Talk:Aesthetic Realism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


Contents

[edit] Discussion of introductory section

At the moment the introduction, as agreed on only by Michaelbluejay and Outerlimits begins with this sentence:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet Eli Siegel in 1941.

It would improve the sentence to add the word "critic" as follows:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941.

The reason is, Eli Siegel was a critic as well as poet. As evidence, there are, for example, (1) His book reviews in Scribner's Magazine (See Scribner's). (2) And in the NY Times Book Review Kenneth Rexroth wrote: "His translations of Baudelaire and his commentaries on them rank him with the most understanding of the Baudelaire critics in any language". Since Aesthetic Realism is an educational philosophy based on critical thinking, Eli Siegel needs to be placed as a critic as well as poet.

Now let us look at the next sentence:

Its primary teachings are that beauty is the making one of opposites, that everyone's deepest desire is to like the world, and that contempt causes unhappiness and even insanity.

For the sake of the reader's being better able to understanding this and wanting to read more, I suggest (1) that this sentence be expanded to explain the ideas in clear language and (2) we go back to the point structure that Michaelbluejay originally suggested.

Its primary teachings are:
  • Beauty in art is the making one of opposites, such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace.
  • Everyone's deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
  • The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things--causes unhappiness and damages mind.

Sources:

1. See "Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites?" [1]

2. See Eli Siegel's preface to Self and World: An Explanation of Aesthetic Realism. [2]

--samivel 17:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC) ________

I think the following would be a fairer way of putting the next sentences:

Students of Aesthetic Realism say it encourages exactness, kindness, and creativity. They described it (1971-90) as a means to change homosexuality and have written articles in the press in which they point to it as answering poverty and racism. They use the Aesthetic Realism principles to explain, analyze, and teach a wide variety of topics, including classes in poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage. The philosophy is taught by the faculty of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.
Critics claim that while many of Siegel's ideas have merit, the group of Aesthetic Realism students is a cult, having common cult characteristics such as fanatical devotion to the founder/leader, etc. [3] Aesthetic Realism students counter that “There is a great deal of lying in the world at the present time; yet these are as deep-dyed falsehoods as we have seen anywhere." [4]

In The H Persuasion it is clear that the purpose was not to "stop homosexuality" but for an individual to understand and change it, where that is what he wanted. Is there a source for the phrase, "stop homosexuality?" Is it in a gay periodical? or some other publication?

The fact that explanation and analysis takes place in classes can be stated without making the intro too long. See brochure of classes.

The persons who teach Aesthetic Realism foundation are not only consultants. Seminars and public presentatins are given by others. The faculty is mostly, but not only, consultants. See the people who participate in seminars and events

As to the list of "common cult characteristics" (which was my phrase by the way) I don't think all of them are needed for an intro -- they are enumerated in the article.

In the last sentence, similarly, we don't need the word liars and falsehoods both in one sentence or the extended quote, to make the point.--samivel 22:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If a homosexual person understands and changes homosexuality, doesn't that stop homosexuality? Or does samivel mean to say that homosexuality continues in such a case? The only thing that's "clear" here is that samivel wants to use AR-speak.
I've left it in for now, but saying that AR "explains" certain subjects implies that AR is correct in its seeing of said subjects. We are not here to say that AR is The Answer, for that is something that would have to be decided by every individual for him or herself.
I'm not surprised that samivel doesn't think it's necessary to name all the cult characteristics in the intro, since "they are enumerated in the article." However, the purpose of the intro is precisely to enumerate; the rest of the article is given over to expound upon what was enumerated in the intro. Again, check out the intro to the Scientology article (or any other well-written article, for that matter.) I know that samivel would love to eliminate all criticism of AR and write a glowing propaganda piece, but there are others here who hold a different point of view.
Sorry, but if AR gets to debate the cult issue in the intro, then I'm going to debate whether they really "explain" certain subjects -- particularly marriage -- in the intro. Therefore, I have once again removed the "deep dyed falsehoods" garbage. Marinero 00:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Marinero, I totally understand where you're coming from, and I won't revert you, but consider that the stuff you removed actually reflects poorly on AR people -- it shows them as insanely intolerant. I think through things like that, and the whole Countering the Lies, they make my point much stronger than I ever could. I'm not afraid of including their response to criticism because it shows them for what they really are. Michael Bluejay 06:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Marinero, Wikipedia quite rightly protects every individual's point of view. Of course that includes mine, and this should not be forgotten. But there is also another matter that concerns Wikipedia--and that is whether the things being written are true. As to the phrase "deep-dyed falsehoods," it is a true description. But I won't revert your deletion either.
As to the "stop homosexuality" phrase it isn't the whole truth. In fact, something else goes on in a man's life when homosexuality is "stopped" -- and that is heterosexuality. Saying that the phrase "change from homosexuality" is "ARspeak" is very cute--right out of Orwell. But it's not "ARspeak"--it's plain English--to say "I changed from homosexuality," just as it is plain English to say, "I changed my clothes" when you change from a brown suit to a blue suit. You could say I stopped wearing my clothes but it wouldn't cover the subject. In fact, I quoted the phrase "change from homosexuality" from the standard source on the subject, The H Persuasion, which you use yourselves. See the introduction by Ted van Griethuysen. And so I would thank you to restore my earlier use of this phrase.--samivel 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
(Pausing just for a moment to reflect on the inappropriateness of your analogy): your difficulty will be persuading people that a phrase used by no one who is not associated with AR is anything other than AR-speak. A reference to an AR-published work is a reference that demonstrates, rather than refutes, that notion. - Outerlimits 01:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
How do other people describe a person who changes from homosexuality? If you would make that clear I would have more to work with. I am not against using any phraseology that makes a point clear.
In order to make the introductory remarks clearer, I have taken the various objections I had and put them together--resulting in the following two paragraphs. You will see how you think they can best be expressed. It would be impossible to leave the "cult" accusations unanswered. And I have taken out the idea of "explains" that Marinero objected to.
Students of Aesthetic Realism say it encourages exactness, kindness, and creativity. Over 50 stated that they changed from homosexuality through its study and presented this publicly (1971-90). Articles describing the cause of both poverty and racism as Aesthetic Realism sees it have been published in a variety of newspapers. Courses in the Aesthetic Realism understanding of such subjects as poetry, the the visual arts, anthropology, music, marriage, and drama are taught by the faculty of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.
Critics claim that while many of Siegel's ideas have merit, the group of Aesthetic Realism students is a cult, having common cult characteristics such as fanatical devotion to the founder/leader, belief that they have the one true answer to universal happiness if only people would listen, paranoid feeling of persecution, and extreme intolerance of criticism. [5] Others, including educators and other professionals, have responded in detail to these accusations and believe they are motivated by a desire to hurt the reputation of an honest philosophy and those who study and teach it. [6] --samivel 03:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll stick to one sentence for now: "Over 50 stated that they changed from homosexuality through its study and presented this publicly (1971-90)" is an extremely passive phrasing for "Aesthetic Realism promoted itself until 1990 as a means by which homosexuals could become heterosexual." Other sentences need work as well: you have toned down the usually quite strong claims that AR has made, which is inappropriate. For example, AR websites give voice to sentiments such as "Aesthetic Realism is the means to end racism", and you translate this into "Articles describing the cause of poverty as Aesthetic Realism sees it have been published". AR's claims are usually quite audacious. Putting the sentences into passive form and toning down the language to disguise the boldness of AR's claims is deceptive rather than clarifying. - Outerlimits 04:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Afterthought:First of all, is this sentence true? You don't say it's untrue. And a true sentence has a right to stay just where it is. Further, it's nice and short. If you want to add to it and say others disagree with them, fine. we'll negotiate. What I object to is somebody rewriting the whole sentence so that your own particular POV and that of your associates colors it by innuendo. Be sure, the truth won't hurt you.--samivel 20:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
You are quite right, Outerlimits, in pointing out that I left out the solution. It was a mistake. I put it back in. Meanwhile, it really isn't "audacious" but factual. Please note that I am trying to use the NPOV neutrality in writing and also the "dry" encyclopedia style that was recommended to me. I also took out "changed from homosexuality" and put it another way. I also (as per your recommendation) tried to put in words the part that the Aesthetic Realism Foundation played in gladly assisting the people who were very passionate about letting America know they changed.--samivel 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't "point out that you left out the 'solution'", I pointed out that you omitted that Aesthetic Realism has and does actively promote itself on the basis that it is the solution to (insert flavour of the month here). You've still left that out. And your new sentence is worse than most prior versions: you characterize the "advertisers" as "formerly gay": in fact, they are people who claim to be formerly gay. Factual and audacious, by the way, are not mutually exclusive, though in this case they may be. - Outerlimits 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Afterthought: I beg your pardon. I happen to have known some formerly gay persons, and still know some of them half a century later. Their "ideation" as you put it is more to their liking than it was when they were gay. They have said so on occasions which were spontaneous and truthful. Now that is their choice, isn't it?
I will refrain from using that phrase if it offends you. But not because it is untrue. I do object, though, to being called to task for in some way making it seem like Wikipedia was using the phrase as authoritiative. Although you do make the so-called "critics" of Aesthetic Realism seem like Wikipedia's phrase when it is Bluejay's own phrase for himself and those like him. The last time (taking your advice) that I wrote about "formerly gay" people, I was essentially quoting three rather respected journalists as well as the formerly gay people themselves. I even attributed the source. One source I even gave the date: Jonathan Black's interview, which is a matter of record. In Wikipedia I have a right to summarize verifiable sources, and that is exactly what I did. A general reader would see that is what I did--it is really unmistakable. Just as Mr. Bluejay chided me for being overly suspicious so I must chide you. (I believe he used some word that began with "P" -- was it "paranoid"? And was it evidence that I am after all a cultist?) Well, if too much suspicion makes a person a cultist there are an awful lot of them around here.--samivel 20:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
What exactly is "factual"? What studies have been conducted to prove that AR has the "solution" to anything? As to the refutation of cult allegations in the intro, I seem to be the only person who feels strongly that it doesn't belong there. I do agree with Michael that it "shows (the ARists) for what they really are," but that being the case, why don't we all just bow out altogether and let samivel have his propaganda piece all to himself? Anyway, I would welcome others' opinions on this. Marinero 22:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Afterthought Propaganda is untrue. Please point out what is untrue in this article. Then we'll discuss it. And by the way, the article was a collaborative effort not "mine." If you can't say what's untrue, then express your opinion all you want but don't expect to be taken seriously.
By the way. This business of insulting an authentic advance in philosophic and scientific thought--which Aesthetic Realism is--by calling it a cult, or anything else, is mighty old business. I notice you don't take up any of its ideas, any of the solutions it gives to philosophic problems--and social problems--that seemed insoluble. None of you have said that a disposition to have contempt is NOT at the basis of racism, have you? You haven't said beauty ISN'T the making one of opposites, have you? You also haven't said that when a person perceives the cause of racism and realizes it isn't inevitable--it can change--that person should go away from society and keep his mouth shut forever. You won't say that, but you will say that person is PROMOTING a philosophy for some ulterior purpose!
The undue suspicions and "over the top" accusations that you and your collaborators are responsible for just won't wash when the truth is told. I truly hope you like that.--samivel 20:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Marinero, I am forced to agree with Michael that the AR quotation makes them look like idiots. And I'm forced to agree with you that it doesn't really belong in a well-written introduction. But I think it's an issue really of writing rather than a problem with misrepresentation, so it's seemed less pressing to me. Its presence or absence are pretty much balanced out as I look at it. The version with the quote reveals the paranoia and irrationality; the version without it is a cleaner introduction. - Outerlimits 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
To answer your request for studies, I suggest you begin with thirty years ago--and my doctoral dissertation in which I proved that Aesthetic Realism is the solution to important problems in the social science theory. Look it up online. As to racism and other important matters, documents have been published showing clearly what you desire to know.--samivel 03:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Cut the condescending attitude, samivel. I've seen a taste of what you consider "proof," and it invariablly turns out to be anecdotal evidence and wild assertions from The Believers. And I already know to be especially careful when you start using the indirect case: "documents have been published..." It's not only poor writing; it's also your way of not having to say "The ARF has published documents..." It's also classic AR-speak. So, the ARF has published documents asserting that AR is the solution to this or that. Why am I not surprised (or impressed)? Marinero 04:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Afterthought--since this is adressed to me, I believe I have a right to answer it. What you call anecdotal evidence--and I hope you have actually read it--is careful and scientific reporting, very often, of one person's experience. Autobiographies and diaries are some of the most important documents in historical and psychological research. The novelistic first person report of schizophrenia I Never Promised You a Rose Garden by Hannah Green is a scientific classic, and reading it closely one can learn a lot about oneself and how mind can go wrong through contempt for reality. But why begin with a gloomy subject? Henry Adams' autobiography tell so much about the states of mind in his day; because it's honest writing. Autobiographical short stories, like Hemingway's In Our Time have true observations about states of mind, and how one emotion changes to another. What you are calling "anecdotal evidence" is actually pretty careful and reliable reporting by a person about his life; and what you call "wild assertions," I don't think you have any evidence that they are. I don't know which you mean; though I suppose you to mean persons saying how they began actually to respond to the body of a person of the opposite sex, where no response had been before. Well, I beg to differ. Among the persons I know who changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality, this is what really happened. As the big thing changed--an attitude to the world, to people, to objects--the subsidiary thing, an attitude to sex, also changed. This is philosophy, my friend. So although I don't know which articles you are calling anecdotes, bear in mind that let's say Michelson and Morley's experiments with light--which they wrote about in pretty unassuming lab notebooks I guess--are also, in a sense autobiographical. But we don't call them anecdotes. They led Einstein to discover relativity. So wherever scientific evidence exists, it should be cherished and not put aside. I hope you think about what I just wrote and take it with complete seriousness. --samivel 20:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I suspect what is being asked for here is some assessment of evidence that AR has actually had any real effects on poverty or race relations: that is studies showing whether it has any effects other than "talking a good game". In the thirty years since you wrote your thesis, what instances of AR reducing poverty can we point to? Which instances of AR reducing racism? For that matter what type of statistical analysis has been published showing that AR reduces homosexuality.? Outerlimits 07:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Note on Scientific Method

I will not respond your insults. I will point out that although you may dismiss actual proof--and you did not comment on my thesis at all except to dismiss it--there are others who won't. There was a valuable article in the New York Times Week in Review titled "Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar" that I recommend to any person reading this Talk page.

Although I won't respond to your insults I will answer the questions you raise, for the sake of anyone reading what I write who won't dismiss it. So, to do a responsible job, I will now risk sounding like a lecturer. I feel there are important aspect of scientific method that aren't sufficiently thought of.

The Role of Single Events in Science. When the Wright Brothers’ plane flew in Kitty Hawk, it was clear that heavier-than-air flight was possible. When Sheldon Kranz became heterosexual in 1946 and later began a deep and successful marriage to Anne Fielding, it was equally clear that homosexuality could change. Wrote his wife, “As I look back, I think knowing that Sheldom had changed in such a profound and lovely way gave me hope for myself” (p. 43, The H Persuasion, 1971). Similar reasoning is true about racism: From the 1970s on, papers were published in peer-reviewed professional journals and other periodicals giving examples of racism or prejudice changing to fairness. (See for example, “Education to promote respect for diverse cultures” by myself in India Abroad April 20, 2001, pp. 2-3; and see “Students Learn, Prejudice Is Defeated” by Sally Ross in the Missouri State Post May 19-25, 2005 Attitudes are as real as bricks and changes in them can be observed. They belong to science.

Also consider this: When Alexander Graham Bell’s assistant heard Bell speak for the first time over the telephone in the 1870s, we had all the evidence the world needed that voice could be transmitted over a wire. “Statistics” are irrelevant in such cases. In each of the above instances the “experiment” was reproducible and successful repetitions exist, including your own cell phone.

Questions about the Place in Scientific Method of Statistics Claude Bernard (probably the greatest physiologist of his time) writes in An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, that statistics may mask, rather than reveal, a scientific fact: “In physiology, we must never make average descriptions of experiments, because the true relations of phenomena disappear in the average; when dealing with complex and variable experiments, we must study their various circumstances, and then present our most perfect experiment as a type.” (p. 135, Dover Publications: New York, 1957). This should be thought of when one asks for statistics. Statistics of what? And do the averages reveal or obscure scientific facts?

The Understanding of Poverty. So far poverty in America hasn’t ended. The one thing necessary, a desire on the part of every American to have complete justice come to every other American, has not been achieved. There is a sufficient number of professionals and activists who are passionate about economic justice in America and believe that Aesthetic Realism provides the intellectual wherewithal to achieve it. It is the only body of knowledge that shows convincingly and scientifically that the way to take care of one’s own dear self is to be just to other people (see ‘’Psychiatry, Economics, Aesthetics” in ‘’’Self and World’’’ by Eli Siegel). To name one, Michael Stoops, director of field organizing projects of the National Coalition for the Homeless, called “What Does a Person Deserve?” --a film based on this approach created by Emmy award-winner Ken Kimmelman-- “awesome,” and capable of “arousing the conscience of the American people.”

For more examples I think you, the reader, can do further googling. There is enough on the Web to prove the substantiality of every point I am making here and it is very easy to find. But if some folks are going to "just say no" every time convincing evidence is provided, and ask for something else because convincing evidence is not wanted, we will get nowhere.

It is a fact that the method of Aesthetic Realism follows the procedures that are standard for all scientific method: Frame an hypothesis, test that hypothesis with concrete examples, and if the hypothesis is confirmed, it becomes a scientific theory or principle.

That is how the principles of Aesthetic Realism came to be. Perhaps the major source for the reasoning and observations behind these principles is Self and World: An Explanation of Aesthetic Realism by Eli Siegel (Definition Press: New York, 1981) but The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known also explains the principles--and their present-day application--in every issue.

A word of caution: Any person of keen and inquiring intellect who offers a positive opinion of Aesthetic Realism will be dubbed a "True Believer" or on this Discussion page (though not by me). It is a compliment. Because it means that the things you say are too hard to refute by logic or facts, so "bad names" must be used as a last resort.

Meanwhile I trust that most persons reading this will have a truly scientific interest in the new developments that Aesthetic Realism has provided in the social sciences and the arts. Further inquiry will repay his or her effort.

As Claude Bernard says, “The truly scientific spirit...should make us modest and kindly” (p. 39).--samivel 21:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some Responses

You can't "not respond" to insults, as there were none. Jonathan Black had no special knowledge of the sexuality of his guests, he knew only what they told him - just like us - so there is no reason to privilege his description above our neutral description that they claimed to be ex-gay. Since you refuse to discuss your modifications, I'm reverting to the last version on which there was reasonable agreement. - Outerlimits 00:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Samivel wrote: "From 1971 through 1990 formerly gay persons, as Jonathan Black described them on WNDT (2/19/71), described becoming heterosexual through study of this philosophy, and, in partnership with the Aesthetic Realism Foundation made this known via five media interviews, two books, and advertisements."
Maybe it's just me, Samivel, but there seems to be something fundamentally DISHONEST about making statements like this without then mentioning the fact that a lot of those men later decided they had NOT "changed from homosexuality" through their "study" of AR. And somehow, the beautiful quotes from "The H Persuasion" ring just a little bit hollow when I stop to think that the book eventually had to be SHELVED because so many of the contributors went back to their old ways. A second book with new contributors was then printed and it met the same fate, for the same reason. So, Sheldon Krantz "changed" and that's "scientific proof." What, then, do the men who didn't "change" constitute? Oh don't tell me, I already know, it's your favorite word/debating tactic: liars! Shirley McLain flew around the universe and remembered past lives; guess that's "proof" too! And I'm supposed to go all over the net, searching out your thesis?? I'm sorry, but I would have to take you seriously first. Marinero 07:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Samivel is now responding to the statement that there were no insults and some other statements.
To call me dishonest is not an insult? As a person dedicated to scientific method, which demands absolute scrupulosity, I take this as an insult.
As to the H Persuasion matter, read TS's comments in the archived Talk pages. He demolishes this untrue statement: "a lot of those men later decided they had NOT 'changed...'"... He so completely demolished that bit of falsity that all four detractors have ignored his writing since then.
Now let us backtrack a bit to the introduction. Although I have already given my proofs (in some cases more than once) that the restored introduction is unaccaptably POV I have been entirely ignored. In fact Outerlimits comments on the History page that I have written nothing critical of it.
I shall reiterate for the record the following two critiques of the last paragraph:
1. What verifiable source called Michaelbluejay et al "critics"? No source was given when I asked for it, and I believe the term critics is not accurate. Detractors, yes. Attackers, yes. Critics? No: their onslaught of misrepresentations does not deserve so dignified a term. Therefore, I will replace the term with "individuals" which is certainly true.
2. How many detractors are there? Indeed, there may be fewer than a dozen (who can know how many of the anonymous ones are different people?) So "A small number" is appropriate. The number of real critics who never called Aesthetic Realism anything disrespecful, like Kenneth Rexroth and William Carlos Williams, is greater than they. And more than 60 (sixty) professionals have refuted these detractors in writing. Among their professions are: journalism, medicine, law, education (including university professors), art, music, computer technology. It is an impressive list and their refutations are so obviously honest and clear, that they have been deleted. Just so the reader won't have to google them, some of their refutation work is on http://www.counteringthelies.com. For any editor to leave them out is just plain dishonest. It is manipulation of the facts. So they will go in the last sentence.
As to Jonathan Black, the writer (Outerlimits) has not been truthful. How does he know how much background knowledge Black did or did not collect? No, Outerlimits has gone beyond what he knows to assert something he doesn't know.
Jonathan Black and other responsible journalists, such as David Susskind and Tom Snyder, did stories on the change from homosexuality because they learned enough to scientifically evaluate the evidence and decide the men who changed were legitimate. These journalists, including Jonathan Black, are indeed verifiable sources such as Wikipedia demands.
As to the list of "cult characteristics" they are so overblown for an introduction they should be removed. Granted, we all have a right to our point of view. But we also have a right to be fully accurate and not foist misinformation on the public.
Once again I refer the reader to this Sunday's New York Times Week in Review with the front page article "Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar." [4 December 2005] I am glad to see this. I trust the standards of verification in Wikipedia will be improving.--samivel 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
In keeping with this information I have revised the intro to be nice and short while not leaving out anything essential--as follows:
Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. Its primary teachings are:
  • Beauty in art is the making one of opposites, such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace.
  • Everyone's deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
  • The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things--causes unhappiness and damages mind.
Students of Aesthetic Realism say it encourages exactness, kindness, and creativity. Articles describing the cause of both poverty and racism as Aesthetic Realism sees it--and the solution--have been published in a variety of newspapers. Courses in the Aesthetic Realism understanding of such subjects as poetry, the the visual arts, anthropology, music, marriage, and drama are taught by the faculty of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.[7]
From 1971 through 1990 a number of formerly gay persons (as Jonathan Black described them on WNDT, 2/19/71) described becoming heterosexual through study of this philosophy. in media interviews and publications in partnership with the Aesthetic Realism Foundation. Meanwhile, some individuals claim that Aesthetic Realism students are a cult, having common cult characteristics.[8] More than 60 others from such professions as medicine, law, and education say these detractors are lying and motivated by malice.[9]

--samivel 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In keeping with the need expressed by Jonathunder to keep it short--this one is short without omitting anything essential that I can see right now.

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. Its primary teachings are:

  • Beauty in art is the making one of opposites, such as order and freedom, logic and passion, strength and grace.
  • Everyone's deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.
  • The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things--causes unhappiness and damages mind.

Courses in the Aesthetic Realism understanding of such subjects as poetry, the the visual arts, anthropology, music, marriage, and drama are taught by the faculty of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.[10]

From 1971 through 1990 a number of formerly gay persons (as Jonathan Black described them on WNDT, 2/19/71) told of becoming heterosexual through study of this philosophy. Meanwhile, some individuals claim that Aesthetic Realism students are a cult. However, others--from such professions as medicine, law, and education--say this is a falsehood motivated by malice.[11]

--samivel 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As you probably recognize by now, this is acceptable only to you. You claim I lie, and you assert that Jonathan Black had special (and apparently "scientific") knowledge of his interviewee's sexuality. That's nonsense. As is relying on those other famous "scientists", Tom Snyder and David Susskind for validation. No formulation in which they are evoked as "evidence" that their interviewees spoke the truth is possible. - Outerlimits 00:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

When you write "acceptable only to you," I object. Perhaps you have read in Wikipedia aboat coalitions of editors that make their POV predominate simply because they outnumber their interlocutor (me). Surely you don't want that to happen in this article! Wikipedia says this is a way to "establish consensus for something which is still horribly POV. Further, I do not believe I am claiming you "lie." Have I used that horrible word? But I am presenting what I see as the facts. I realize that others may interpret them differently from the way I do. But I do say that, perhaps without knowing it, or perhaps without direct knowledge of these facts, you have left out important facts, you have used partial or fragmentary quotes when I have asked for complete ones, ane you have "stonewalled" (by simply ingoring me) when asked for sources on rather crucial assertions you have made. I believe this needs to be amended. I feel that so strongly that I wish to start the "homosexuality" article again, from the ground up, and am putting in a simple sentence right now as a beginning point. --samivel 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
No, you didn't use the word "lie", you said I "wasn't truthful". Either is an insult. Of those working on the article, your introduction is in fact acceptable only to you. Similarly, it is only you who object to the rehearsal of the history of AR with regard to its attitude towards homosexuality. I see you have thought better of your campaign to unilaterally remove that section. That certainly would not have been a way to build consensus. Unfortunately, you seem to want to insist that Wikipedia present AR's "ex-gay" claims as true, and that's neither possible or negotiable. They will be reported as claims, because that's what they are. If you want to present only AR's side, excluding all others, you are in the wrong place. - Outerlimits 23:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's look at this. First, perhaps you were just mistaken and weren't lying. If so, I apologize. I really am not an enemy. In the case of the intro, and Jonathan Black, I thought I was writing clearly, and attributing the "formerly gay persons" phrase quite properly to its source. I didn't imagine that you had just read it wrong and failed to see my purpose. So when you accused me of some sort of chicanery I didn't like it. I thought it was just a tactic on your part, and a dishonest one at that. Others in this Wikipedia editing mess, and I include Mr. Bluejay, have clearly been driven to make some sort of shoddy case against the philosophy I know to be fair and deeply honest.
I ask you to give me the same benefit of the doubt, when you think I'm deliberately being cunning, or trying to deceive you in some way. You are surely as suspicious as I am! But let's be honest. Have you counted all the names I've been called? Really, I've been quite restrained considering the provocation. And I even have so much faith in you that I am responding at length to your writing. I have been accused of much more than I ever accused you of, and never for a moment was my scientific reputation taken into consideration--how in hell could I have been brain washed--it's absolute filthy hogwash! And then, when I or my colleagues object to being maliciously and deliberately lied about this way--we're accused of overreacting, and thus proving we are paranoid! I hope you are never lied about the way my colleagues and I have been--and by what a source!
Now let's look at who's working on the intro. We know all four or five of you see eye to eye. You do not accept diversity of opinion. I am the only dissenter. Now either it's the majority rules, and I should log out right now and never come back, or we are men and women of reason. It's your choice: the future of Wikipedia as a reference people trust, or as an unreliable source with articles whose contents come from editing gangs, is at stake. I suppose you know that. I will not bow out, of course.
Considering now these sentences of yours:
(Pausing just for a moment to reflect on the inappropriateness of your analogy): your difficulty will be persuading people that a phrase used by no one who is not associated with AR is anything other than AR-speak. A reference to an AR-published work is a reference that demonstrates, rather than refutes, that notion. - Outerlimits 01:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I know I've mentioned this before. It must be in the archives somewhere. But theres a reason no other people are talking about "changing from homosexuality." It's because people haven't changed by any other means. It's common knowledge that one can't change by willpower, and where there has been some change through religion, let's say, it's been transitory. It's only through Aesthetic Realism that people can look back on 50 years and say, "I changed from homosexuality." So the ARspeak business is a fake. --samivel 22:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Much of the discussion here is becoming too theoretical. I suggest that we all step back from fighting over minutiae and return to the basic aim of Wikipedia articles: to summarize verifiable sources using the neutral point of view. Large stretches of this article appear to be based on surmises or interpretations rather than specific references. The "racism" section, for instance, appears to be an essay on an essay, and the "homosexuality" section could benefit with more external sources. The "Victim of the Press" campaign section needs information (where did they protest, what was the largest or most famous protest? etc). Rather than spending time endlessly rewriting the introduction, would some editors be interested in going to the library and researching the periodicals for contemporary coverage of AR? (especially someone in NYC, but most big libraries have microfilm of the NYT)(does anyone have lexus-nexus access?). I suggest that we leave the intro alone and work our way up from the bottom of the article. The recent editing of the introduction resembles a car stuck in the sand. We can get more traction by using sources and by working together for a shared outcome. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am for moving on, but the present introduction, as written by Michaelbluejay essentially, is POV to an inordinate degree. I suggest a one-line introduction that lets the article itself do the job of providing information. This is done in some other articles. I'll write the sentence using agreed-on wording that no one seems to have taken exception to. --samivel 14:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
As I have noted, and as Samivel well knows, I object to your revision presenting "ex-gay" as fact. I'll be reverting to the last agreed-upon acceptable intro. - Outerlimits 23:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we all leave the intro alone for a while? If we get the rest of the article right, then it should be easy to summarize it in the intro. -Willmcw 08:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I would be happy to leave it alone once it is fair, or even approximately fair.
After all, it's going to stay up a long time while other things are worked out. I think the version I wrote and just posted again incorporates all the facts better than the previous one, which in my opinion is POV. I say this because the writers of the second half, Michaelbluejay and Marinero, have left out any points of view not their own. If these editors want to call for other Wikipedians' opinions, that is their option.
In the proliferating discussions, I have said some of my reasons for thinking this version POV repeatedly. I have offered numerous alternatives. But my point of view has been systematically ignored. I think the four opposing editors want to see whether Wikipedia will allow this kind of behavior. They have instituted a kind of "Wild West" editing in which considerations of fairness and accuracy are set aside, and the group of four (now five editors with Jonathunder)--because they can revert faster and more frequently--and can delete faster than I can write--must win. Have I misrepresented it, Jonathunder et al? Is this the way to write an encyclopedia?
These individuals have actually called me dishonest, cunning, a liar, a criminal (although to his credit Michaelbluejay apologised for that) and even brainwashed. They have called my writing "garbage" and "crap" as recently as the last few days, right in the middle of the Holiday season! Am I supposed to be intimidated by this? Dry up and blow away? Is the reader supposed to think that because they can sling around disgusting sneers, they are powerful and their views must be right? Please! While the use of Anglo-Saxon has its charm when used in the right place, this isn't one of them. They are violating very major premises of Wikipedia, as I understand them. I'll begin with two:
1. "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable."-- Jimbo Wales. He continues: "Fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct." I believe the version of the introduction now being brought to us by Outerlimits (for the editors take turns in reverting) in fact does exactly what J. Wales says is non-negotiable. See the Wiki article on Neutral point of view.
2. "Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation....Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." This is in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Any normal person reading the Talk page entries of Outerlimits et al will see that harrassment, those insults, that intimidation. -- Further: When a user is addressed in an insulting manner in a discussion, he or she is not obligated to answer a thing in that discussion: "Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavoring, or ignore the relevant message entirely." This is also in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. So I have a right to ignore that which insults me.
I do hope something can be done about this ganging-up. --samivel 19:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Some responses for Samivel (to comment he placed here today, though not necessarily to the immediately preceding comment): No, a sentence worded passively in order to deceive its readers into thinking AR didn't promote itself as the answer to homosexuality is not true. No, the truth will not hurt me, and your suggesting that it would is noxious. Truth, of course, is not the only criterion for determining if a sentence is appropriate: style, placement, and other factors must be considered.

Your second afterthought suggests you have missed the point to which you seem to be responding. I didn't object to the phrase "formerly gay", but to your claiming that ARs "converts" are "formerly gay" when the facts in evidence are only that they have claimed that - and necessarily so, since there can be no knowledge of their former or current sexual orientation other than self-description. This is the problem with quoting journalists - who have no independent knowledge of their interviewees's sexuality - as evidence of the truth of their interviewee' statements. Your recent rephrasing, in which - at long last - you avoided this, was an improvement.

No, I do not think I am paranoid about your contributions, as you have suggested. If you wish to continue to insult me, you don't have to do so in such a roundabout manner, as it fools no one: a veiled personal attack is no less a violation of Wikipedia's rule against personal attacks.

And last, you ask to be given the benefit of the doubt in the same breath as you excuse your calling me a liar by saying you have been called worse by others. (And in the same breath as you claim that I was either lying or mistaken). That is hardly the way to earn that benefit, is it?

If you are interested in changing the introduction, I think the only way you will achieve this is through describing your reasons for changing it on this talk page, and achieving consensus here prior to implementation. Clearly your current methodology is not meeting with success. If you find it remarkable that everyone else editing the article thinks your changes are not helpful, it might be time to consider that perhaps the changes are not helpful, rather than ruminating on how you're being "ganged-up on". - Outerlimits 04:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Samivel, you are truly amazing. Do you really believe that you are the only person allowed to object to being called a liar? How many times have you called me a liar, Samivel? What about Michael, Outerlimits, et al? In fact, who STARTED this whole liar thing? Who put up a website called "Countering the Lies" specifically for the purpose of smearing me and anybody else who doesn't agree with you? Have I called your writing as a whole "garbage," or was I referring specifically to your beloved "deep dyed falsehoods" SMEAR? Have we not repeatedly asked you not to refer to us as liars, but to grant us the right to have our own opinions? Have you treated that request respectfully, or have you completely ignored it? And you have the cojones to quote Wikipedia policy on civil behavior?! Do you think that other people can't read for themselves and see how many times you have used the L word compared to the rest of us? Didn't your guru Siegel say that you have to see other people's feelings as real? I don't have anything personal against you (or I didn't, until you made it personal). I truly believe that you don't believe AR is a cult. I feel sorry for you for being ensnared by it, but I don't take your involvement in AR personally. You, on the other hand, attack us PERSONALLY because we happen to have an opinion about AR that doesn't agree with yours. That right there speaks volumes about the unhealthy nature of your involvement with AR, but you're too caught up in it to see that. So be it. But let me make a suggestion: try arguing your case by arguing your case, not by insulting us. See if that doesn't help to bring about the civil atmosphere you claim to want. Marinero 04:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not read your whole entry, above. I do say that the attempt to dub Aesthetic Realism a "cult" is based on lies. I have not called you a liar in quite a few days, since I was advised against it.
But in order to continue your assault on me, you must resurrect that I did so. I certainly stand by my words but I won't repeat them now. Curiously you leave out all the disgusting things you and your associates have called me in the last months.
I do say that not only are there vicious, libelous statements on Michaelbluejay's web pages--statements that he praises and many of which he wrote--but a number of them contradict each other. Can they all be true? No. So some MUST be lies, isn't that so? In other words, Aesthetic Realism can't be proven a cult by telling the truth, so in various imaginative ways some people (mostly anonymous) have manufacture falsehoods and passed them off as the truth.
Now imagine this: The American Psychological Association in 1987, I believe, would not accept the "evidence" given by their "cult-expert" contingent that mind control exists in America at all. Yet you have called me "brainwashed." So who is telling the truth? 90% of the scholarly community in America or Marinero?
The APA have never accepted the evidence, to this date, of that "cult-expert" contingent. The ASA have never accepted it. Courts don't accept it. The ACLU doesn't accept it. Even the FBI doesn't accept it. There is hardly a reputable scholar in the US who will accept it any more than they will accept Intelligent Design. So, why do you accept it? There is a little saying: "You lie and I'll swear to it." Is the person swearing to it a liar or not?
If need be, I will cite as many as twenty sources online or in print. But that is for another time.
Similarly, you and your associates promote the malicious false information that men and women who changed are not telling the truth. You haven't a source on earth that shows this but you are saying it anyway. What would the English Dictionary call it? --the truth?
As you know, Wikipedia has not, as yet, much control over persons who write utrue things-- whether intentionally or not. John Siegenthaler, Sr. said a "malicious false biography" was written about him on Wikipedia, and the material was deleted. We who are less famous are also less protected, but that will change.
I would be more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt--and presume that you believe you are protecting your interests--and are innocent of malice when you misinform your readers. But the fact is, you don't listen to any of the evidence that differs from you--and in any language, that is active malice.--samivel 21:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Samivel, you're a one-note record. The fact that you repeatedly call me a liar is precisely why you don't deserve any further explanations about my edits. You made your own bed on this one. You know, here in Texas, there's a saying, "When you find that you've dug yourself into a hole, STOP DIGGING." It's crazy that you insist on continuing down the same failed, offensive, combative path. In any event, like I said, I'm done with it. I'll continue to edit the article to keep it fair, but your charges and accusations don't deserve two further words in response. Michael Bluejay 01:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Michael, arguing with samivel is just a waste of time. I ask him not to call me a liar and he writes an entire paragraph calling me a liar, while saying that he hasn't called me a liar for some time. He accuses me of "promot(ing) the malicious false information that men and women who changed are not telling the truth," when I have repeatedly stated that there's no way to know whether they're telling the truth or not. What gets me is that anybody can read the discussion on these pages and see that what I'm saying is true. They can also see how he has avoided direct replies, preferring instead to hurl accusations and insults. However, I believe I know why he's doing this. As a former member of AR, you have to know that the "Countering the Lies" website was either mandated or approved by Ellen Reiss. It is obvious that AR (meaning Reiss) has decided to attack us by calling us liars. Therefore, as a good cult member, Perey is unable to go against this. Everything he says about us has to follow from the fact that we are all vicious liars, because that's what Reiss has ordered. That's why, when presented with logical arguments that disprove what he's saying, he cannot reply directly. He must never, ever admit that AR, Siegel, and Reiss are anything but perfect. He cannot deviate from his marching orders. He's not interested in debate; he's a robot, like the rest of them, doing what he has been programmed to do. I'm done with debating robots. I will remain, however, to make sure that the robots don't get their way with this article. Marinero 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The fact is, what you have written is not true and you have written it with malice. I need not use the word "liar." I need not lower myself to personal attacks, but I am obligated to give my impersonal evaluation of your writing: its truth value (as Bertrand Russell might have called it).--samivel 23:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I hardly think that even more (ridiculous) insults will help you.

The list of insults mounts. "Robot" too? Good lord! I guess you all think I shouldn't be calm in the face of your ridiculous insults.

I do say that all the name-calling and "tough-talk" in the world never changed a single fact.

About the latest additions, above--I think they're all showboating and public relations. One thing I'm wondering is whether this horrible and sensational writing is merely meant for readers of Michael Bluejay's web pages to see, when (and if) they follow his link to this Talk page.

Of course it would be ideal if I were provoked into even a shadow of their abusive language.

Let's be clear: If the writers of these attacks had any substantive arguments we would have seen them by now. After all, they started attacking early last spring.

With John Siegenthaler, Sr. having been defamed in Wikipedia by an anonymous "editor" who was then "outed" things are looking up.

I'm afraid you all have no choice but to heed my refutations, eventually. --samivel 03:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] recent changes

If you are interested in changing the introduction, I think the only way you will achieve this is through describing your reasons for changing it on this talk page, and achieving consensus here prior to implementation. As I've noted before, taking out advertisements is not adequately described as "presenting observations publicly". - Outerlimits 19:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the history but I am tired of saying the same thing over and over again and citing the same sources again and again. There were four ads. There were hundreds of seminar and classes given BY THE PEOPLE WHO CHANGED at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation. (- Samivel)
Samivel is misrepresenting history by his refusal to acknowledge that a number of persons who "changed," INCLUDING CONTRIBUTORS TO THE AR BOOKS ON HOMOSEXUALITY, later decided they had not changed, after all.Marinero 03:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
And the simple fact is that each of those four ads, and each of the radio and television appearances, reached more people than did all the seminars given at AR headquarters. That's why people buy ads. - Outerlimits 03:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the vicious "cult" accusation is preposterous and should be removed from this article immediately

I will show that each of the so-called “cult characteristics” in this Wikipedia article is nonsense and should be removed from this article. Today I begin with the first characteristic: “fanatical devotion to the founder/leader.”

This is nonsense because the high evaluation that students of Aesthetic Realism have given to the work of Eli Siegel is like the high evaluation given to Eli Siegel by authorities who never studied Aesthetic Realism in classes with him or with Ellen Reiss. It also has a resemblance to the high evaluation given to other intellects of world meaning like Leonardo da Vinci and Sir Isaac Newton. But more about that, below.

Soon I will quote from William Carlos Williams, Shelby Foote, Elijah E. Cummings, and others, using the website “Friends of Aesthetic Realism—Countering the Lies as my source of links. You will see that when we take their comments together, they show that Eli Siegel--as an artist and a master of scientific method in literary criticism and elsewhere--was a thinker of unique scope and power. And his largeness of outlook and knowledge was was somewhat like the largeness seen in Leonardo da Vinci both as scientist and artist.

We’ll see, representing the field of poetry, Willliams 1951, Kenneth Rexroth 1969, and Hugh Kenner. We'll see Shelby Foote 2002, standing for the fields of prose writing and literary criticism. We'll see Mayor Martin O’Malley standing for the field of social justice. We'll see Huntington Cairns, standing for the field of philosophy, and Meyer Schapiro, standing for the fields of education and art history. And we'll see Ralph Hattersley 1960 standing for the field of photography and the arts.

What do their statements come to? Eli Siegel was a poet who “secures our place in the cultural world;” a thinker who was “one of the most understanding [literary] critics;” a teacher who was a “true educator”; a social critic and student of the human mind who “enable[ed] people to see the world and others with the respect and kindness they deserve, including people of different races and nationalities.” At the same time he was a great philosopher who “did for aesthetics what Spinoza did for ethics” and a man of "integrity" and "steadfastness of purpose."

I have not quoted a single student of Aesthetic Realism. These statements are about a man with world meaning who had a multi-facetted and preeminently great mind.

They are related to statements that were made about other persons of world stature. Take LaGrange on Isaac Newton: "Newton was the greatest genius that ever existed and the most fortunate, for we cannot find more than once a system of the world to establish.". And take the Columbia Encyclopedia on Leonardo da Vinci: "The richness and originality of intellect in his notebooks reveal one of the great minds of all time."

Eli Siegel produced original and powerful knowledge in three major fields of human endeavor: scientific method, art, and ethics. And further, he described the INTERRELATION of scientific method, criticism of the arts, and the structure of the human mind. This is a scientific and aesthetic tour de force accomplished by no other thinker in history, not even Aristotle (who, in his Metaphysics and also in his Poetics wrote about one and many, unity and variety but didn’t see the relation they provided between the structure of reality and that of a work of art).

Mr. Siegel put this interrelation in a single principle: “The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites.”

Wikipedia volunteers who do not understand Aesthetic Realism and are uninterested in placing its historic value are writing with preposterous—and vicious—pretence when they call others fanatics and worse BECAUSE they see the intellectual meaning of this great philosopher and talk about that meaning in large terms.

We have to grant that the expertise of completely unbiased professionals like Shelby Foote and Huntington Cairns, who are recognized authorities in their fields, is more authoritative by far than that of such attackers as Michaelbluejay, CDThieme, Outerlimits, and Marinero. We have to grant the possibility that Eli Siegel was as good as these authorities say, and others too: those authorities who happen to have studied this philosophy most deeply. Anything less is a travesty and is not justice.

I quote now from “Friends of Aesthetic Realism—Countering the Lies”:

1) There is William Carlos Williams, one of America’s most famous poets, who wrote this about Eli Siegel’s poem “Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana”:
“I say definitely that that single poem, out of a thousand others written in the past quarter century, secures our place in the cultural world. . . . We are compelled to pursue his lead. Everything we most are compelled to do is in that one poem.” [12]
Williams says that the way of seeing in Mr. Siegel’s poems makes for
“great pleasure to the beholder, a deeper taking of the breath, a feeling of cleanliness, which is the sign of the truly new. The other side of the picture is the extreme resentment that a fixed, sclerotic mind feels confronting this new.”[13]
2) There is Kenneth Rexroth, who wrote, for instance, in the New York Times Book Review:
“It’s about time Eli Siegel was moved up into the ranks of our acknowledged Leading Poets. . . . His translations of Baudelaire and his commentaries on them rank him with the most understanding of the Baudelaire critics in any language.” [14]
3) There is Martin O’Malley, Mayor of Baltimore, who wrote of Eli Siegel in 2002:
“His scholarship and historic comprehension are in his books, . . . the classes he taught . . . , his thousands of lectures on the arts, sciences, and history. . . . This education he founded, enabling people to see the world and others with the respect and kindness they deserve, including people of different races and nationalities, is continued by . . . the faculty of the not-for-profit Aesthetic Realism Foundation.” [15]
4) There is Selden Rodman, who wrote in the Saturday Review about Mr. Siegel:
“He comes up with poems that say more (and more movingly) about here and now than any contemporary poems I have read.” [16]
5) There is Hugh Kenner, who, in Poetry magazine, wrote that the literary criticism in Mr. Siegel’s book on Henry James’s The Turn of the Screw “reduces most previous discussion to willful evasiveness.”
6) And art historian Meyer Schapiro, who wrote: “I admire Eli Siegel as a true educator as well as a poet.”
7) And author Walter Leuba, who said so eloquently of Mr. Siegel as writer and person: “He travels into the common darknesses, where he sheds uncommon light.”
8) There is Donald Kirkley, writer for the Baltimore Sun, who knew Mr. Siegel as early as the 1920s. In this passage from a 1944 article, Kirkley is writing about Mr. Siegel at the time he won the Nation Poetry Prize, in 1925:
“Baltimore friends close to him at the time will testify to a certain integrity and steadfastness of purpose that distinguished Mr. Siegel. . . . He refused to exploit a flood of publicity which was enough to float any man to financial comfort. . . . He took a job as a newspaper columnist at a respectable salary, and quit it when he found that he would not be allowed to say what he wanted at all times.”
9) There is Huntington Cairns, who was Secretary of the National Gallery, and said: “I believe that Eli Siegel was a genius. He did for aesthetics what Spinoza did for ethics.” [17]
10) And there is Elijah E. Cummings, who last year was Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and who, in his lengthy Congressional Tribute to Mr. Siegel, said:
“Eli Siegel died in 1978, but his poetry and the education of Aesthetic Realism will be studied in every English, literature, and art classroom across the nation for years to come. . . . I am proud to offer this tribute.” [US Congressional Record, July 29, 2002] [18]

The part of a sentence that reads “fanatical devotion to the founder/leader” in the introduction and in the body of the article should be removed. It is completely false. I have just given 10 verifiable sources that show this undoubtedly.--samivel 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't really argue with a sermon, but I'd like to point out that it has just been proposed that we should esteem Elijah Cummings as an authority when he says that Aesthetic Realism and/or Eli Siegel's poetry is studied in every English, literature, and art classroom in the United States. - Outerlimits 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. Have you read the no personal attacks policy yet?
Unless these esteemed scholars refer to the cult issue they have no bearing on the matter. The opinion of a cult expert does have bearing. That Siegel was a great poet doens not keep the ARF from being a potential cult. -Willmcw 07:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Umm, let me see now, William Carlos Williams later distanced himself from Siegel. The mayor of Baltimore later admitted that he knew very little about Siegel when he made those statements. Students of Aristotle don't generally dedicate their lives to being "completely fair" to Aristotle, nor do they let the Leader of Students of Aristotle determine for them what it means to be "completely fair" and "grateful without limit" to Aristotle. They don't marry other students of Aristotle so that they can dedicate their marriages to being "completely fair" to Aristotle. They don't go around expressing "deep regret over the way (they) met" Aristotle. And they don't have this anal obsession with ranking people's worthiness on a list, with Aristotle clearly above the rest, of course, while hypocritically claiming that all men are equal. Perey continues to refute arguments that were never made, while completely sidestepping the real issues. He then haughtily declares himself the winner of a debate that never was and makes demands accordingly. Marinero 10:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
All of you are missing the point. You're debating the truth of the "cult" accusation. That debate, while interesting, isn't relevant to the purpose of this page, which is discussing the article. The article shouldn't say that Aesthetic Realism is a cult, nor should the article say that Aesthetic Realism isn't a cult. Neither approach would be consistent with NPOV. Instead, we're to "write about what people believe, rather than what is so." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#The original formulation of NPOV In this particular instance, the lead section should mention that the accusation of cultishness has been made and denied. Then the body of the article should present each side fairly. Even in the unlikely event that everyone editing the article were to come to hold the same opinion on the "cult" question, that would not be justification for allowing the article to endorse that opinion and to deprecate the other side of the issue. JamesMLane 11:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, I believe it is Perey who is missing the point. He has repeatedly called us "liars" for stating our BELIEF that AR is a cult, to which we have repeatedly replied that we are not lying when we state our sincere BELIEF that AR is a cult. If we have fallen to discussing the cult allegations, it is because Perey insists that they be completely purged from the article; however, not a single "detractor," to my knowledge, has ever suggested that the article should state flat out that AR is a cult. Everybody except Perey agrees that the current intro is pretty much acceptable. Just as you suggest, it mentions that the cult accusations have been made and denied. Again, the only person here seeking to censor part of the story is Perey. Marinero 14:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Undoubtedly?

Samivel, for the umpteenth time, who exactly are you trying to convince? Nobody reads this page besides you, me, and a handful of other editors who are too competent to fall for your poorly-argued spin. Who are you trying to convince?

As for the content of your post, do you actually think that quoting independent praise of Eli Siegel somehow proves that AR adherents don't exhibit fanatical devotion to him?! Or perhaps you understand how ridiculous it is to suggest that the former disproves the latter? This is pretty interesting, actually: As a celebrated Ph.D do you really have such a poor grasp of basic logic that you think you've made a point, or are you hoping that others won't be bright enough to catch on that your argument is ridiculous? Which is it?

Assuming it's the latter and you're hoping to obsfucate, again, who exactly are you talking to? Who is your target audience?

Your post isn't even worth addressing save only briefly: As examples of AR students' fanatical devotion to Siegel I quoted students who said that Siegel was THE MOST IMPORTANT HUMAN BEING EVER TO LIVE, that his works were MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE BIBLE OR SHAKESPEARE, and that they WORSHIPPED HIM. And now you come along and say that doesn't count as fanatical devotion because other people had a high opinion of Siegel. Don't make me laugh, Perey. Those people praised Siegel's work but they DIDN'T PUT HIM ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THE MESSIAH!

You know, Perey/Samivel, when claiming to have made a definitive rebuttal it's common form to bother to ADDRESS THE CHARGES you're supposedly rebutting. Where do you even *mention* AR students' claims about Siegel's supremacy among humans or the superiority of his work to all other work or the fact that they worshipped him? Your whole argument is pathetic for that reason alone. You want to debate here? THEN START ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT THE OTHER SIDE IS SAYING INSTEAD OF STICKING YOUR FINGERS IN YOUR EARS AND SINGING "LA LA LA LA".

As for your demand that the fanatical devotion bit be removed from the article ("immediately", no less), all you've done is to very clearly demonstrate that you don't understand Wikipedia's "represent all sides" ideal. Michael Bluejay 04:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is not to represent all sides--but to represent all sides which are based on verifiable sources. A source which is contradictory by its very nature cannot be verifiable. Your website is such a source. (Read ALL the guidelines.)--samivel 23:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let us consider how some important people of the past were described

First, it does not matter how much the attackers in this Talk page jeer at logic and observation that they cannot prove wrong. So we will proceed with our argument. If I praise a person greatly, it is not evidence that I am in a "cult."

Consider how great people of the past were written about. Those who cared for these great people were not "fanatics". The same is true of persons caring for Eli Siegel and thinking him the greatest of men of thought.

First is there any criterion for knowing who is the greatest among any population of important creative people? John Ruskin offers this:

"He is the greatest artist who has embodied, in the sum of his works, the greatest number of the greatest ideas." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnruskin117774.html

On Handel from “Handel’s Messiah with American Bach Soloists” by Jon Hartley Fox

"Handel is the greatest composer that ever lived," he said. "I would uncover my head and kneel down at his tomb." And who was this awe-struck acolyte in thrall to George Handel? None other than Ludwig van Beethoven. http://www.mondaviarts.org/education/artsMail_view.cfm?articleid=35

Isaac Newton

"Newton was certainly the greatest physicist ever, and must rank very close to the top on any list of mathematicians as well." http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/Tech/mathmen.htm#Newton

Jim Thorpe

"James Francis Thorpe (The Greatest All-Around Athlete of The World)" http://www.angelfire.com/mt/nativeballers/pastathletes.html

Babe Didrikson Zaharias 1911-1956 "Ultimate multisport athlete won three Olympic medals to go with 31 LPGA titles."

1. On Johann Sebastian Bach by Pekka Kanerva

"Johann Sebastian Bach was the utmost master of so many different scopes of music that a peer cannot be found. He mastered many different instruments including violin, cembalo and organs.
"Johann Sebastian Bach composed so much music that perhaps nobody knows how much.
"Whether it was flute or violin, harpsichord or organs, J.S.Bach has composed the most beautiful music there exists for that particular instrument. His spirit lives among us throughout the spectacular legacy of music he left us which makes him the greatest composer of all times." http://users.tkk.fi/~ptkanerv/jsbach.html

2. On Johann Sebastian Bach by Timothy A. Smith

"The student of music need not read far before encountering the passionate assertion that Johann Sebastian Bach was probably the greatest composer who ever lived. Such ardorous declarations might well be excused as author's bias were they not so prevalent in the literature--not to mention, proposed with such fervor--at least to elevate the proposition to a reasoned debate." http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~tas3/meer.html

On Samuel Taylor Coleridge by William Hazlitt

"I was stunned, startled with it [Welsh mountains on the horizon], as from deep sleep; but I had no notion then that I should ever be able to express my admiration to others in motley imagery or quaint allusion, till the light of his [Coleridge's] genius shone into my soul, like the sun's rays glittering in the puddles of the road. I was at that time dumb, inarticulate, helpless, like a worm by the way-side, crushed, bleeding lifeless; but now, bursting from the deadly bands that bound them, ... my ideas float on winged words, and as they expand their plumes, catch the golden light of other years. My soul has indeed remained in its original bondage, dark, obscure, with longing infinite and unsatisfied; my heart, shut up in the prison-house of this rude clay, has never found, nor will it ever find, a heart to speak to; but that my understanding also did not remain dumb and brutish, or at length found a language to express itself, I owe to Coleridge." ["Rackets and Tea": The Life and Writings of William Hazlitt (1778-1830). Chapter Five:-"Hazlitt Meets Coleridge, 1798."] http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Literary/Hazlitt/Ch005.htm

Showing how stupid a person can be on the internet when writing about a great person:

‘Isn't narrating "The Rime..." bad enough? (Okay, I really, really, really hate Coleridge. 'Kay? He's no Elliott. He's not even the kid from Silver Chair.)’ http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/archives/200503/0238.html

John Keats

"He is considered one of the greatest of English poets." (Columbia Encyclopedia) http://www.bartleby.com/65/ke/Keats-Jo.html

Showing how wrong the contemporary of a great poet can be (1818):

“As for Mr Keats's 'Endymion'… he is a boy of pretty abilities, which he has done everything in his power to spoil.” --John Gibson Lockhart, from Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, August 1818 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Blackwood%27s_Magazine%2C_1818

Was Beethoven "worshipping" Handel? Was he a fanatic? Isn't it possible that he understood more than Mr. Bluejay would have, if he were living in the time of Beethoven, and writing about him in his website?

And the two people I quoted, Lockhart and "miskatonic.org", who wrote so cleverly but so stupidly about Keats and Coleridge--don't they look like fools? Need I say more?--samivel 23:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Samivel, I just have to know: Do you really have such a poor grasp of logic that you really think what you just presented is an apples to apples comparison, or are you just hoping that no one will notice how off-base your argument is? It's got to be one or the other, but both are so fantastically implausible it's hard to confront the reality that one of them must be true. So please tell us, which is it? And I'm not kidding about this. A Ph.D couldn't possibly be so stupid that he thinks the obfuscation you presented above constitutes an apples-to-apples rebuttal. But a Ph.D also couldn't possibly be so stupid that he thinks anyone would be taken in by the ships-passing-in-the-night argument you presented, especially when they've amply demonstrated that. So this really is a puzzle. It's quite a paradox, how something must be true which couldn't possible be true. So help us out here: do you really not understand, or are you trying to be sneaky?
To be more specific about your post, not ONE SINGLE QUOTE you provided says that the person being praised was the most important PERSON ever to live, or that his work was more important THAN THE BIBLE OR SHAKESPEARE, or that the praiser WORSHIPPED him. THOSE are the things that AR proponents are saying about Eli Siegel. Surely you understand the difference.
Also, the idea that Newton, for example, was the greatest physicist ever, is a COMMONLY-HELD BELIEF. But the idea that Eli Siegel was THE MOST IMPORTANT HUMAN BEING EVER TO LIVE is FAR, FAR from being a commonly-held belief.
Finally, as has been pointed out to you ad nauseum, but which you still fail to acknowledge (and possibly understand), the point of this article, and this talk page, is not to debate whether AR is a cult, it's to *report that some people feel that way*. If the idea of AR being a cult has been made by former members, cult experts, and the media, then THAT'S IT, END OF STORY. Wikipedia isn't here to decide who's right and who's wrong, it's here to report the major sides of any issue. Since people believe AR to be a cult, that's enough for it to be mentioned in the article. Period. Can you acknowledge this? Michael Bluejay 02:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I dare say, the kid from Silverchair has got to have better debating abilities than samivel. Marinero 03:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Michael, samivel's target audience is 1) some imginary future audience of about 100 years from now, when the whole world will know, love, and be eternally grateful without limit to Eli Siegel and AR. This audience will regard samivel a.k.a. Perey as one of the great figures of our day because he stood up for the magnificent beauty of AR and was so clearly able to destroy the pitiful arguments of Michael Bluejay and Marinero, two names which will have gone down in infamy. 2)His fellow present-day AR zombies. No doubt, Perey's standing has increased within the group as a result of his valiant fight with the infidels on Wikipedia. He ignores our points because he doesn't have to debate us at all to score points with Ellen Reiss, et al. His efforts here are nothing more than propaganda for the internal consumption of the converted. Marinero 05:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Again, why the "cult" accusations are defamatory, fictitious, and should not be in the article

One of the attackers writes, quite fallaciously: "If the idea of AR being a cult has been made by former members, cult experts, and the media, then THAT'S IT, END OF STORY. Wikipedia isn't here to decide who's right and who's wrong, it's here to report the major sides of any issue. Since people believe AR to be a cult, that's enough for it to be mentioned in the article. Period. Can you acknowledge this?"

Wikipedia should not present meritless disinformation--furthering a "tiny minority" agenda and pass it off as fact.

Look at the official guidelines for Wikipedia “Wikipedia:Neutral point of view” which has the following sentence. It represents what I am writing about in the Talk page here—and it concerns you, now, Marinero, Michealbluejay, Outerlimits, etc.—as well as anyone else reading this. I quote:

“We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.” [19]

As I wrote before in the Talk pages, historically quite a number of people have been falsely accused of one ridiculous thing or another by a tiny minority like yourselves. These accusers do not have any serious intellectual backing and the accusation itself is preposterous. A cheap tabloid article and a hatchet job in a local religious paper are not "the media" to use your term.

Take, for example, the philosophy of humanism (yes, the humanism that Bertrand Russell among so many others saw as valid). Humanism is accused of being a cult by, for example, an evangelical movement. See http://www.eaec.org/cults/humanism.htm. In fact humanism has been called a cult by more people and in more places than the philosophy YOU are calling a cult.

And even so, does Wikipedia even have the word “cult” in its article on humanism? NO, IT DOESN’T. The reason is, the accusation is not credible. It is ideosyncratic. It is not based on reliable sources. It's a "tiny minority" opinion. And so, even though it is "SOME PEOPLE’S OPINION" the silly accusation of “cult” never appears in the article on humanism. And it shouldn’t.

The same should be true for the article on Aesthetic Realism. The claim of “cult” should be done away with. Why should it be done away with? One of the key Wikipedia guidelines is: “For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable.”

Although it is true that a few blowhards are quoted in Michael Bluejay’s “cult” pages, they do not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Consider this: the chief source is Michael Bluejay’s personal website. That is NOT a source acceptable to Wikipedia: “Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website.” [20] Michael Bluejay’s pages on Aesthetic Realism were not set up by anyone of this description.

Most of the sources quoted in his site are anonymous and their “claims” are outlandishly imaginative--including the five or so people cited in both newspapers. Wikipedia says: “Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.” [21]

Further, the Wikipedia “Verifiability” guidelines say: “Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources.” Are Bluejay's sources strong? No, they are not. Here are some of the reasons why:

1. The Bluejay web pages DO NOT refers to any peer-reviewed professional journals. But these are the strongest sources, says Wikipedia. However, supporters of Aesthetic Realism have numerous articles in peer-reviewed professional journals showing the philosophy to be important in their fields and based in scientific method: NOT AT ALL A CULT.

2. The Bluejay web pages have four main sources: a) The first source is the owner’s personal writings (not acceptable in Wikipedia, see No original research. b) The second source is the anonymous and highly charged writing of several anonymous “former students.” Such sources are dubious at best, and do not meet Wikipedia’s criteria for reliability. c) The fourth source consists of two entries by “former students” which appear in a single anti-cult website of dubious reputation. The first source, which is anonymous, is an outright liar and refers to positions that published sources contradict; the second source, who does give his name, also is a flagrant liar (see, for example, Arnold Perey’s refutations on [“Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies" http://www.counteringthelies.com/a_perey.html]). We won't mention for a moment the outright contradictions among writers cited by Bluejay as authorities. d) The third source is two sleazy hatchet-jobs in the press. One is in a local Jewish newspaper and one is in a slimy New York tabloid, the NY Post. According to Wikipedia guidelines, tabloids are not acceptable as sources:

“Sometimes a particular statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it — don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources]

As to the Jewish newspaper (an article published many years after the tabloid junk)-- even a swift reading shows the extreme bias of the writer (Goldman) and the POV insults of the people quoted. Meanwhile, a few "former students'" lies which are quoted as gospel in the article are indisputably shown to be false in “Friends of Aesthetic Realism—Countering the Lies”. Enough said for now.--samivel 17:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


"Lies, lies, lies!" You're a broken record, Samivel. I'll respond to only a couple of points of this B.S.:
"The Bluejay web pages DO NOT refers to any peer-reviewed professional journals.
Duh. You noticed? You're telling me that even as a Ph.D you actually can't understand why the arguments made on my site are NOT the kind of thing that would wind up in a peer-reviewed journal? Pray tell, Dr. Arnold Perey, what peer-reviewed journal would concern itself with reviewing the claims of people who say the group they belong to was a cult? I can't believe you could miss the point any more completely, and I mean that quite literally, meaning I *don't* believe you missed the point so completely, that you really understand all this, and you're just hoping to pull the wool over the eyes of some unknown audience, though whom that audience might be I have no idea.
My website isn't *intended* to be "scientific", "professional", or "scholarly", just genuine and sincere. It's simply a collection of testimonials and articles written by people who describe themselves as former members of a cult. Do people believe AR is a cult? Yes, they do. And the fact that many of those making the charge are *former members* makes that criticism especially significant. As such, that's a side that needs to be represented in the article. Your quest to remove it is nothing short of censorship.
"However, supporters of Aesthetic Realism have numerous articles in peer-reviewed professional journals showing the philosophy to be important in their fields and based in scientific method: NOT AT ALL A CULT."
For the umpteenth time, our criticism is not with the PHILOSOPHY, it's with the CULT ASPECTS of the group that promotes it -- aspects you've so amply demonstrated on this page with your obfuscation and attempts at censorship. You can be both a Ph.D. and male. Spaghetti can be both soft and made of wheat. Government can be both bureacratic and democratically-elected. Aesthetic Realism can be both peer-reviewed and a cult. I'll repeat this as many times as is necessary. Michael Bluejay 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. If you really think the handful of editors here is being unfair, then appeal to the Wikipedia community at large with a RfC (Request for Comment). Gather some independent voices to review the material and see what they think is reasonable and what's not. Michael Bluejay 21:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
So, Perey thinks AR's detractors are a "tiny minority" whose views are irrelevant. He neglects to mention that the ARists themselves are a "tiny minority" who believe what they believe. So some members of their little group publish articles in "peer reviewed journals" stating how wonderful AR is, and we're supposed to think that all their "peers" go out and launch an exhaustive investigation into AR and conclude that it is, indeed, as wonderful as is being claimed. Let me see, outside of AR group members going around praising AR, there was William Carlos Williams, who briefly associated with Eli Siegel before moving on, and the Mayor of Baltimore, who was snookered into dedicating a statue and saying words of praise about Siegel, a man he later admitted he knew absolutely nothing about except for what the ARists told him. Yet, the way Perey tells it, no one would ever know that both of these men had second thoughts on the matter; on the contrary, they are presented as staunch admirers of Siegel and AR. This is a bald-faced lie, a lie by omission. It is quite deliberate. It is propaganda on an Orwellian scale. It is, indeed, AR-speak. These attempts at obfuscation by Arnold Perey demonstrate that he is the real outright liar around here. Marinero 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
All the name-calling in the world has never altered a single truth. Calling a particular individual by some choice and rather nasty names is really not the same as presenting evidence contrary to his point of view. It's not argumentation or legitimate debate. Wllmcw has asked for further third party references, so here is one that I reproduce in full from the website http://www.counteringthelies.com. It is a letter prefaced by a comment. The letter itself is a trenchant commentary on the "tiny minority" of attackers and their inane but vicious yammering (instanced by some of the above, including Marinero). It was written by an authority in his field:
The following letter by Ralph Hattersley, noted critic of photography, editor of the photographic journal Infinity, was originally published in the periodical Definition. We reprint this letter of four decades ago because it not only counters the lies, but is a means of showing something of their history and motivation. The Hattersley letter was written to Martha Baird.
Hattersley Remonstrates
March 18, 1962
Dear Miss Baird:
You have my permission to use, or not use, the following remarks re Mr. Siegel in any way you see fit.
It is my understanding that Mr. Eli Siegel is almost constantly attacked by a species of weasel which panders to public taste by mutilating fine men who are "foolish" enough to admit they believe in goodness and who are vulnerable because they do so within the hearing of all. That some people make commerce out of other people's virtues doesn't surprise me—hasn't it always been this way?—but it does arouse me to action. Though I have no personal antagonism against such sick critics, I do think they should be seen for what they are. And when it is understood that they don't even bother to study carefully those whom they attack—again, typical inhuman behavior—it makes one sick at heart to see intelligence so misused; for a person with intelligence can, if he has the courage, rise above this vicious commonness.
I'm not so arrogant as to say that I fully understand Mr. Siegel's work on such short acquaintance with it as I've had, or even that I would after a long acquaintance. However, I was invited to listen to an inquiry he conducted in an area of my specialization, in this case an extended critical inquiry into the photographs of Mr. Lou Bernstein. I've personally participated in many hundreds of such inquiries. I can say without equivocation that I've never before seen a photographic criticism as well-handled as Mr. Siegel's. Furthermore, if I had done nearly as well in the many such sessions I myself have conducted I would feel justified in being proud.
In this inquiry Mr. Siegel amply demonstrated the usefulness of such notions as that an understanding of art can help one make sense out of everyday life, that everyday life can help one make sense out of art, that rigorous, fair, and kindly meant criticism helps one see and develop his own potentials, and so on. His criticism was so fine that I unhesitatingly do it the honor of calling it therapeutic to the artist, to Mr. Siegel's students, and to visitors relatively unfamiliar with Aesthetic Realism. When one emerges from a session of criticism feeling relieved of a heavy burden, does this not mean something? If the weasels would like, for their own comfort, to assume that it means I am psychologically naive, I must hasten to disenchant them. Few who know me even casually well would make this mistaken assumption.
If at any time in the future Mr. Siegel feels inclined to commit his thoughts on photography or photographic criticism to paper in the form of an article or essay I, as Managing Editor of Infinity magazine (The American Society of Magazine Photographers), would be very proud to submit this work to my Editorial Board. In my opinion, printing Mr. Siegel in this context would constitute a major contribution to photographic criticism.
One additional thought: apparently the sick weasels find it inconceivable that there is at least one man in New York who has so much to give other people that they will flock to him to stand by his right side for the largesse so freely given. The (jealous? disillusioned? nihilistic?) weasels apparently feel compelled to label such behavior "cultist."
On the basis of what I've seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, and despite a deeply engrained and proudly adhered to scepticism, I believe it highly probable that Mr. Siegel is one of those oft sought but seldom to be found men of true wisdom. Let us not malign his students for having the intelligence to see this.
Respectfully,
RALPH M. HATTERSLEY, JR

Holy praxeology, Batman! One really must marvel at the juxtaposition of the statement "All the name-calling in the world has never altered a single truth" and "evidence" consisting of a long string of name-calling preserved lovingly for some forty years! - Outerlimits 21:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC) I note in passing that what this letter does is indicate that AR has in fact been called a cult for at least 43 years....since 1962. - Outerlimits 07:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That just about says it all, Outerlimits. Once again, Perey labors mightily... and brings forth a mouse. Marinero 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the "cultist" accusation: it is interesting that AR was called "cultist" in 1962 because the term was used less freely then, and because I'd thought that the more cultish aspects were associated with later decades and the ARF. As this appears to be a "letter to the editor", I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. By its tone it appears to have been written by an AR student, or at least admirer, rather than by an ostensibly neutral reporter. Since we're so short on sources I wish we could use it, but I'm afraid it is not reliable. -Willmcw 09:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's an "admission against interest" and as such most would consider it a particularly strong bit of evidence. - Outerlimits 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Willmcw, the letter doesn't appear to be a letter to the editor (it's addressed to Siegel's wife), and it doesn't read to me as though Mr. Hattersley was an AR student, he seems very much like an outsider (a naive outsider, but an outsider). But that said, what value could the letter have to the article anyway? That someone, 43 years ago, said that people who call AR a cult are weasels? There are people who more recently said the same thing. On this very page we have Arnold Perey calling me and other critics "liars" over and over again. AR's POV that it's not a cult is fairly represented in the article. I believe the letter is probably genuine, I just don't see that it brings anything to the table. Michael Bluejay 10:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Arnold Perey you can sure dish it out, but you can't take it. The more you call me a liar, sir, the more I will call you a liar. I really wish there were some way to put a stop to this. How old are you, 65? Isn't time you stopped this childishness? Can't people have an honest disagreement without degenerating into a bunch of name callers? Isn't there some Wikipidea policy against these personal attacks? Hear me well, Perey: I am more than willing to discuss the ISSUES if you are willing to do the same. If you're not, then at least be a man about it and stop whining about being insulted when you're the one trying to provoke everyone around here. Again, it's up to you, Perey. Marinero 03:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

What are these new crop of "references" being use to reference? This is not an ARF bibliography. Unless they contain factual information then they presumably could only being used to reference the philosophy section, which doesn't seem to need additional references. We do need more factual references, especially those that are from third-parties. Also, how can we verify the sources? Are they available online or only at the ARF library? Unless we can tie these references to specifc assertions in the article I'm removing them. -Willmcw 18:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we use footnotes to indicate the sources for assertions in this article. Assertions without references and references that don't support assertions should all be removed. -Willmcw 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe they are the same references as before but alphabetized instead of helter skelter. I added two, I think, from peer-reviewed journals for the sake of verifiability--to support statements made in the body of the article (unless more were added that I didn't notice). If some need to be removed, it would be good to know which.--samivel 18:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The ones which need to be removed are those which are not being used as references. As it appears now, that would be all of them. Likewise, all of the unreferenced assertions should be removed too. If we link up the references with the assertions using footnotes, then both problems will be solved. -Willmcw 06:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support for the idea of the existence of cults

I know that the point of the article and the talk page is not to debate whether AR is a cult, nor whether even such a thing as cults exist, despite Samivel/Perey's insistence on trying to prove his point on those positions. Nevertheless, since Samivel/Perey has argued the point that the article shouldn't contain cult accusations because the professional opinion is that cults don't really exist (or something to that effect), I thought I'd share a professional opinion that cults not only exist, but that they're harmful. Margaret Singer, Ph.D was a professor of psychiatry at the University of California in San Francisco and in the school of psychology at the University of California in Berkeley. She authored the book "Cults in our Midst" and was twice nominated for a Nobel Prize. [22] Incidentally, the site referenced is run by the guy who won an $8.7 million judgement from the Church of Scientology after he sued them for cult-like practices. But yeah, cults are really mythical, right? Michael Bluejay 13:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Aesthetic Realism is not a cult. Mock all you like: all the mocking in the world never changed the truth one iota.--samivel 19:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Neither has all the denial in the world. Marinero 03:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Samivel/Perey, perhaps you would enlighten us as to the difference between mocking and debating? You said that the scholarly opinion was that cults don't exist, or some such. I provided evidence that at least one esteemed scholar feels otherwise. How does this constitute mocking? Michael Bluejay 06:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Samivel/Perey's latest edit summary refers to "fictitious criticisms" of cult behavior. Those criticisms certainly exist, as has been exhaustively documented, here and elsewhere, with more than enough supporting evidence to merit their inclusion. As for the idea that cults don't exist, here's yet more evidence: Scholarly studies of cults authored by Ph.D's: http://forum.rickross.com/viewtopic.php?t=1039&highlight=temerlin Michael Bluejay 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: Make less controversial edits FIRST

Samivel/Perey, when you make a contested revert first and THEN make more edits, you make it impossible for someone to revert your contested version while keeping your new edits intact. If you make the less controversial edits FIRST, then it's possible for someone to revert back to that version, preserving some of your work. I'm not guaranteeing this will happen, but now it's not even an option for the other editors.

Incidentally, I'm not reverting because the version that I and the other editors favor got the most support (unanimous support besides you, in fact), I revert because it's a more encyclopaedic version. You might consider that if you can't get even one other person to support your position that maybe your position isn't the best one. As I've said before, you can invite independent Wikipedians to review the article by filing an RfC (Request for Comment), though I'm confident that indpendent Wikipedians will prefer the versions that I and the other editors favor, and not the one that you're championing all by yourself. Michael Bluejay 05:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first criterion for an encyclopedia is what is true

Apparently the truth is not good enough for you (by "you" I refer to the 4 or 5 person editing gang which calls themselves a majority) and your own version of the facts is preferable. This is an encyclopedia, and as such the truth comes first. You cannot disguise misrepresentations by calling them a "position"! That is like five people getting together and "agreeing" that horses ride people--then writing this in Wikipedia under the pretext that it is a legitimate "position" on the subject. It is fortunate that the "Wikipedia Liar" (NY Times) concept has become national, and your distortions and smears do not have the "authority" that you all thought they would.--samivel 05:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. We've been over this before. It might have some meaning if anybody on Wikipedia believed it besides you. Michael Bluejay 05:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You can "blah" all you wish. You do not represent Wikipedia nor does your little "gang of four."
As a scientist I feel obligated to present the facts exactly as they are. I have tried to do this in Wikipedia. "You and yours" obviously feel no such obligation. Independent Wikipedians can recognize that as easily as people in other walks of life.--samivel 03:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring once again your unrelenting personal attacks, the fact is that this is not "your" presentation to make. If you cannot persuade your fellow Wikipedia editors that changes need to be made to the agreed version, perhaps you should reassess your ability, scientific or not, to apprehend the facts "exactly as they are". - Outerlimits 03:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, "this" is like five people who studied and/or lived AR for years finding each other and realizing that we all agree AR is a cult. Last time I heard, we still have the freedom to express our minds -- our TRUTH -- in this country. You haven't "proven" a thing, samivel. Most of the things you claim as "scientific fact" are, in fact, unprovable. As for me, I would never presume to speak for "most independent Wikipedians." I have enough respect for them to know that they will make up their own minds without needing to be told what they think. Then again, coming from somebody who has been told what to think for years, I guess I'm not surprised. Marinero 05:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You do not represent Wikipedia nor does your little "gang of four." Yeah, well you know what? Four people represent it a lot better than one. Michael Bluejay 06:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

I've witnessed the comings and goings at this page for over seven months. While it made some progress back in the summer, recently it has been bouncing between to versions, with little visible progress towards a compromise in between. There seem to be several points of disagreement, some of which may never be settled. It also appears to me that there is a general agreement on some of those points, with the exception of a single editor. Since the normal editing process has not been successful in achieving consensus, I propose that we conduct a straw poll on the disputed matters in order to determine the consensus of the editors.

Wikipedia:straw polls has suggestions on how to conduct a poll. Before we start we should give some thought to phrasing the questions so that they best capture the basis of the dispute, and also so that they help us work towards agreement. If this seems like a reasonable approach, I suggest that we spend a week developing five or fewer questions that can cover the main points of dispute. I further suggest that we omit points that are purely relevent to Eli Siegel, such as his death, as they may distract us from the disputes on this article. -Will Beback 06:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No suggestions? I'll try to get the ball rolling.
  • True or false:
    1. "The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things in order to see one's self as superior--causes unhappiness and even insanity."
    2. " While Aesthetic Realism stated that homosexuality is not pathological it also stated that the way of seeing the world from which it arises can change."
    3. " This use of this promised change in order to promote Aesthetic Realism, however, engendered adverse feeling toward the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in many, some of whom became vocal opponents."
    4. "The faculty and those studying to teach on the faculty attend the professional classes conducted by Ellen Reiss twice a week, on Tuesday and Friday evenings."
Are these the core issues that editors are not agreeing on? If not, what are they? -Will Beback 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you think a straw poll would be helpful. The disagreements and positions of the various involved parties are clear. The "core issue" is that Samivel wants AR presented as an earth-shatteringly brilliant philosophy which can do no wrong, and the others wish to present that actual history of the AR movement/philosophy/foundation. The remedy is for Samivel to learn, through repeated reversion, that he can't enforce his view, but must reason for his preferred wordings in discussion with others. I don't see much benefit to stirring the pot with a straw poll until that lesson is learned. #1 is not amenable to a T/F answer, though it might be as an attributed opinion. #2: we need a citation of Eli Siegel saying "homosexuality is not pathological", not opinions. As for #4: "professional" what? As I said, I don't think any of them are core issues. - Outerlimits 02:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So what are we arguing about then? Whatever it is, let's find a resolution. If we can formally establish that some matters have a consensus, then we can move on. I'm open to any way of resolving this interminable conflict. -Will Beback 09:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
What are we arguing about?? With all due respect, have you read any of this discussion? Perey says AR is the answer to all of mankind's problems. We say that the philosophy has its good points, though it also has its flaws. However, our main contention is that the philosophy is used to ensnare people into a mind control cult very much like Scientology in the way it inspires slavish devotion, breaks apart families, etc. Perey feels we have no right to express our opinions on this aspect of AR. He wants no mention of it in the article. He has gone as far as to say that cults don't exist, thus aligning himself with the Scientologists, the Moonies, etc. Marinero 15:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Outerlimits and Marinero. If "moving on" is the same as "placating Samivel's/Perey's delusions and censorship", then I don't care to "move on". Samivel's/Perey's cheerleading for AR is simply not acceptable in a Wikipedia article, period. I appreciate your trying to mediate, but mediation requires that both sides be reasonable and respect Wikipedia guidelines. Samivel/Perey isn't and doesn't, and that's why mediation failed before. That, plus the fact that I lost all patience with him after he repeatedly called me a liar. Michael Bluejay 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you guys understand the purpose of a straw poll. On topics where we cannot find a middle ground, it is a way of deciding on one version or another. It would be a way of definitively showing the consensus on certain points so that when edits are made which contradict the consensus that fact will be clear, and can be dealt with as failure to accept consensus. Of course the article must stay NPOV at all times, but that does not mean it has to pander to any particular viewpoint. -Will Beback 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If that's the purpose, then I have to ask something similar to what Marinero did: Have you been following what's been going on here? Everyone here knows that Samivel/Perey has been repeatedly contradicting the consensus, and that Outerlimits, Marinero, and I have been reverting to the consensus version when he does so. Samivel/Perey's response to this is that we three editors do not constitute any authority (as though his lone voice is more authoritative). The fact that Samivel/Perey has been contradicting the consensus couldn't be more clear. Michael Bluejay 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, I'm somewhat wary of this whole consensus business. That means that all Perey has to do is line up 10 fellow zombies (or pretend to line them up, as he has done before by writing under different identities) and get them all to say that Eli Siegel and AR should be respected without limit, and that would become the new consensus. Gee, I'm surprised the Scientologists haven't all ganged up to change the tone of the Wikipedia article on Scientology. I don't believe that numbers necessarily add up to the truth. Unlike Perey, I'm all for both sides being heard and letting the readers make up their own minds. Marinero 02:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Another way of making this article stable and verifiable is to remove unsourced info, as I've suggested before. Right now thare is a long list of "references", but they don't seem to refer to much in the article. If we cut this down to what we can verify using reliable sources, it'll be much shorter. -Will Beback 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a scientific article, it's mostly about beliefs -- what the AR people believe, and what their critics believe. As such there isn't much to truly source. The AR people undoubtedly believe what they say they believe, and their critics undoubtedly believe what THEY say they believe. Still, if we're removing references, these seem least relevant:
  • Hartzok, Alanna. "Earth Rights Democracy: Land, Ethics, and Public Finance Policy," paper presented at the Richard Alsina Fulton Conference on Sustainability and the Environment, 26-7 March 2004, Wilson College, Pennsylvania.
  • Herz, Nat. Konica Pocket Handbook: An Introduction to Better Photography Universal Photo Books series. New York: Verlan Books, 1960.
  • Nishikawa, Mary. "Organizing Information in a Corporate Intranet" in Aggregated Proceedings for the Extreme Markup Languages® Conferences (2001-2005) (http://www.mulberrytech.com/Extreme/Proceedings/html/2002/Nishikawa01/EML2002Nishikawa01.html#tod3e6).
  • Parker, Carol. "Filmmaker Tackles Homelessness Issues," Northport Journal, Huntington New York, 16 December 1999.
  • Siegel, Eli. “Civilization Begins,” in The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known, no. 229, 17 August 1977
I'm not as fearful of consensus as Marinero. I trust the Wikipedia community to step in if there's an assault on the article. If we can't get enough independent editors to defend the article then we can always seek arbitration. Then again, it says something that Samivel/Perey hasn't been able to find even one person to support his version so far. Michael Bluejay 07:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah well, if there are Wikipedia procedures in place to guard against such things, then fine.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Michael: this is, indeed, an article about opinions. In my case (and yours), it is about opinion based on direct experience. The only way I know to document that is to state what my experience has been. As for Perey's lack of support on this forum, you KNOW Ellen Reiss is behind it. All she has to do is say the word and 20 more fanatics would descend on the site to defend Siegel, Reiss, and AR against the "Wikipedia liars." Marinero 09:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, although I say I'm not as fearful of consensus, that doesn't mean your concern isn't justified. If the AR people come here in numbers there could very well be a bad result and we might not get enough support from the Wikipedia community to defend the article. But I think we just have to trust the process even if there's risk. It's the same as democracy in society -- there's a risk that the people will make really dumb choices. But that's not justification for taking away their right to do so.
Of course, Wikipedia isn't exactly a democracy, but the position with more supporters tends to prevail, except perhaps in arbitration. And arbitration isn't a right, since there's a long waiting list. Though again, I think we have to have faith in the process even if there are no guarantees.
Come to think of it, it's a mystery as to why the other AR people haven't shown up here. Their group has dwindled over the years, to be sure, but they still should be about 70 consultants and consultants-in-training strong, more than enough to launch an assault on the article, at least temporarily. Michael Bluejay 16:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think it's because Reiss can't possibly monitor and control what 70 different people might say in an ongoing debate such as this. She probably trusts long-time disciple Perey to stay within the party line, which is exactly what he has done. On the other hand, if a bunch of ARists came on here, all speaking AR-speak like Perey with his pre-approved thought-bytes, that would only help us prove our case. Marinero 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Alright then, I give up. I've worked on this article for the better part of a year, and it is better than it used to be. However I don't think that consensus is possible. -Will Beback 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Will Beback, I didn't realize you are the former Willmcw until I clicked your username just now. You had a lot to do with the article being in any kind of decent shape at this point, not the least for the fact that you're probably the thickest-skinned and don't get provoked easily, if at all -- unlike me and probably some of the other editors. But anyway, since you're implying that the article needs to be improved, what specific changes do you think we need?
Man, I gotta see if I can change my username so the "B" can be capitalized.... Michael Bluejay 06:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A comment from Samivel

The importance of sticking to what is true has not been dealt with by the little group of inter-agreeing commentators, above. And I think the actual facts (not things they make up) are rather important. If we don't stick to what's true, we are not an encyclopedia.

The fact that the bulk of their comments are motivated by malice will not escape a fair-minded reader who's paying attention.

It is equally obvious (see the Talk page archives) that no amount of scientific logic or actual documentation has made a dent in that malice. To the contrary: the more solid is the evidence that sustains the value of Aesthetic Realism, the more inflamed is the malice.

So, although it is risky, I wouldn't mind showing, in this article, how each of the bibliographical references is a needed support for statements that are true in this article--and indeed, when you look at the references together, they make ludicrous any notion that Aesthetic Realism is a so-called "cult."

For example, Nat Herz's Konika Handbook was quite a popular book which uses (as Herz writes) the Siegel Theory of Opposites to explain how to make a good photograph. The Herz book illustrates the historic influence of the Aesthetic Realism point of view, and the persons who studied Aesthetic Realism with Eli Siegel, in the development of American aesthetics. Persons who support an important idea, who are enthusiastic about it, and critical of belittlers, do not constitute a cult. Historically one would call it a school of thought, and it has great dignity and importance.

If need be, the work of Herz and some others can be quoted further, or their relevance can be pointed to more directly in the article--after all, the H Persuasion is quoted far more than any of them. --samivel 22:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes--a further note. The statements I have made in this article will hold up no matter which Wikipedians choose to search out sources, check the logic, sound the depths, and find the facts. So will those which TS made in the summer, and so will the editorial refining made by Will Beback. This is all verifiable content. And I stand behind it any time. I am confident of this and as far as I can see I haven't asked anyone to help support me. I think the facts will do just fine.

I may point out that the four or five belittlers have done what they could to chase away anyone who agrees with me. (I don't know who these people were, only that they were mercilessly and calculatedly attacked, and didn't want to stay in Wikipedia and be "slimed.") So congratulations on your success, little "gang of four" (or five).

The documentation for everything, including the pre-eminence of Eli Siegel as poet, philosopher, and educator is solid. None of my "worthy opponents" have disputed that in a factual way, which would have been interesting. All I get are anonymous smears and insults.

In case I have to state it, in self-defense, I have written only what I know to be true and that which is thoroughly verifiable. I am no one's mouthpiece--as I hope any reader who is really in his or her right mind will realize, if only from the tone of my writing. I'm writing from the heart and from the results of my own rather extensive scientific training in four universities. The article is a solid one, with the exception of some quite vile accusations that have no basis, and which Bluejay et al are trying to push.--samivel 22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, I was going to reply to your latest round of idiocy, but I decided I have better things to do with my time. Suffice to say that, in impugning my motives, you are behaving precisely as I would expect you to, for you are merely repeating the same old line that AR has always taken toward its critics. You have been well trained, Samivel. You can brag about your four universities all you want; how unfortunate that none of them ever taught you to think for yourself. You provide more proof that AR is a cult than anything I could say. Marinero 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting Samivel for Wikiquette violations

That does it. I'm tired of Samivel repeatedly ignoring the rules around here, especially by repeatedly calling his fellow editors liars after being asked repeatedly to stop doing so. This edit summary is the proverbial last straw:

"We don't dignify four individuals who agree to the same lie with the term 'consensus'"

Along with this inflammatory accusation:

I may point out that the four or five belittlers have done what they could to chase away anyone who agrees with me. (I don't know who these people were, only that they were mercilessly and calculatedly attacked, and didn't want to stay in Wikipedia and be "slimed.") So congratulations on your success, little "gang of four" (or five).

So I've reported Samivel for repeated Wikiquette violations. If Samivel doesn't have any respect for the Wikipedia rules then he shouldn't edit here, plain and simple. As soon as he's willing to do so without name-calling then that will be great.

Most of the distortions in Samivel's last Talk entry above had been dealt with here ad nauseum by mutiple editors and I see no reason to pretend that they haven't been.

Samivel, you can cry out about how you're being unfairly persecuted, and you can retaliate by reporting me for Wikiquette violations (and I have no doubt that you will do both), but don't think I didn't expect it.

Samivel, as for your charge about how your supporters were supposedly chased away, I remember only one other editor who ever supported your position, TS, who remained anonymous, and preferred to attack the other editors the same way you do. I think TS received far less hate than what you've dished out at those who disagree with you. As for "sliming", gee, repeatedly calling your fellow editors liars doesn't count as sliming? Creating a website called CounteringTheLies and branding everyone who disagrees with you as liars doesn't count as sliming? Suffice it to say that the only one who thinks that the other editors were chased away appears to be you.

Samivel, for the umpteenth time, you can't single-handedly push your perspective of this article while ignoring everyone else's feelings about it. If you can't find any other editors willing to support your position, then at the very least file an RfC. In the absence of your doing either, please stop reverting to a version of the article which has been rejected by every single active editor except you. MichaelBluejay 23:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not relish replying directly to this, the archives indeed have several editors who left Wikipedia because--as they themselves bitterly point out--they were insulted severely by the very people who say I am lacking in etiquette. --samivel 17:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here is another portion of the verification that Wikipedia requires.

I think it is quite obvious that Michael Bluejay and a few others would like to eliminate me by "any means whatsoever." Today it is by presenting false charges. They were offered by Will BeBack a chance to comment on and have Wikipedians comment on the differences between their version and the version I regard as truthful but they have refused to comment.

Throughout the past months, as the archives will reveal, they have added whatever misrepresentations they please without any desire to discuss them honestly. (See, for example, Bluejay's transparent scuttling of the attempt at mediation.) It is just such egregious misrepresentations that John Siegenthaler and some others have exposed to the public and which have opened up Wikipedia to serious questioning, including legal questioning. (I am writing historically here and not "threatening" as Mr. Bluejay well knows.) So I do not believe I have anything to fear from the Wikipedia administration, because my attempt has been, always, to stick to facts and facts alone in this *encyclopedia* article. They know I have been editing in good faith.

It is apparent that my "worthy opponents" do not want any more documentation of the fact that Aesthetic Realism is philosophy, ethics, and aesthetics, and would like to "eliminate me from the race."

Nevertheless, I feel at the moment obligated to continue adding the verification that Wikipedia requires; this time I point to the relevance of the Nat Herz reference:

Nat Herz writes the following in Konica Pocket Handbook: An Introduction to Better Photography (Verlan Books, New York: 1960) about (1) the way that studying Aesthetic Realism enhanced his perception (as photographer and critic) and (2) the need for the Siegel Theory of Opposites (see Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites?) to stimulate the progress of aesthetics in the field of photography. Herz writes:

My own approach to the art of photography is based on Aesthetic Realism, a practical philosophy with universal implications founded by the noted American poet and philosopher Eli Siegel, author of Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana: Poems (Definition Press, 1957). Based on Siegel's Theory of Opposites, Aesthetic Realism deals with the making one of opposing forces in art, the world and in ourselves. For example, the deeper we look into the art of photography the more we discover about the uniting of such opposites as light and dark, foreground and background, the details and the picture as a whole. A successful photo will have beauty because of the way the photographer has related these and other opposites to each other. Siegel writes in Art As Life (Terrain Gallery, New York, 1957), "For art is the seeing of relation among objects, which while true to reality, expresses the attitude of an individual thing, a self." It is just this relation among objects and people that the photographer is always looking for in the everyday world around him...the right relation of what he feels inside about something he sees outside expressed with proper photographic technique (p. 13).

Having a viewpoint like Aesthetic Realism has been a distinct advantage to me in writing this book. Too often in photographic history, photography as a scientific technique and photography as an art have been painfully split. I have been encouraged to see these two as one, and that is the way I have tried to present them in this book (p. 14).

Too many person are unnecessarily frightened of art or of aesthetics, which is the study of what makes something have beauty, including a photograph. According to Aesthetic Realism...aesthetics is the study of how opposites become one to make a work of art have beauty. In a good candid portrait, for example, we are shooting for the fleeting expression of a moment, but we want this moment of 1/50 of a second, to show something of a person's whole life... (p. 117).

The strange and familiar are opposites that are very crucial in photography. We are always trying to shoot ordinary people or familiar objects in such a way as to make them look striking or strange. Also, photography can take a strange scene and give it such a sense of reality that you feel it is familiar, although you have never seen it before... (p. 117).

Perhaps the two most important opposites in composition are inclusion and exclusion. In photography we must constantly be aware of what will be in the picture and what must be left out... (p. 117).

As long as people feel you respect them and find them interesting and worthy of photographing, they will be pleased and at least passively cooperative....The candid photography of daily life again bears out the truth of Eli Siegel's well-known statement which is quoted as the motto of this chapter: "In reality opposites are one; art shows this." Candid photography is particularly concerned with the opposites of sameness and difference. The daily life of most persons has a great deal of sameness....The candid photography searches for a moment of difference within the sameness of daily life. The two must come together if the picture is to succeed. If the subject seems just different we will not be able to relate it to ourselves....It is [the] meaningful interweaving of the opposites of sameness and difference...that candid photographers are so eager to find (p. 139).

From Nat Herz, photographer and commentator, writing on the aesthetics of photography with Aesthetic Realism as his basis. Konica Pocket Handbook: An Introduction to Better Photography (Verlan Books, New York: 1960).--samivel 17:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to latest attacks by Samivel

I think it is quite obvious that Michael Bluejay and a few others would like to eliminate me by "any means whatsoever."

Wrong. If I were so eager to ban you I would have reported you the 200th time you called us liars, rather than the 500th. As soon as you can start editing respectfully then you'll be as welcome as anyone else. Your latest post shows that you're no closer to that goal.

Today it is by presenting false charges.

Wrong.

They were offered by Will BeBack a chance to comment on and have Wikipedians comment on the differences between their version and the version I regard as truthful but they have refused to comment.

Wrong. We didn't comment this LATEST time, only because we've already commented on all this so many times before. Also, for the umpteenth time, don't expect us to be eager to engage when you repeatedly call us liars.

Throughout the past months, as the archives will reveal, they have added whatever misrepresentations they please without any desire to discuss them honestly.

Wrong.

(See, for example, Bluejay's transparent scuttling of the attempt at mediation.)

Wrong. I abandoned mediation mostly because you refused to stop calling me a liar.

So I do not believe I have anything to fear from the Wikipedia administration, because my attempt has been, always, to stick to facts and facts alone in this *encyclopedia* article.

I have no doubt that you believe your edits to be accurate. The problem is that you don't respect the opinion of any other editor who disagrees with you.

They know I have been editing in good faith.

If "good faith" means respecting the perspectives of the other editors, then no, wrong.

It is apparent that my "worthy opponents" do not want any more documentation of the fact that Aesthetic Realism is philosophy, ethics, and aesthetics, and would like to "eliminate me from the race."

Wrong. As we've explained ad nauseum, you can document AR's philosophy all you want, but that simply won't change the fact that many people (including former members like me) consider it to be a cult. MichaelBluejay 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously we have a fundamental disagreement. Indeed Michael Bluejay is lying, although fairly cleverly. The major lies have been carefully and accurately documented in www.Counteringthelies.com. He is not a qualified authority, and can't legitimately be called a former student at all--his careful self-designation as a "former member" is imaginary. (It's like a person who visits a library every few years and learns how to use the card catalog--and then claims to be a student of library science.) The statements made about homosexuality by Outerlimits are quite biased and where I have proposed alternative sentences to these and to the highly slanted sentences about myself and colleagues written by Bludjay, they have been not only been ignored, and their purpose misunderstood, but they have been complained of to the Wikipedia administration! What a business. It's sad and ugly. --samivel 19:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
AP, please stop the personal attacks. Other sources also say AR has cult characteristics, not just MB. Jonathunder 21:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...is it possible that the funny things said by Jonathunder and others could be believed? I think not. Is it possible, on the other hand, that some of the most libelous smears by Marinero, Bluejay et al have been "cleaned up" in the Talk page archives? My heavens, I think so! --samivel 00:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC
Congratulations, samivel, you've finally managed to prove one of Siegel's postulates: contempt causes insanity. Marinero 09:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Here are three instances of persons who, after showing friendliness to Aesthetic Realism, were put off by the tactics of my “worthy opponents."
1. A person calling himself Fed Up wrote: “Well, I've had enough. I've never posted here before (and it is unlikely I will again) though as a person who studied Aesthetic Realism for years, still thinks of it fondly, and is in touch from time to time with friends who currently study it, I've been following the Wiki debate with great interest and no small amount of irritation….It would suit Outerlimit's purposes to have the Bluejay fiction about Aesthetic Realism on wikipedia masquerading as objective fact since he himself is hardly interested in the truth of the matter….I'll sign myself Fed Up!” ( From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Archive03#Nobody_is_mentioning_this.)


2. In Archive 04 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Archive04), a person who had not previously commented in the Talk pages wrote: “As a disinterested observer, I have been following this dispute. It happens I have a copy of the Psychology Today Omnibook of Personal Development (IBSN 0-688-03225-7) and it would seem to support the argument made by TS. This book was published in 1977 by William Morrow and Company, New York—supposedly at the height of AR’s national prominence and media blitz on the subject of homosexuality. The author, Matinka Matson, has a lengthy chapter describing Aesthetic Realism in which she lists the many topics on which it teaches and has been personally useful. Homosexuality is never mentioned. It would seem from this impartial source that the Wiki emphasis on homosexuality in regard to Aesthetic Realism during that period is, indeed, disproportionate. Good luck and best wishes with the editing! [Roger S August 10, 2005],”
Outerlimits replied: ‘Hello, disinterested observer—observer with absolutely no connection to AR, who thinks lack of mention in a Psychology Today self-help book negates the actual (and well-documented) ads, publications, and interview show appearances on "change from homosexuality"….etc.’
Later Roger S comments: “Sorry that one of the editors here seems irritated by me. It is not my intention to irritate anybody--and my apologies if I have....I just thought I had some useful information to share. [Roger S August 24, 2005] “ …. Roger S did not remain as an editor.
3. Marinero wrote the following in reply to an individual who made a post on the Talk page: “You think it's perfectly OK to exaggerate, spout histerical hyperbole and have nothing but contempt for persons….etc. [Marinero 09:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)]” in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Archive05)
I recollect some other people whom my “worthy opponents” insulted when they appeared on the Talk pages, driving them off too. These I haven’t been able to find. Whether in fact they’ve been deleted or I just haven't been able to find them yet, I do not know.--samivel 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It sounds to me as if all these people (if they were not in fact you, samivel) were simply bested in a debate and left because they had no good response to the counter arguments that were made. If they left because they were too thin-skinned, that is not my responsibility. Michael and I are still here, despite your repeated insults. But what does all this have to do with anything? Marinero 04:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Samivel, you're always eager to call your fellow editors liars, yet you complain about a lack of civility. And you complain bitterly about the mostly anonymous contributions on my website, yet hold up the anonymous people who support your own position as the kind of people who you want around Wikipedia. This seems a tad inconsistent. As I've said repeatedly, you can't expect us to engage anymore after all the times you've called us liars. And for the umpteenth time, if you think the article needs to be changed (which is the only reason you should be writing in the Talk page), then file an RfC. Short of your doing so, we have nothing more to discuss. -MichaelBluejay 11:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning the process of resolving disputes. Looking at an early sentence of the article.

To begin reviewing the differences between writing proposed by Outerlimits and Michael Bluejay--writing supported by CDThieme, Jonathunder, and Marinero, and the writing which I am proposing as more accurate, I will start with an analysis of one sentence.

This is a sentence in the first paragraph of this article. Its purpose is to give an accurate and brief description of one of the important concepts of Aesthetic Realism. We are now looking at two versions.

Here is Version #1: “The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things in order to see one's self as superior--causes unhappiness and even insanity.”

This is what I think would be better: Version #2: “The desire to have contempt—that is, to lessen the meaning of things--causes guilt and hurts mind.”

First let’s look at the following phrase from Version #1: Contempt…“causes unhappiness and even insanity.” Aesthetic Realism shows that there is a line of continuity from ordinary contempt (for example, not listening when people speak, and putting them aside, because one assumes one knows better) to the highly charged state of mind which is psychosis--in which a person has put aside reality so fiercely that he or she is delusional. I believe that saying contempt…“causes unhappiness and even insanity” is too quick. It doesn't give enough weight or importance to either unhappiness or insanity, from which people suffer a great deal. And then consider how the cause of insanity or unhappiness is put-- “in order to see one’s self as superior.” This makes the explanation given by Aesthetic Realism sound insubstantial. How could this little cause be potent enough to cause that terror which is insanity?

Further, to say bluntly that contempt causes “unhappiness” in sentence #1—is this really what Aesthetic Realism says? After all, a person can be unhappy about the tragic earthquake in Kashmir. There are many external causes of sadness and pain, even while the aesthetic way of seeing them can make for a deep happiness because it goes for justice.

Version #2 claims less than Version #1 and is more accurate. To say that contempt “causes guilt and hurts mind” is a beginning point for finding out more. Here is the logic of this concept: “Guilt,” wrote Mr. Siegel, “is a result of insufficient liking of the world or a separation from it” (Self and World, p. 7). What, then, is the cause of guilt? “The pleasure of contempt,” he wrote, “is the “great opponent to the pleasure of knowing the world and, perhaps, liking it because one knows it” (Self and World, p. 7). “Contempt Hurts Mind” is the title of the first issue of The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known on this subject (issue #133). It has these three points: “One, contempt is exceedingly popular; two, contempt weakens minds; three, contempt is the crucial cause of insanity” (see The Right Of no. 134). (Note the progression from ordinary, everyday contempt to the unusual contempt for reality that propels insanity.) As to the truth of this idea, Mr. Siegel points to a work on Freudian psychoanalysis: “The psychosis exhibits alone no compromise with reality, turns its back on reality, as it were” (Abraham A. Brill, quoted in Self and World, p. 10).

If I am right, and Version #2 does less to superficialize important philosophic ideas, we should have Version #2.--samivel 23:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Contempt causes insanity" has been a primary AR slogan for decades, much more so than "contempt hurts mind". Do a search on each in Google (with the phrase in quotes, so you get only the exact phrase). You get lots of hits for the former (including AR's official organ "The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known", on EliSiegel.net -- and zero for "contempt hurts mind". Why you've taken to arguing against what your organization has promoted for years is beyond me. -MichaelBluejay 03:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, what's this, then?! If there's one phrase I associate with AR, it's "contempt causes insanity." I tell ya, if we're going to devote this much space to arguing over something AR has said for years, I can only imagine what lies ahead when we get to something on which we actually disagree. I get the impression that samivel is trying to "spin" AR on these pages, perhaps to make it seem less scary to his imagined masses of readers. Why not give it to them straight, just as it is, samivel? Marinero 06:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you respond to what I have written? Compare the merits of both sentences.--samivel 06:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)--samivel 06:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That's what we've done. For whatever reason, you want to use a phrase that's less representative of what AR preaches. That's as far as the discussion needs to go. -MichaelBluejay 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Samivel, you have brought a large elephant into the room and you expect us to merely say "hello." I think we are replying quite directly to what you have written when we ask what's wrong all of a sudden with the long-time AR slogan, "contempt causes insanity." Now why don't you respond directly to that, and maybe we can get somewhere. Marinero 18:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

We've probably had enough talking. Time for some editing. --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag 4/27/06

This article is suffering from the detritus of a previous edit war, and is in serious need of attention. beekman 19:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you to be more specific? The article seems fairly well-written to me. -MichaelBluejay 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe that "fairly well-written" is acceptable when an article can be well-written. I've come upon quite a few grammatical errors and typos that I haven't had a chance to fix yet (will do, eventually). I also believe that the article is quite packed with information, might be able to be split into other articles (perhaps the whole section on the foundation could be split out) and some pruning of non-notable people/subject matter could happen to make the text more accessible. I'm not an expert, and really don't know much about the subject, and I find the article quite convoluted. I think that it would benefit from some fresh eyes. Hence the tag. beekman 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't object to having fresh eyes look at the article, and I agree that improvements can be made. I'm taking a fairly hands-off approach myself, since as a critic of the group that promotes AR my presence is controversial. I want just enough input to make sure that the criticism gets a fair mention, and that the AR people don't turn the article into a big cheerleading piece, as has been done in the past. Whenever I touch the article there are objections. So I'll let other editors handle the other stuff. I'm looking forward to seeing how you and/or other can improve the article. Thanks, -MichaelBluejay 05:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Beekman, it would be wise to have someone who does know the subject keep abreast of any further editing. I earned a doctorate at Columbia for a dissertation based on Aesthetic Realism. Meanwhile I've lost some eagerness to write in Wikipedia because of a vicious editing war. But there are other scholars who have written on this important and subtle philosophy for peer-reviewed journals in art, education, and aesthetics--such as professor Edward Green. I imagine they could be persuaded to participate as long as they are not subjected to the same vilification you have no doubt read in the talk pages. Fresh eyes, looking at the article with good will and a serious desire to understand a really beautiful and kind way of seeing the world, could do a lot of good. Good luck. If I can be helpful, I will be. --samivel 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Samivel, I'm glad to see you're concerned about other editors being "vicious" and "vilifying" others. Does that mean when we express perspectives different from your own you will no longer call us liars? -MichaelBluejay 02:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another voice

I recently attended a presentation on jazz at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation after learning about it from a friend in the music field. I have to admit I almost didn't go after goggling Aesthetic Realism and coming upon Michael Bluejay's site. If Aesthetic Realism is all those things he says it is, one has to wonder why anybody studies it! I half expected to find an auditorium full of zombies. But my friend (who has been to several events at the AR Foundation although he himself has never studied AR) assured me that the folk who do study it are rather intelligent people and very solid citizens. He insisted that I "go and see for myself" like he has done. He said he learns something that's new and thought-provoking with every program he attends and nobody has ever tried to recruit him. I'm really glad I listened to him. What an absolutely wonderful experience. Eli Siegel on jazz is simply amazing! I was astonished by the lucid description of opposites in every aspect of jazz--and wondered why I had never seen this before in my musical studies when Eli Siegel made it so obvious and, frankly, exciting. And what talent the presenters had. I didn't see any evidence at all of the cult characteristics Mr. Bluejay very lavishly describes on his web pages. And, by the way, the place was packed.

I'll probably go back to another program in the near future. One is coming up that includes a film of Eli Siegel teaching an Aesthetic Realism class and other films made about Aesthetic Realism over the years including a recent one of Siegel's prize poem "Hot Afternoons" read by Siegel himself. That I'd really like to see.

I also noted from the displays and literature that Aesthetic Realism speakers are being invited to address some pretty respected, mainline organizations and educational institutions all over the country (and indeed the world) these days. I must say, it impressed me--and I did find myself wondering why all these invitations would be extended if Aesthetic Realism was such a "cult." Certainly the folks doing the inviting have access to the internet too.

In any event, I started reading the talk pages on Aesthetic Realism in Wikipedia more closely when I got home and was stuck by the intensity of this running battle (accompanied with a great deal of acid and unenlightening heat, I'm afraid) between those who clearly value Aesthetic Realism and care for it and those who it seems to me will stop at nothing to tar and feather it. (I must say that the mean-spiritedness and take-no-prisoners approach of some of these anti-AR people makes me much less inclined to believe them. It seems to me very personal and quite small and gossipy--not really a thoughtful inquiry into the ideas of Aesthetic Realism at all.) So I'm just making my presence and initial observations known. Thought it might be helpful to others like myself navigating this maze of charge and counter-charge. I might share some further thoughts in the future as I find out more about Aesthetic Realism from the perspective of a casual observer and novice. But I definitely don't intend to get myself bogged down in all the nasty stuff that is going on here. --digital scribe 14:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. P. Welcome back to WP. Jonathunder 03:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Gee, Aperey, your new voice sounds just like your old voice Marinero 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, A Perey, did you also wear a fake nose and glasses when you typed this?

[edit] Exactly who is being mean-spirited?

The probable sock puppet wrote:

I must say that the mean-spiritedness and take-no-prisoners approach of some of these anti-AR people makes me much less inclined to believe them.

Really? Here are examples of some of the supposed "mean-spiritedness" posted on my (Bluejay's) site -- each one written by a different former member:

  • "Especially at the beginning, I got some good things out of it. I also thought it would save the world. I continue to believe that if a person keeps a lot of distance between him/herself and the organization and can avoid getting sucked into its vortex, they can get some benefit from studying AR's principles."
  • "A few days ago, I was rearranging my bookshelves and came across some of my old Eli Siegel poetry books. I took some time to read some of the work that I haven't read in so many years. Boy, he was quite a poet and his masterwork: Self and World is a masterpiece of philosophical theory. This is one reason why some (including me) were attracted to Aesthetic Realism."
  • "When I read Eli Siegel's book, Self and World I was deeply impressed. Even now that I have long believed that Aesthetic Realism is too cultish for me, I still think Self and World is one of the great books of the human race."
  • "So is AR a cult? I don't think it is for me to say. What I can say is that I don't think AR or Eli Siegel had any real insight into the subject of homosexuality. Since they no longer teach the 'Change from Homosexuality' I have no real beef with AR today and I believe in 'live and let live'. I do feel it is important for me to tell my story as honestly as possible, which I feel I have done here. If someone I knew wanted to study AR I would simply tell them to proceed with caution."
  • "I do think that Eli Siegel had some very valuable things to say."


In fact, it's the *AR people* who best demonstrate mean-spiritedness, responding to their critics by insulting them and calling them liars. From the pro-AR "Countering the Lies" website:

  • The Liars’ Purpose and Technique....
  • The purpose of the liars is to stop people from wanting to learn about Aesthetic Realism...
  • The technique of the liars is...
  • The lies on the web pages referred to go all the way from the pip that somehow Aesthetic Realism is against higher education...
  • ...apparently the sick weasels find it inconceivable that there is at least one man in New York who has so much to give other people that they will flock to him to stand by his right side for the largesse so freely given. The (jealous? disillusioned? nihilistic?) weasels apparently feel compelled to label such behavior "cultist."
  • So much for the stupid lying of Mali, Bluejay and the other liars...Why is he doing this? Feeling himself to be a failure in his own life, and joining with others also seeking revenge for essentially the same reason&emdash;notably Adam Mali&emdash;'Michael Bluejay' seeks the triumph of making himself important by looking down upon others.
  • [AR supporter Derek Mali on why he disowned his son, who is no longer an AR believer.] Nobody has forbidden me [to have contact with my son]! It is through my own good sense that I want nothing to do with him.

So we're supposed to believe that an independent third party would look at both sites and come to the conclusion that *mine* is the one that's bitter and nasty? Please. --MichaelBluejay 01:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further observations from a third party

Wow. It is unbelievable to me that an objective first impression of AR can so quickly elicit from its enemies the suspicion that it comes from a disguised Aesthetic Realist trying to pull a fast one. Amazing.

To the person who awarded me a doctorate I don’t have—thank you very much. And to Mr. Bluejay: you have the absolute right to make your case and perhaps you’re right, although I have yet to see evidence of it. I’m just calling it as I see it. I’m sure someone on the other side of the debate from you could select an entirely different set of quotes from the Friends web site and from yours and make exactly the opposite point. I just think that a whole web site dedicated to labeling AR as a cult is by definition negative and it’s hard for me to understand why you would even resist that idea. It seems to me from looking over your web site that you’ve dedicated a good deal of time and energy to tearing Aesthetic Realism down, sprinkling in here and there a few words that manage to damn it with the faintest of praise. That’s my overall impression but I suppose every reader will have to decide for himself or herself as the case may be.

Anyway, as I wrote the last time I visited here, I don’t want to get into the midst of the bickering and nastiness. I did go to the film event at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation on 8-13-06 as I mentioned I likely would. This was my second visit there (the first being the jazz program which favorably impressed me). Here are a few of my observations about the film event:

• First, a surprisingly large crowd. The line stretched double-wide clear around the corner. Some people couldn’t get in but I was lucky.

• Second, Ken Kimmelman is definitely a talented guy. His films were both funny and revealing and I found them to be very artistic. They are imaginative and surprisingly moving. He explained the technique he uses in making his films in a very understandable way. And he showed how Siegel’s idea about opposites is in play in every artistic decision he makes in his productions. He’s won a lot of awards for his films, including an Emmy. So he’s pretty well thought of.

• Third, I liked his most recent film of Eli Siegel’s poem “Hot Afternoons.” The relations Eli Siegel makes in that epic-like poem are natural and yet surprising. I hadn’t read the poem before and I felt like it was giving me an introduction to the history of the world in about fifteen minutes. The film itself was visually superb. One of the standouts in it for me were the expressive faces of the Native Americans. You really felt they were deep, thoughtful people. Native Americans are usually seen so superficially. I also liked the scene in which a graceful bird flying in the sky fades into two old double wing prop planes chugging along in the air uncertainly. This illustrated Siegel’s line: “That bird, how sweet and graceful it is…Could we ever do that? Machines that fly are clumsy and ugly.” But the line: “There are millions of men in the world and each is one man. Each is one man by himself taking care of himself all the time, and changing other men and being changed by them” was the most memorable for me. At that point the camera panned into a crowd of people walking in the street and finally settled on one particular man. I began wondering who that guy was and what he was thinking at that moment—where before he was just a face in the crowd. I would definitely recommend seeing this film to anybody.

• Fourth, I was, of course, curious to see the much maligned Eli Siegel himself teaching one of his classes in another of Kimmelman’s films. It was from the 1960’s and so it was done in black and white. It aired once on local NYC public television in the late 60’s. The impression one would get from some people is that Eli Siegel was a master showman and skilled hypnotist who “took in” many unsuspecting people. So I was expecting a dazzling, magnetic personality; charismatic in the extreme. What I saw was a rather soft-spoken and plain-dressing gentleman, who looked much like my own grandfather, reasoning with people about their lives in a thoughtful fashion and asking some very thought-provoking questions. Clearly this was a man of thought. He was sharp, insightful and funny. I especially liked the way he spoke to one young woman who couldn’t see how her parents were like her. It made me think about my own parents a bit differently. He also appeared rather kind to me. From what I saw I certainly didn’t feel that he deserves all the rancor that has come his way on the internet and elsewhere. In fact, his propositions seemed worthy of further inquiry to my mind.

• Fifth, Kimmelman’s film The Heart Knows Better, based on a statement about racism by Eli Siegel, was terrific! I can see why it won an Emmy award. I didn’t get it exactly but Siegel’s quote was something about how the aorta in every person is the same and you can’t tell, when you are looking just at it, if it is from a white person, an Asian person, a black person or a Hispanic person.

• Sixth, I couldn’t help but notice the endorsement of Kimmelman’s films (and by extension the Aesthetic Realism philosophy they are based on) by mainstream organizations like the UN, which funded one of his films, and the National Homeless Coalition, which sponsored another.

• Seventh, there was a tastefully done wine and cheese reception following the screenings. I stayed for only a short while during which time I spoke with a couple from England and their daughter. She had heard about Aesthetic Realism from one of her college professors during a lecture and had looked into it further on the internet. She liked what she read so much that she told her parents about it. They said that since they had planned on vacationing in America anyway, they scheduled their trip to New York to coincide with this event. They were headed out of town to Washington DC that afternoon to do some sightseeing.

• Eighth, once again nobody descended upon me to suck me into the “cult.”

I’d really like to find something downbeat to say about the experience so that the people who like to give an unflattering take on AR won’t award me with another doctorate or just dismissively lump me in with the “mindless” and “criticism adverse” AR crowd! We all view the world; rather unfortunately I think, through the blurred lens of our own prejudices and untested presumptions. That surely includes me too. But there really isn’t anything negative I can think of to say—and that’s not because I wasn’t looking. It was, all in all, a delightful afternoon. While it didn’t make me want to rush out and join up with AR, it definitely did make me more favorably disposed toward it and therefore more inclined to take some of the more blatently negative comments with a healthy dose of skepticism. --digital scribe 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough nonsense

The probably sock-puppet wrote:

  • I just think that a whole web site dedicated to labeling AR as a cult is by definition negative...

Right, and a whole website called COUNTERING THE LIES established to call its critics LIARS is somehow NOT negative. Right.

As for cherry-picking the quotes, the MOST critical voices on my site don't come ANYWHERE CLOSE to the level of hostility and rage that the AR/CTL folks have directed at me and others. You want to argue your point? Then find something nice on Countering the Lies said about me or the other critics. It doesn't exist.

And if you're not THE Arnold Perey, you're certainly an AR-ist. You all write the same way, it's so transparent that it jumps off the page at the reader. It's amazing to me that the AR people aren't aware of how incredibly obvious this is to everyone else. Whoever you are, you've lost the ability to write like a non-ARist.

You're also probably not aware of the clues you left on Wikipedia that are as obvious as an elephant in the bathroom that you're actually Dr. P.

Anyway, you say you're someone else? Fine, I'm game, I'll play: I'm Michael Bluejay, 2605 Oaklawn, Austin, Texas 78722, 512-322-0638. Exactly who are you? -MichaelBluejay 15:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a regular Joe and I'm just writng in my regular Joe speech pattern about my honest unbiased opinion of this fine fellow Siegel and his wonderful philosophy, Aesthetic Realism. Why shucks, I just found out about Siegel but I'm already GRATEFUL BEYOND LIMIT for what I've learned. Furthermore, even though I don't know anything at all about this stuff, I can tell that the VICIOUS LIARS who criticize Aesthetic Realism are HAVING CONTEMPT BECAUSE OF THEIR TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR ELI SIEGEL. Mind you, these are my thoughts and my words; nobody told me to say these things. Of course, I'm just a novice and I don't know anything about this stuff and I certainly don't want to get involved in all the nastiness on here but it seems to me that these LIARS are MEAN SPIRITED EVIL PEOPLE who just want to put down a wonderful old grandfatherly man who wrote the PRIZE WINNING POEM, HOT AFTERNOONS HAVE BEEN IN MONTANA (or was it Idaho? As I said, I'm just a novice). Again, I'm new at this, but I must say that I found Siegel's poem THRILLING in its understanding of THE DEEPEST THING IN MAN: THE DESIRE TO HAVE CONTEMPT FOR THE WORLD. But that's just me, Joe Brooklyn, your average, unbiased Joe. Marinero 06:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy tag

I placed this tag under the discussion of homexsexuality because the claimed "fact" about reverting to heterosexuality remains controversial today, and AE can not escape its past. Bearian 01:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for placing the tag. The tag says that it's misplaced, and should be moved to this Talk page. I haven't done so myself because I'm avoiding editing the article myself as part of the assumed truce between the critics and proponents of AR, since my editing the article could start another edit war. I'll edit the article only when AR supporters censor crucial information or introduce distortions.
I don't think the article claims that the gay cure is "fact". It carefully attributes such beliefs to the people who believe them. If someone says they *believe* in a gay cure, then it's a fact that someone *said* they believe in a gay cure. And that's pretty much what the article says. I think it's encyclopaedic in that sense.
What's missing is the fact that many (probably the overwhelming majority) of people who initally said they were "cured" of their gayness by AR, have long since resumed identifying as gay. The article does a good job of presenting the cure from the perspective of a successful cure, but says far too little about how many/most sooner or later decided they were still really gay after all. -MichaelBluejay 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I moved the tag off the article just because the template isn't supposed to be used on article page. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 03:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further observations

This is my first visit back to the Wiki entry on Aesthetic Realism in a year, since the last time I attended an event at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation and decided to post some of my personal observations about it after reading this article. My girlfriend and I attended another event there just last Sunday so I thought I’d find my way back here to write some further reflections.

Surprisingly, I saw for the first time the two postings about my last remarks that appear a little bit above. The writers seem to have very active imaginations and to be rather strong conspiracy theorists, casting me (completely erroneously, I might add, for any who really care) as a “sock puppet” or a phony “average Joe.” One of these fine folks thinks it is “as obvious as an elephant in a bathroom” that my initials are AP. That would surprise my mother, who named me, even more than she would be surprised by finding an elephant in a bathroom!

In any event, there is one thing I am happy to agree with them about. "Enough nonsense!" Here then are a few more of my avowedly “man on the street” impressions for anyone who cares to read them.

This particular program was called “Rock ‘n’ Roll, the Opposites & Our Greatest Hopes—a Celebration!” And was it a celebration! The boisterous, cheering crowd was so huge that it stretched out the door and a repeat performance (to come this October) had to be announced at intermission for all of those who just couldn’t get inside. Having been to a few other such programs at the AR Foundation, I knew enough to get there in plenty of time in order to get a seat!

The popularity of this particular program, in my opinion, was well deserved. The performance was “high class” in every way, and extremely professional. And the juxtaposition of the music with verbal explanations of it from the vantage point of aesthetics was not only wonderfully educational but also added so much more emotion and appreciation to one’s hearing of the actual songs when they were then performed. Two of my favorites were “Rag Doll,” sung by Kevin Fennell and others, and “You’re So Vain,” sung by Ann Richards and others. Many of the male singers expressed heartfelt gratitude for their marriages and, when Timothy Lynch did so, and then sung “Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You,” the depth and conviction of his feeling actually brought tears to my eyes even though I don't know the happy couple.

AR makes a great deal of the opposites, which, as I take it, it understands to be the basic stuff of existence. The speakers/singers who spoke about and performed popular rock n’ roll songs such as “Earth Angel” and “Runaround Sue” tried to illustrate the AR concept that beauty is composed of opposites that have been “made one,” and that people as such are also trying to make the same opposites one in them and can be instructed by art how to do it.

There was a deep and impressive explanation given for John Phillips’ (of Mamas and Papas fame) song “Monday, Monday.” When the singers asked about what this confusing song actually means in an Aesthetic Realism Class (and pointed out that John Phillips himself said he didn’t know), the person teaching the class explained to them that it is about how a person starts out fresh every morning hoping for good things but then discovers that some of the same old things they don’t like about themselves still get in the way and frustrate their hopes. After hearing this explanation I felt as if I was listening to the song (which I’ve always loved) for the first time when it was then sung. The words fit the explanation to a tee in my opinion—and I also realized they were about things I have felt as well and that maybe that is why I liked it so much.

There was also a presentation of a lesson that a rock musician once had directly with Eli Siegel which was really fascinating. Eli Siegel spoke to him about how Rock ‘n’ Roll puts private and public together and you could really see by his answers and demeanor how this particular person was struggling to do exactly that. And then, as the program went on and different songs were performed, the singers explained how each song was also about private and public. The logic seemed sound to me, and very, very interesting.

I enjoyed it and everybody else who was there seemed to enjoy it too. Aside from one couple who I saw leaving at the intermission (for reasons unknown and probably quite innocent), the audience was really into the music as well as the explanation of it. Considering that it was a hot, humid August afternoon in Manhattan—the kind you like to spend sipping lemonade (or something stronger) in your nice air-conditioned apartment---I’m glad I made the extra effort to be there. I’m not into music all that much. That’s my girlfriend’s passion. But I really had a good time. Whenever I’ve gone to the AR Foundation I’ve found it to be decidedly worthwhile.

I’ll do more posting here the next time I decide to attend a program at the AR Foundation. user: digital scribe 17:51 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, but the purpose of this page is not to share thoughts and observations about the subject of AR. This page exists only to discuss improvements in Wikipedia's article on AR. Since original research is not allowed, personal reports like this are useless to us. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, digital scribe, for that heartfelt report. However, since you are only marginally acquainted with AR, you may want to ask class chairman Ellen Reiss how many times she's been married. I remember Reiss going on and on about how grateful she was to Siegel for her marriage to her then-husband, whom I shall refer to as DT. DT would often write about his romantic, beautiful marriage to Reiss, all made possible by Siegel and AR. So be sure to ask Reiss where is DT now. While you're at it, ask anybody involved with AR how many times they've been married -- including those who expressed "heartfelt gratitude" for their marriages at the lovely and moving presentation you attended on that hot afternoon in Manhattan (after all, Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana, so why not New York?). See if you can find any examples of these wonderful marriages that survived after one of the spouses left AR. Also, you may want to take a look at the "Countering the Lies" website and read for yourself how AR cult members speak about their own family members who have left AR. Then go back and find Ellen Reiss' writings about how AR makes marriages and families stronger. It's not hard to do, they're all over the AR rag, TRO. Then ask yourself whether perhaps you're being duped. Marinero 08:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)