomena or “the sea of one’s own feelings”?

                   Scientific theory serves as a psychic protection and allows, up to a certain extent, to master chaos. If the word “chaos” refers to “empirical phenomena”, the former assertion is almost commonplace. But “chaos” may refer, according to context, to empirical phenomena as well as “the sea of one’s own feelings”. “Chaos” refers to both and they fuse into only one object: the object of study of Orgonomy.

                   Unlike Freud, Reich did not carry out self-analysis previous to his job as a therapist and researcher (there are no records to demonstrate that he did).7 Reich just registered his research results, orgonomic theories; his personal transformation process, his logbook about “the little worm in the sea of his own feelings” has vanished.8 That is why we propose to read the development of orgonomic theories taking into account its function as psychic protection or, in other words, as a cryptic tale of Dr. Reich’s perceptive transformation process.

                             We should wonder how intellectual work fulfills this function of psychic protection. To find an answer it is convenient to analyze the place scientific   research occupied in Dr. Reich’s affective life.

                             Reich often presents himself repeatedly as “the discoverer of life energy”, any other personal feature has vanished. In some cases, one has the impression that he considered himself just the discoverer of the orgone energy, and nothing else. His personal process seems to have identified with the scientific pioneer’s discovery journey. As we saw in the first part, “discovery” is only possible as a consequence of psychophysical transformation with the subsequent functional alteration of the perceptive apparatus. Such process of perceptive transformation is unpredictable and frightening since it consists of his personal experience of successive inescapable9 discontinuities in world perception as well as self-perception; even more if it is passed alone, without the guide of an experienced person.

          When the perceptive transformation reaches enough magnitude to allow the entrance of energetic phenomena in the perceptive field, the person is thrown into a world outside the cultural borders. The cultural perceptive agreement has been broken, the world is no longer a shared experience: it is no longer possible to confirm one’s own perceptions through consensus.10

                             Some psychic protection is obviously necessary in front of such “chaos” (from empirical phenomena? From our own emotions?) Such protection must somehow legitimize one’s subjectivity; turn one’s own perceptions somehow reliable, objective again. For a man like Reich, the only guarantee, the only possible justification was to raise his own perception of the world to the status of scientific theory.

                             Through the identification and fusion of his personal perceptive transformation process in the objective development of a scientific theory, Reich got the necessary psychic protection. Thus the rationality and objectivity of science are transferred to the personal process that disappears as such. Once the perceptive consensus is lost as a form of confirmation, the “objective reality” of one’s own perceptions is recovered thanks to the justification that theory offers to the new perceptive context.

                   The subjective pole, the personal perceptive transformation process disappears (this is perhaps the greater paradox in Orgonomy) and is replaced by the objective pole of the process, the construction of a scientific theory.

                   Reich thus partly avoids the anguish and fear before (his own) unknown; the Universe is the unknown and it offers itself to the scientific pioneer’s discovery, not his own sensations and emotions any more. Anguish then refers to the need for acknowledgement by others, respectable colleagues, scientific authorities (remember the Einstein’s affair), in an attempt to recover some way of social consensus.

                   Such permanent tension of his personal perceptive transformation process and its representation in the form of scientific theory manifests itself in the structure of the orgonomic theories.

          In the main expositions that Reich makes about his theories11, historical explanations form the framework to physicalist explanations of certain facts. That is, in general, theories are narrated, and within this narration some remarks, explanations and rigorous lab experiences, some of them under detailed protocols, are included.

                   Our thesis is that the historical structure (and not systematic, which is the rule in scientific theories) registers Reich’s perceptive transformation process. Physicalist explanations come to confirm, by the application of resources and procedures belonging to standard science, the perceptive findings (that is, new percepts that are accessible due to the application of his perceptive field). The function of both of them the physicalist as well as the historical explanations, is to convert the subjective process of perceptive transformation into an objective process: the construction of a scientific theory. Thus, subjective experience is confirmed scientifically: it acquires an entity, reality.

                             All this would be faultless, if subjective experience kept its place. But this does not happen: the personal process melts, it disappears, it is hiding; just the “objective” process is left, the construction of theory. Such is the price to pay for psychic protection: the desired objectivity is not reached (the historical explanation does not satisfy the requirements of standard science) and subjectivity (the interference of the observer’s psychophysical condition) is in fact denied, by the same man who so much contributed its knowledge.

                             Even more serious, Orgonomy is thus left drifting, in nobody’s land, out of the agreement, of the cultural perceptive mode (out of the shared reality, excluded from “objectivity” the way our culture understands it) and incapable of justifying its discoveries, since on denying subjectivity it is deprived of the arguments that could support the inclusion of the new percepts. To sum up, it becomes a prisoner of its creator’s conflict, who doomed himself and his followers to an unfruitful and consuming controversy.

                             We will next see such human conflict that nests in Orgonomy’s heart and some of its consequences.

Historical Structure. Physicalist Explanation:

the Conflict in the Heart of Orgonomic Theories.

                   “I will present the theory of Oorgasm the way it developed, that is,      historically and not systematically. In this way its internal logic will be      clear. It will be clear that no brain could invent these interrelations”12

                   The previous paragraph shows in the first place the extreme need to exclude any subjective trait (“no brain could invent…”). With this excessive assertion any creative or original activity of the individual is denied. 

                             Even further, the theory is “personified” (“the theory was developed”) The image corresponds with a living being, autonomous, following its own growing cycle, notwithstanding the author’s thought, who is reduced to a secondary role of impartial witness, almost passive and consequently presumably objective. His personal process of discovery and theoretical elaboration, the intellectual creation of theory, that clearly existed, is completely covered.

                             Secondly, a clear incongruence is perceived: the internal logic of theory is totally blurred when it is presented following a historical development. Internal logic is clear only in a systematic exposition: thus the different levels of generalization of the hypotheses are easily verified, its relations and internal consistence, summing up, all the elements that build its formal structure.

                   In the historical exposition, theory is presented as a succession of discoveries that lack logical linkers (deductive) that tie them. The linker tying each step of the research with the following is not the formal-logical type (and “objective”, and thus valid for every individual) but the researcher’s internal process (subjective). In Philosophy of Science this is called “Discovery Context”, that is, the set of environmental and subjective factors accompanying or inducing a discovery. The context of discovery cannot justify any findings, due to their incidental and subjective character. Therefore, this type of argument cannot be used to justify the validity of one’s own assertions.

                             Philosophy of Science opposes what is called Context of Justification to the Context of Discovery. Such name designs the set of actions carried out to establish the formal relation (logical linkers) existing between the new discovery and the theory where it is intended to be included. The process of justification is ultimately an exam of consistence (the non-contradiction) of the new finding with the scientific theory. The approval or non-approval of this exam decides the inclusion or exclusion of the new.

                   Reich lacked a context of justification: as a pioneer, doing research by direct observation (illicit operation), he had no theory to refer his discoveries to so as to justify them. That is why the formal, “objective” justification process was banned for him. His only resource to justify his discoveries was to make the reader occupy his place, the place of witness of theory development, a position that Reich makes efforts to present as objective. The author becomes a witness, and invites readers to ponder with him on the necessary and autonomous development of theory.

                             In fact, Reich presents his itinerary of discoveries as a red thread that you just need to follow. The thread is already there, you just have to follow it attentively. In this way he transfers his internal processes, his subjectivity, to the external, “objective”, real world. 13 Reich’s perceptive transferences appear under the image of a discovery of objects existing in the world (among them the armor, orgone energy, bions, the psychic plague). Now, these perceptive objects do not belong to the same kind as a hiding treasure, a coin or an underground course of water.  Not everybody can perceive them immediately; the cultural perceptive mode, that founds shared, objective reality, excludes them to a greater or lesser extent. Here is where the attempt to justify starts to sink: the red thread does not seem to be there for all readers; not everybody can easily occupy the place of impartial witness of the “autonomous” development of theory.

                   Here we reach a crucial point, decisive for the fate of Orgonomy: we have to establish up to what extent and in what way Reich’s justification for his discoveries is acceptable.

                   On presenting each new perception under the image of a finding of an object already existing in the world, an object that is inexistent still for many, and for some perhaps inexistent for ever, Reich, on behalf of his own psychic protection, and in order to search for an “objectivity” comparable to that of science, obscures the only arguments that could justify his theory. Since the cultural perceptive mode excludes to a greater or lesser extent the percepts on which orgonomic research is founded, the process of discovery, the “red thread”, can only clearly be a transformation process of the perceptive apparatus, a process of perception displacement that offers the necessary access to these new phenomena. For readers to occupy the place of witnesses that Reich (describing and covering the facts) gave himself, it is necessary to undergo the perceptive transformation that enables them to make these discoveries. This process of perceptive transformation is undisclosed by Reich on account of his need to protect himself from the consequences of heterodoxy and the natural fear caused by not sharing the world (not sharing the perceptive mode). The core of Orgonomy, its heart, and its only possible justification, has been buried under the weight of a theoretical construction whose main aim is to protect the author from the emotional burden that means to be the only inhabitant on a new world alien to culture.

                   The only way to justify orgonomic assertions is to describe the perceptive transformation process bound to unarmoring: this is the bridge to join both worlds. It is just possible to offer a context of rational justification (in the most limited sense of the word, that is, intellectual, formal, theoretical) to orgonomic theories if the perceptive transformation process bound to unarmoring is brought to the foreground.

Wrap up

                   The attempts to justify orgonomic theories can follow two lines, but neither of them attain the objective: formal justification and historical or weak, subjective justification appealing to the context of discovery.

                   The formal justification, which belongs to the scientific theories, is banned for Orgonomy, since there is no “mother” theory to establish a relation of belonging, logical implication links That is, Orgonomy from the time it gives up metatheory and the methods of the disciplines it originated from, Medicine and Psychology, is absolutely deprived of a context of justification.

                             Reich’s attempt of justification goes along the path of historical explanation and appeals to the context of discovery: a narration of theory development, attempted to appear as self-explanatory and objective, accessible for any individual capable of keeping his attention in the “red thread”, the sequence of the discoveries itself that present by themselves to him/her.

                   Unfortunately, the new percepts of Orgonomy are only present as a consequence of the enlargement of the perceptive field. That is why, it can be stated that the “red thread” just “exists” or is real in the subjective process of perception displacement, not in the objective process of a scientific theory. orgonomic theories, with their historical structure, are just a symbolic, intellectual and fragmentary representation of the perceptive transformation process lived by Dr Reich.

                             In this way, both ways of legitimacy are discarded, formal and historical, and the problem of justifying orgonomic theories is still pending.

              We think that the problem of legitimacy of orgonomic knowledge can be solved following two ways of action: a theoretical one and an empirical one.

          Theoretical questions to be solved include a philosophical restatement of the problem of sensitive knowledge, of perception. For that purpose a revision of philosophical tradition is necessary, especially in regards to the individual’s interference in cognitive interaction, and to the most general categories we define “real” with. This is equivalent to making the metatheory underlying orgonomic research explicit.

          Empirical questions include a total reformulation of orgonomic theories, centered in perceptive transformation that accompanies the process of character formation as well as the unarmoring process.

          Having perceptive transformation as a central axis, the percepts of Orgonomy (armor, bioenergetics currents, plasmatic pulsation, biologic and cosmic orgone energy) find a context of justification and can be included as its own objects of research, at the same time that the operations that are suitable for its study are precisely characterized.