Talk:Aesthetic Realism

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

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) ________[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I havdly think that even more ridiculous insults will help you.

The list of insults mounts. "Robot" too? Good lord!

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.--66.114.86.135 19:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]