Talk:Aesthetic Realism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:21, 27 September 2005

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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:

Aperey states that some people "presented evidence" to the effect that they had changed from homosexuality through AR, and "others contend" these individuals have not changed. If one ignores Aperey's use of the word "evidence" to describe what are actually anecdotal accounts, then one could say his statement is true, but incomplete, as it conveniently leaves out the fact that some of the people who claimed they had changed later decided they had not changed, after all (presented "evidence" notwithstanding). It is not "others" who "contend" these individuals have not changed; it is the individuals themselves asserting that they have not changed. To see so much fudging of the truth from a group who claims to be the definitive authority on truth is quite revealing.

I would like to issue a challenge to Aperey and the others who say they have changed from homosexuality through AR. If you are truly interested in providing evidence, then let it be quantifiable, scientific evidence. Let your body provide the evidence. Scientists can measure all sorts of bodily reactions to certain stimuli. For instance, they can measure dilation of the pupil when something pleasurable is gazed upon. They can also measure such things as blood flow to the genitals, a faster heartbeat, and changes in breathing in response to sexual stimuli. I propose that the ARists who claim to have changed from homosexuality submit to an experiment in which they are shown sexually explicit images of men and women (separately) while having their bodily reactions monitored. If they are truly confident of their change, and if they truly want to provide "evidence" of this change, they should be happy to participate. Of course, I'm sure they'll have all sorts of reasons for not participating. Either that, or they simply won't respond to my challenge. Marinero 19:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marinero, by all means if you think you can add to having this become a more complete and more accurate article, you're free to edit the article proper. Because AR so staunchly wars against those who say anything they regard as inadequately admiring of AR, doing so may lead to conflict; it's best to have solid documentation before doing so, and read our NPOV manual: we want statements like "X says Y is a cult", not "Y is a cult". Every change you make will be fought tooth and nail by advocates, even when they know what you have written is true. If this doesn't discourage you, by all means, go forth and write. - Outerlimits 11:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Outerlimits. Thank you for showing me the ropes around here:) I shall read the NPOV manual, as you suggest. Marinero 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Outerlimits is suggesting that Marinero's challenge belongs in the article, I'm afraid I have to disagree. A challenge is not encyclopaedic in nature. I think the challenge itself is a wonderful idea, it's just not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I think it can certainly be discussed on this Talk page, and I'll add it to my website as well. Of course, I doubt AR people will respond. I called the Foundation twice to invite them to debate (they pretended to not know who I am, although they put up a whole website to try to debunk me, go figure), and I listed my debate offer on the front page of my website for months, and I challenged APerey et al to a public debate in NYC multiple times via Wikipedia Talk pages. The result? Not one AR person even *acknowledged* that the debate offer was on the table. As always, this offer is still valid, and I'll make a special trip to NYC as soon as AR people decide they're not afraid of a public debate Michaelbluejay 19:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Michael. I didn't interpret Outerlimits's post as saying I should insert my challenge into the article, nor is it my intention to do so. I'm glad you think the challenge itself is a good idea, though. Marinero 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have made my first changes to the article (two changes, one in the first paragraph, one in the second). I changed the following sentence: "From the 1940s its description of the world and of the human self as in an aesthetic relation has affected those who studied it--who credited it with many positive changes in their lives." to: "From the 1940s its description of the world and of the human self as in an aesthetic relation has been studied." Sure, some people who have studied AR have credited it with positive changes in their lives, but not all, as the ARists would have us believe. Since there is no way to know precisely how many people credit AR with positive changes and how many do not, and since the statement, as originally written, is plainly untrue, I have changed it to remove the self-serving, unverifiable claim. I have also changed "The Friends of Aesthetic Realism deny they are a cult, avering that anyone who considers Aesthetic Realism a cult is a deeply flawed individual with a 'fixed sclerotic mind'." to "The Friends of Aesthetic Realism deny they are a cult." If the ARists are going to allow themselves the liberty to state their opinion of their detractors (typically, quoting Eli Siegel, as they seem incapable of having any original thoughts), then the detractors' opinion of the ARists should also be included. Personally, I feel it is best to eliminate any opinion from this paragraph, but it's all or nothing, baby. You can't have it your way alone. Marinero 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it was Outerlimits who had added (or at least edited) the "fixed sclerotic mind" thing. I do find the statement "The Friends of Aesthetic Realism deny they are a cult" to be lacking. I think any reader will *presume* that a group labeled as a cult will deny it. So to me the sentence is wholly unnecessary. If we are to include the denial then it should be more substantive, somehow. Maybe something such as, "Aesthetic Realism supporters say that the charges of cultism come from people who hold an unfair grudge or who are just trying to gain attention and make themselves feel more important." This need not be the exact wording, but you get the idea. I just think we should either remove the denial completely or else add some meaningful detail to it.

My preferred fix for the summary is "Since the 1940s its students have embraced its description of the world and of the human self as in an aesthetic relation. Many of them have credited this study with many positive changes in their lives." This removes the passive voice, and allows the very true claim that many adherents do claim a positive result, even if not all of them do. But I won't make the change myself because I've had a hands-off approach to the article itself for some weeks now because I have an obvious bias and my presence here is controversial. I preferred to let other third parties do the actual editing, to lessen the furor and controversy, though that hasn't worked so well because the two AR proponents here (TS and Aperey) think the other editors are actually me. Ya can't win for losing around here. Let's see how long it takes them to claim that I'm you, as well. Michaelbluejay 20:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let them say what they will, Michael. It really does make them look like the cult members they are. They honestly think that people who have never heard of AR and happen to stumble onto this site will instantly be filled with rage toward those of us who are so "unfair" to Eli Siegel and AR. They will know that ES and AR are so great, that there could only be one detractor, posing as many, writing and answering posts to himself under different identities. Yadda yadda yadda. By the way, the more I read the article, the more I see what an unabashed propaganda piece for AR it is. It is lovingly written, gushing with praise for ES and AR. It does NOT read like the unbiased, just-the-facts account one expects to find in an encyclopedia.

About your comments about my revision: I agree that the sentence ("... deny they are a cult.") is completely unnecessary. I say take it out completely, but I don't want to change everything on my own. I would like to hear some input from others about this. As to your proposed "Since the 1940s its students have embraced...," I would quibble with the implication that all of its students have embraced... Maybe "Since the 1940s many students have embraced... and credit it with positive changes in their lives."

I also made the following changes to the section on homosexuality (the first sentence was already there): "Still, there are others at the present time who contend that these individuals had not in fact changed. It should also be stated that a number of persons who studied Aesthetic Realism in order to change from homosexuality say they did not, in fact, change. Furthermore, a number of persons who said they had changed later decided they had not changed, after all. Among this group were some individuals who had become Aesthetic Realism consultants and taught other persons how to change from homosexuality. As of this writing, there is no way to know how many persons feel they have changed and how many do not." However, on second thought, I will delete the sentence about AR consultants, because I couldn't name names if asked (although I'm pretty sure one of my former consultants fits into this category). Still, unlike the ARists, I'm trying to be as fair as possible here. Ironic, isn't it? Marinero 21:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how's this? Since the 1940s many students of Aesthetic Realism have embraced its description of the world and of the human self as in an aesthetic relation. These students have credited their study with many positive changes in their lives.Marinero 22:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank TS for the time he has spent setting the record straight about Aesthetic Realism on wikipedia, and for criticizing the malign and truth-distorting purposes of Michael Bluejay and his ilk (of course, the question still remains: how many of these persons are there really?)

I especially liked the way he related the mean-spiritedness of Bluejay to that of a biographer of Thomas Jefferson who thought he was so clever and important trying to point out where this very eminent president was not at his best.

By the way, I think anyone who has had to do with this entry on Aesthetic Realism (including the moderators) should take a good look at the article on President Jefferson in wikipedia. As you will clearly see, his large, historical meaning is placed squarely up front in it. Where Jefferson’s ethics have been called into question, including as to his ownership of slaves, and his relations with Sally Hemmings, it is done in a respectful, thoughtful manner (these sections come after lengthy descriptions of the goodness and usefulness of his presidency.) If this entry were written in the manner of “Jefferson might have done some good things, but since there is two sides to every story, we’re going to make sure you know as much dirt about him as possible, even if we have to manufacture some…”, anyone with a modicum of good will would feel there was something terribly wrong with it.

Eli Siegel founded Aesthetic Realism nearly 65 years ago, and thousands of persons have had to do with it in one way or another. One would think if it had had such a bad effect on so many people’s lives, at least a good number of them would have come forth at this point to document the damage inflicted upon them. But as TS has had to point out repeatedly despite Bluejay’s protestations, there are only about a handful of people who are willing to back him up. As a person who has studied Aesthetic Realism for many years and knew Bluejay’s accomplices, I wish I could say that I’m surprised that these people are acting in such a despicable manner. I’m not. --SW

Well, I was using the ">>" to differentiate my posts from others, but it looks like that's not going to work. Anyway, there's quite a difference between writing about Jefferson and writing about AR. Jefferson has been very well known for hundreds of years; the historical verdict is in on Jefferson. We can look back on his presidency and his thought and see how they have contributed to making our country what it is today. In general, people agree that Jefferson's influence on our country has been positive. On the other hand, no matter how much the ARists wish it were otherwise, there is no consensus, no verdict on AR other than among a tiny handful of people. The fact is, the vast majority of people in this country and this world have never heard of ES and AR. There is no proof of the effectiveness of AR; there are only gushing testimonials from believers, who try to pass these off as "scientific." At the same time, there are others who state from their own personal experience with AR that it did not have much of a positive effect at all on them. Why are the ARists afraid for this information to be known? Surely, Jefferson must have had his critics in his day; there must have been a host of editorials railing about this policy or that decision. Only the passage of time has shown that Jefferson's policies did not, in fact, doom the nation. On the contrary, it is generally agreed that he had a strengthening effect. That's why it's appropriate for an article about Jefferson to be shaped by all those things: he EARNED it. His ideas have stood the test of time and the close scrutiny of millions (not "thousands.") Surely Jefferson never tried to muzzle his critics, or to heap personal insults on them because they disagreed with him (and if he did, wouldn't that lessen our opinion of him?). And surely, the fact that he withstood all that criticism and prevailed makes him even greater in our eyes today. The ARists want nothing but glorious praise heaped on AR, just because they say it deserves it. They accuse those of us who have seen things we don't like about AR of making things up, of lying. They ascribe motivations to our actions, instead of respecting the fact that we truly feel as we say we do. Heck, they don't even grant us the respect of recognizing that we are more than just one individual. They think they should have the whole article to themselves. In a grudging bow to reality, they would allow us to have a sentence or two, mildly phrased, somewhere near the end. They grossly inflate their numbers by claiming that "thousands" have "had to do with (AR) in one way or another," while admitting that a person who is handed a copy of their rag TRO on the street and glances at it would qualify as one of the "thousands" (by the way, just how many "thousands" is that? Is it 2,000? 10,000? 500,000? Wasn't Eli Siegel an advocate of precision in language? Why all this dancing around with vague terms like "thousands," "having to do with," and "one way or another"? Do they really think they're fooling anybody with this stuff?). If there is one thing that should be respected about Thomas Jefferson above all others, it is that, thanks to him and others like him, there is such a thing as freedom of speech in this country. This freedom is what allowed Eli Siegel to express his views. It is what allows critics of AR to express their views. If history proves the dissenters wrong, then so be it. Then and only then can the ARists have their gushing article. The ARists have a lot to learn from Thomas Jefferson. Marinero 05:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please use colons (:) at the beginning of your paragraphs to indent them. Each new response is indented more, until the margin is reset. Would users also please sign and date their messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). See wikipedia:talk pages and wikipedia:wikiquette for guidelines on using talk-pages. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to disagree with the only other former AR student who's taking the critical stance around here (I'm assuming Willmcw, Outerlimits, Jonathunder, JamesMLane, and CDThieme weren't students), but I do think there have been over a thousand students of AR. There's currently maybe 120 or so, in its heyday there were several hundred I think, and this group has been around for over six decades with a lot of turnover. So "over a thousand" is certainly plausible. Maybe even 2000. Beyond that I'm a bit skeptical. But probably over half the people who have ever studied have passed away by now, or close to it. The membership itself is aging since kids aren't being born into the group in the numbers they used to be; it was obviously pretty dumb for AR to start discouraging members from having children because now there's not a new generation to carry the torch when the current one passes on. It was clear from the protest I did at their Thursday night seminar a couple of months ago that the group is getting old -- most seemed over 50, maybe even over 60. And a good chunk were even older than that. Arnold Perey is 65. When all these people pass on that will be it. This group is finished in 10-15 years regardless of my efforts, and even if I never put up my website at all. Their weekly seminars and presentations have recently been reduced to mere *monthly* events, probably for the first time in decades. Their numbers are dwindling. (They're welcome to share hard numbers if they want to claim otherwise, but they won't.) They're on their way out, it's almost all over. Michaelbluejay 08:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I'm not sure what it is we disagree on. I would buy your estimate of 2,000, which is still a tiny handful compared to everybody else. Also, note that 2,000 is the absolute minimum required to be able to use the word "thousands." I don't know about you, but when I hear the phrase "thousands of people," I picture a lot more than 2,000. I find their use of the term "thousands" to be quite deliberately misleading. Marinero

Predicting the demise of people one is trying to hurt is in very bad taste

There is no need for me to repeat what I said in the heading of this message.

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 :Michael, I'm not sure what it is we disagree on.  I would buy your estimate of 2,000, which is still a tiny handful compared to everybody else.  Also, note that 2,000 is the absolute minimum required to be able to use the word "thousands." I don't know about you, but when I hear the phrase "thousands of people," I picture a lot more than 2,000.  I find their use of the term "thousands" to be quite deliberately misleading.  [[User:Marinero|Marinero]]
+== Predicting the demise of people one is trying to hurt is in very bad taste ==
+There is no need for me to repeat what I said in the heading of this message.