Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

---

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

• Archive 1 (through May 11, 2005)
• Archive 2 (through June 10, 2005)
• Archive 3 (through July 21, 2005)
• Archive 4 (through August 21, 2005)

(The page you're reading now is Archive No. 5.)

Psychology Today Omnibook of Personal Development

I just checked back into this discussion after a long while and I see that willmcw asked me some days ago what the Psychology Today Omnibook of Personal Development does say about Aesthetic Realism. Sorry for the delay. I really haven't been following this all that closely and perhaps should not have been so neglectful after my previous posting. Anyway, it states the following:

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel in 1941. He published a definitive text on his approach to reality in 1946, "The Aesthetic Method in Self-Conflict", which was later combined into one volume with his "Psychiatry, Economics, Aesthetics" (1946). Siegel is also a recognized American poet; his "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana: Poems" (1958) was nominated for the National Book Award. Since its founding, Aesthetic Realism has attracted the attention of thousands of people, mainly because of the work of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City, an independent, educational, nonprofit organization...Siegel explains that the purpose of Aesthetic Realism is to "encourage people to see the world all through their lives in the best way they can." It teaches that liking the world is the junction of two opposites: necessity and self-expression." The education offered addresses itself to issues which are essential to liking the world, and seeing yourself and the world as one. Aesthetic Realism education considers subjects such as economics, power, drugs, gambling, sex, alcoholism, crime, etc.

There are many other things in the article too. It goes from page 31 to page 35. It discusses the "basic tenent of Aesthetic Realism" being the "aesthetic union of opposites." There is a long paragraph on contempt as "the prime motivator of fear, anger, and phobias." It discusses Siegel's view of the failures "personified in the work of certain men, Sigmund Freud and T.S. Eliot, among others." It describes an early work by Siegel on imagination and how he saw that subject in two long paragraphs. It talks about how Aesthetic Realism understands the concept of "liking the world." It touches upon the idea of the oneness of opposites and describes "the process of Aestheic Realism" as taking "the form of seminars, or group consultations, all sponsored by the AR Foundation" and what those things consist of. It ends by talking about how "the arts function as a major part of the education in Aesthetic Realism" and details publications of Definition Press, including "Thirteen Is a Good Age to Think About God: A Look at a Real Bar Mitzvah Now: An Aesthetic Realism Lesson of Eli Siegel with the Sobel Family." (1967).

Hope this helps. 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 and I still think the lack of focus on homosexuality in regard to Aesthetic Realism in such a major text (it was one of my college textbooks, which is how I happen to have it) does help to enlighten the current discussion. But that is for those working on the article here to decide. And thanks to Digital Scribe for sharing his own personal journey! I've never read anything quite like that. It was very interesting and a decidedly new perspective. [Roger S August 24, 2005]

Thanks for including that information. I know how tedious it is to type passages from books. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that there is any information there which isn't already represented in the article. Still it helps to confirm some points. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's rather surprising that the "Psychology Today Omnibook of Personal Development" should be used as a college textbook, though of course colleges offer courses in all sorts of things. It's also surprising that it would be considered a "major text" by anyone. The book, written by Katinka Matson, not a psychologist nor a psychiatrist nor a philosopher, but an artist who now specializes in the use of the "CCD flatbed scanner", is characterized at [1] as a "noxious little bestiary, compiled for Psychology Today magazine," covering "every technique from acupuncture to the I Ching, from est to zone therapy." While her scans of flowers are actually quite nice, I don't think we should rely particularly on her assessment of what's important about Aesthetic Realism, especially in light of the AR statements that the blitz of media coverage of their "change from homosexuality" campaign was the most attention they had ever received from the press up to that time. I also suspect that she simply adapted AR's press releases and publicity statements rather than actually researched it...for example, parroting the 1958 nomination for a National Book Award (as if that implied importance, and not mentioning that Siegel lost the award to Promises: Poems, 1954–1956 by Robert Penn Warren - a far more important literary figure. - Outerlimits 17:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're probably right about just using a press release, or similar material, uncritically. It appears to be a re-iteration of standard AR literature. -Willmcw 21:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

No, Outerlimits is wrong. He has contradicted himself. For the previous writer, Roger S, makes the point that there is no mention of the change from homosexuality in the Matson book. Therefore there was no "publicity blitz." The "publicity blitz" is a lie. If Aesthetic Realism were pushing the change in publicity materials, and Matson "simply adapted AR's press releases and publicity statements" then the change from homosexuality would be in the Matson book.

I am concerned about the way Outerlimits twists the truth. To reiterate again and again a misrepresentation does not make it true. What evidence at all does he have for any "blitz of media coverage of their "change from homosexuality" campaign"? What newspaper printed ANYTHING about it? Gentlemen and Ladies, we have a person impervious to truth in Outerlimits. --Aperey 15:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have confused "truth" with "what AR says about AR". And you probably should stop your "ad hominem" argumentation. Wikipedia's policy is that personal attacks are not appropriate. - Outerlimits 23:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Implementing revert suggested by Willmcw. Removing POV notice.

Implementing the following suggestion by Willmcw, I revert the section on homosexuality--which is the "text argued over"--to "the version that we agreed upon prior to the page being unprotected":

"I suggest we revert back to the version that we agreed upon prior to the page being unprotected. This continual arguing over the same text doens't move this article forward. -Willmcw 20:51, August 2, 2005 (UTC)"

In fact Outerlimits has been posting, little by little, much that is untrue. Curiously only JT or I have challenged the unsupported assertions of this blatant advocate against Aesthetic Realism--and his imperviousness to facts. Now, another observer has noticed Outerlimits may be incorrect in something he writes. This new observer comments that there is evidence against what Outerlimits has presented (untruthfully) as a 1970s "media blitz" on the part of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation on the subject of homosexuality. So this person has been unjustly poo-pooed on the Talk page. Meanwhile, he obviously has a point and cites a contemporary text as evidence (1977).

Since this editing war is impeding the completion of a FAIR article, we should cool it down and call upon more objective individuals for help.

Meanwhile, nobody who initially put up the POV notice remains among the editors, so I think we can remove it. While the article is not entirely objective I think it's good enough, as long as the revert on homosexuality is retained, to be called pretty much NPOV.

I shall be emailing this Talk page post to administrators in Wikipedia to alert them to the unusual situation we are in the midst of. --Aperey 15:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That "suggestion" is about a month old. That boat sailed a long time ago, when you started playing with it. Much as you would like it, a version of the article that contrives to omit AR's central teaching on homosexuality, and that omits Eli Siegel's own summary of that teaching—that homosexuality is based in contempt for the world, which turns into contempt of women—is unacceptable. - Outerlimits 23:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I deviate from the accepted way of doing things. For instance, is it too late to join in this discussion? At any rate, as a former "student" of Aesthetic Realism, I would like to contribute my views. Aperey states that there was no "media blitz" regarding the (supposed) change from homosexuality. I beg to differ. Well, the media blitz to which I am referring took place in the 80's, so maybe Aperey is being disingenuous by denying that there was one in the 70's. I don't know if there was one in the 70's or not, but there certainly was one in the 80's, when a group of men appeared on the David Susskind Show to trumpet their change from homosexuality. I believe one of the men was the actor William Atherton, who had made a name for himself on Broadway and later appeared in a series of minor roles in Hollywood films, usually as a bad guy. Atherton either appeared on the show or was mentioned a lot, the ARists wishing to latch on to his "fame" to promote their cause. It is worth mentioning that Atherton's public association with AR ended shortly thereafter without explanation. Had it not been for the Susskind show, I would never have heard of AR, as I lived quite far from New York. This is how they reeled me in; later, when they decided to discontinue the change from homosexuality thing, they dumped me, as they did so many others. I had "consultations" for 4 or 5 years, and my sexuality never changed one whit (I'm bisexual; was then, am now). So, for 4 or 5 years, it was "OK" that I hadn't changed, then, suddenly, it was not "OK." But, alas, I digress. Getting back to my main point, I would say that going on national television and using "celebrity" endorsements qualifies as a "media blitz." It may not have been a very successful media blitz, but to say that there never was one is simply not true. Marinero 18:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Giving the other side a (tiny) voice

I object to any version that does not mention in the very first paragraph that many former members consider the group that promotes AR's study to be a cult. (And yes, I know that AR thinks there is no such thing as a "member", but their critics would disagree, and AR doesn't get to decide other people's opinions for them.)

So I just added the cult allegation back as the final sentence of the first paragraph. I know that Arnold Perey or another AR apologist will censor that out of the article again, as they've done so many times in the past, since they're apparently afraid of anyone seeing any dissenting opinion. But maybe I'm wrong -- we'll certainly see how committed they are to giving their opposition a tiny space to cite its criticism. Place your bets.

Speaking of being afraid of dissenting opinion, Arnold Perey, that was an incredibly cheap shot you took at me on the Eli Siegel talk page when you said, "Apparently Michael Bluejay is afraid to debate." I don't know what you're smoking but *I'M* the one who made the debate offer months ago, though not a single ARist (including you) even bothered to acknowledge it. My offer has been standing since I made it, and this has been continuously and publicly stated on my website. Any time you or any of the other ARists want to debate publicly I will *gladly* make a trip to NYC to do so. Michaelbluejay 05:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I sympathize with your desire to be heard. It is a general practice in Wikipedia, to first state the plain facts about a subject, and then usually is a second paragraph, mention the controvery about them, if any. At the risk of breaking Godwin's Law, and without intending any direct comparisons, see Adolf Hitler. The negatives about him are left out of the initial description and covered in the subsequent) paragraphs. I suggest the first paragraph of this article, which is getting rather long, be divided and the mention of controversies moved to the second one. -Willmcw 07:12, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I knew Mike Godwin, back in the day. Okay, I'm fine with a second-paragraph mention. I split up the opening paragraph into two, as you suggested. The controversy is mentioned at the very end of the second paragraph. Michaelbluejay 08:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Since many individuals say it is a lie to call this philosophy a cult, they should also be mentioned in the 2nd paragraph. This would be in keeping with Willmcw's note that "the mention of controversies" is in the second paragraph. I suggest this simple revision:

On the other hand, several former members contend that the group that promotes its study is a cult. Meanwhile, other former students—and persons studying Aesthetic Realism today—say this is a misrepresentation.

In keeping with our current practice, I shall add it to paragraph 2 now.

I have an idea that Mr. Blujay or someone else will want to delete this revision and perhaps will find a "good" reason. --Aperey 15:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding a few more references re: the Siegel Theory of Opposites & Terrain Gallery

Important in the history of art criticism in America is the founding of the Terrain Gallery and the subsequent use of the Siegel Theory of Opposites in diverse media including photography--which continues today. So I added a few references. --Aperey 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutering criticism

APerey wrote: "I have an idea that Mr. Blujay or someone else will want to delete this revision and perhaps will find a 'good' reason."

I won't remove it but it's silly to have it there, because it's obviously redundant. Any reader already PRESUPPOSES that AR supporters disagree that it's a cult. DUH.

I knew that when I added a single, simple sentence, APerey would be right there to try to counter it. He's got the majority of this huge, huge article, but I add one sentence and he's got to claim part of that, too. Whatever. You insist on stating the obvious, be my guest.

APerey, I also notice that you continue to ignore my debate invitation even though you said that I'm afraid to debate. Which one of us is afraid again? I'm ready for a live public debate when you are. Bring it on. Michaelbluejay 17:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A few additional references.

I have added a few more authoritative references about Aesthetic Realism and photography. The Siegel Theory of Opposites first gained prominence in American photography in the 1960s. The editor of Infinity, Ralph Hattersley, wrote about it lovingly. The photographer and teacher Lou Bernstein (whose work appeared in The Family of Man) wrote brilliant columns based on it for Camera 35. The Konica Handbook by Nat Herz was based on Aesthetic Realism principles. And there were others with the intelligence to see the value of this approach to photography, the skill to use it to enhance their work, and the ethics to be happy that they did.

You suggested, Willmcw, that a few sentences be added in the Philosophy section to represent, briefly, something that had been left out: the Aesthetic Realism understanding of social and economic injustice. I am working on them now. They should be posted very soon.--Aperey 22:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[Factored out personal attacks]

Hey everybody, please do not use language like "bamboozled by the...fakery" or "MAKING UP STUPID SHIT". Both of them are personal attacks. I am removing both comments as inappropriate and unhelpful to the writing of this article. -Willmcw 18:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Cult allegation

I again request that the inflammatory sentence added to the beginning of this article be removed. That would be extremely helpful in the writing of this article. I won't object to the section about accusations that exists later on since we all know that every organization, including churches, synagogues and 4-H clubs, can have people with axes to grind who badmouth them for personal reasons. I also suggest that if we are going to say in this article that a "lot" or "many" or a "significant number" or "a critical mass" or even "several" or "some" people who once studied Aesthetic Realism are now publically claiming that it is a cult--the credibility of which charge is supported by giving this ridiculous accusation such prominence in the entry--that the statement be carefully documented. It tars and feathers too many people and creates a gross misimpression. It is also unfair to every person who now studies Aesthetic Realism or has studied it in the past, and to the legacy of a person whom many people consider to be a great philosopher. If there are so many people leveling this charge that it merits such prominence in Wikipedia, it should be rather easy to come up with two dozen or so specific names that are not "anonymous" out of the thousands of people like myself who have studied Aesthetic Realism in the past and benefitted from it. Even twenty-four out of several thousand is a rather small number. There certainly are many people who once studied Aesthetic Realism and are saying exactly the opposite. Since they have said so publically and with their own names attached and live all over the country, we can include their names and links to their public statements in the article if need be! It is my contention that this supposed "controversy" is really a dust storm manufactured by a handful of individuals for reasons that have absolutely nothing at all to do with Aesthetic Realism itself. The burden of proof is on the individual making this charge to introduce us to the countless hordes of people he simply "wills" into existence that share his bias against Aesthetic Realism. This is essentially a one man crusade with a few febble voices (my guess is 6-8 if he's lucky and maybe not even that many) nudging him on. Let him prove me wrong. [--TS 3 September 2005]

I read the Bluejay material and the cult accusation is not credible. One anonymous source after another. Extravagant claims that contradict one another. A bad business. It's bad form for Bluejay to make a link to his own web site. That's a fact too. There's enough of this cult business farther down the article. We all know how the administration lied about WMDs in Iraq--there were none. I guess Bluejay got the nerve to lie about a nonexistent cult from the same place they got their nerve. Cut out the lying sentence. He's got no credible sources and an incredible lot of nerve.

Please sign and date your talk page contributions. Please do not accuse fellow editors of "lying". Thanks, -Willmcw 23:19, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

>>NO, unsigned poster, we do not all "know" that the administration "lied" about WMDs in Iraq. Only left-wing extremists "know" this. I don't think this is the proper forum for you to inject your political views, but since you have chosen to do so, I cannot let your ridiculous statement go unchallenged. The fact is that the intelligence organizations of several countries believed there were, indeed, WMDs in Iraq. It is also a fact that the Iraqis stalled for years and did everything they could to impede the UN inspectors. So, there may well have been WMDs in Iraq for most of that time. It is also a fact that Iraq is the size of California, with huge stretches of desolate, uninhabitable land. I would say it would be possible for a government to construct some kind of underground hiding place and store their WMDs there, and they might remain hidden for years. So, we may have lies from the former (thank God, way to go, Bush!) Iraqi government, or a failure by the intelligence organizations of several nations. But you and your AR cohorts prefer to see every Republican as a caricature/character straight out of an Oliver Stone movie. You think it's perfectly OK to exaggerate, spout histerical hyperbole and have nothing but contempt for persons who do not share your political (ahem, I mean ethical) views, because Siegel (and Reiss) said you should. But then, we all know that you are spoon-fed your opinions about everything. That's what cults do. So, come on, tell us again how AR is not a left-wing organization. The more you deny it, while making statements like the one above, the more people will see who's really telling the truth about AR here. Marinero 09:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it amusing that so many of these AR people who are protesting so vehemently about the fact that most contributors to my site choose to be anonymous, are in fact anonymous themselves. These AR people censor this article with just an IP address and no username, and they complain about anonymous attacks, ANONYMOUSLY.

Of course, I respect anyone's desire to be anonymous if they wish. But it's kind of silly to choose to be anonymous and then complain about others' anonymity.

By the way, I'm not lying when I say that AR is a cult, because I *truly believe* that it is (as do most of the contributors to my website). Is that really so hard to fathom? Michaelbluejay 03:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

There was once a man who *truly believed* that a skeleton came to sit in a chair across from him every evening. Sir Walter Scott wrote about this man in an interesting book called Notes on Demonology and Witchcraft. The skeleton was an hallucination. Meanwhile, I do not believe Bluejay to be delusional but merely a conscious and persistent creator of fictions. What makes these fictions not Tolstoy but harmful junk and bad writing is that they are used to smear people who are authentically kind and whose interest in humanity cannot be attacked in any other way but lying about them. --Aperey 21:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The story linked to here quotes Steve Hassan in support of the opinion that Aesthetic Realism is a cult. It's misleading to make it seem as if the argument comes only from Michael Bluejay and a few friends of his. JamesMLane 07:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Steve Hassan is a bad source. This is what Professor Jeffrey Hadden of the University of Virginia said about him and his web site:

Hassan is a former member of the Unification Church who has turned apostasy into a profession. Hassan is devoted to saving the world from "destructive cults" and "abusive mind controllers." His entrepreneurial tendencies are baldly evident on his home page. He has recently created the Resource Center for Freedom of Mind to further his cause. The Center for the Freedom of Mind provides information about "mind control" in cults based on Hassan's own writings.It rejects deprogramming in favor of exit counseling and provides links exclusively to anti-cult sites. Claims of 3,000 destructive cults in the U.S. are terribly exaggerated. His books include Combatting Mind Control.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/links.htm

Has anyone taken into account what the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association said about the people in his movement? Debunking them? Saying they aren't scientific? ("the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur") You can Google to find this information.--RR 123 14:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The Steve Hassan web site is simply a posting of this worn-out charge from one of those small group of people I've referred to--Adam Mali. His mother has been busy trying to spread this filth for a long time (well over a decade) with very little success until "He of Many Names" stepped up to become her webmaster on the bold new frontier of the internet, where proof is an inconvenience but, thankfully, not a necessity. She has been on a vindictive tear ever since she wasn't allowed to run Aesthetic Realism as her private kingdom. Responsible journalists have avoided her like the plague. Meanwhile, she hooked up with this Hassan (a supposed "cult" expert who makes a pretty good living at it and is very willing to label anything as a cult). He lists his criterion for what constitutes a cult. Then people tell him: "That's exactly what such and such is!" (Even if it isn't!) And then he tells them; "Oh, then it's a cult!" (He has another posting on his web site claiming that Alcoholics Anonymous is a cult.) So Hassan is not making this argument at all--Bluejay's friend Mali is making it using Hassan and his web site. Then The Jewish Times article picks it up, quoting the same small circle of people who alone are making this accusation and who, of course, refer him to Hassan. What we have here is known in journalist circles as "circular sourcing." I get my friends to repeat the same charges in various venues and that makes them look credible. Nobody outside the world of tabloid journalism has given them any credence. It would be a real coup d'état to have Wikipedia present them as legitimate! I again repeat: there is no independent source anywhere making this charge. The charge IS coming from Michael Bluejay and a few of his friends. Do you think I'm wrong? All you have to do is prove me wrong. Beyond the Bluejay few, where are the names of the people who in the past had to do with Aesthetic Realism and are now saying it is a cult? Thousands have studied Aeshtetic Realism. Where's the outrage? Where are all the alarmed voices raising the red flag? I don't see any yet. [--TS 7 September 2005]

"It would be a real coup d'état to have Wikipedia present [the cult charges] as legitimate!" I don't care whether it would be a coup, I don't care whether Hassan was influenced by what Mali or Bluejay or anyone else told him, and I don't care whether AR is a cult. For purposes of this article, two things are clear: (1) The allegations that AR is a cult are notable and should be reported. (2) The allegations that AR is a cult are disputed and should not be presented as "legitimate" (if that means "true"). If my "I don't care...." statements shock or upset you, then you should (re)read WP:NPOV. The longtime editors are coming to the article from the perspective of that policy, not from the perspective of "fairness" to AR or even of generalized "decency". I think that's the cause of much of the endless bickering over this article. People whose primary focus is AR, rather than Wikipedia editing, don't really understand how the rest of us apply the NPOV policy. JamesMLane 05:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

lie/members

Some unregistered editor removed the quoted word "lie" and replaced it with the much more interesting "as deep-dyed a falsehood as we have seen anywhere." When and where has this been said? What's the source for it? On the other hand, the word "lie" is repeated numerous times on the home page of "Friends of Aesthetic Realism—Countering the Lies". Also, some people who were once involved with AR say that they think that they were members of a cult. Whether they are right or wrong is considered at length later in the article and on the various websites already linked-to. Also, it would help if editors would all please register for a username. It is difficult to communicate with unregistered users, or even to know which editor one is addressing. -Willmcw 07:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The "deep-dyed" quote is in the very first paragraph on CounteringTheLies.com. You may already know this, but you can use Google to search within a site by using the "site:" prefix. So, for example, "site:counteringthelies.com deep-dyed" returns only the pages on that particular site that have that particular phrase.

Yeah, AR supporters have been making anonymous edits to complain about anonymity! Oh, the irony. Don't hold your breath waiting for them to be up front about who they are (but do expect them to continue to complain about others being anonymous). Michaelbluejay 14:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I notice "He of Many Names," "He of the Smoke and Mirrors," is still not providing any concrete names to back up his charges that Aesthetic Realism is a cult. Thought so. He can't. Does he want names of former students who say Aesthetic Realism is NOT a cult? There are many and they can be verified. I'd be happy to give them. And what a cute trick to put the word lies in quotation marks. This sentence is unacceptable AND totally unproven and undocumented. It should therefore be removed posthaste. [TS 9 September 2005]

TS, I've told you before, STOP ACCUSING ME OF USING MULTIPLE NAMES. As for my supposedly not supplying the names of former members, Jesus, how many do you need? I'm sure it will always be one more than whatever number I provide. They're amply documented on my website. But more importantly, about your charge that I use multiple names, STOP LYING ABOUT ME. Michaelbluejay 16:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I stand by what I've written. Dear Sir, your "ample documentation" includes no actual names, just anonymous "sources" that could have been composed by the same person--an unknowing skeptic might say maybe even you. Therefore nothing at all can be documented (outside of the same pathetic 6-8 people) about this supposedly huge anti-Aesthetic Realism movement you claim exists. How many names would satisfy me, you ask? Well, how many names out of thousands of people would consitute a legitimate "movement" in your opinion? What would an objective historian say? I've been very modest. I said I'd settle for a mere two dozen beyond the usual culprits (Mali, her son and a few of their friends). That shouldn't be hard at all for a person like you, who has been working at this for months now, to provide--if there are indeed all these damaged people around whose lives have been destroyed by Aesthetic Realism.

And, by the way, I come not to criticize you but to praise you. What a selfless friend to humanity you are in dedicating so much of your time to exposing this horrible blight upon the planet--these absolutely hidious people who are bilking folks out of their fortunes, manipulating their lives, severing their family ties, and scrubbing their brains so they can't think for themselves any more. Other people find their calling in life helping hurricane victims, or funding AIDS research, or becoming big brothers. But you have found a truly noble calling that makes any of these pale in comparison. You are indeed a noble man and it is very impolite of me to question you. Only, where's the beef? Please enlighten me so I can see the error of my ways.

I haven't studied Aesthetic Realism in years now so maybe all this terrible stuff happened after I left, but I seriously doubt it. And my life in the years since I've left has hardly been damaged. I look back on my time studying Aesthetic Realism as some of the most valuable years of my life. I'm grateful for them, even as I've moved on. And I still derive benefit from what I learned, even now. By the way, how come your web site claims that all of us former students (or "ex-members" as you dub us, though I never remember "joining" anything), see things your way? I guess if you acknowledge that we exist it would blow a hole in your thesis. Calling people names ("apologist" etc.) is the last resort of a person who doesn't have the facts to back him up. Anyway, Wikipedia is not a gossip mill. It does not exist to advance personal vendettas. Everything in the articles here should be carefully and meticulously sourced. As a wise old Chinese philosopher once said: "It's time to put up or shut up." The last sentences in paragraph two are unacceptable by any standards of decency and objective confirmation--and the way they have lately been changed make them even worse. [--TS 7 September 2005]

"Decency" is not a value that Wikipedia tries to uphold. We are here to summarize, in an NPOV manner, verifiable sources. It is clearly true that some people call ARF a "cult". Friends of AR have gone to the trouble of creating a special website just to rebut the claim, so the claim is clearly notable. -Willmcw 21:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you don't uphold that value you should recuse yourself.--151.205.108.170 14:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The Friends have made a website (and I'm one of them) not because of a "notable" claim. What they're doing is like spilling ink on a Shakespeare folio--you want to do what you can to clean it up and get it out because the folio is precious, not because they have any validity. Friends of Aesthetic Realism want to clean up the dirt being spread by these liars. As everyone knows, the web is a permanent dirt-collecting place, and cybersmears remain visible for a long time. I personally do not want people turned away from a source of valuable knowledge and true kindness. The "cult" accusers do. They are not motivated by truth or altruism but guilt and revenge. I'm sure hearing a kind philosophy angrily called a cult cannot be encouraging, except to a discerning few who will realize such anger is like the cat-calling that abolitionists received back in slavery days. History will show this is true. --Aperey 19:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

TS wrote "Dear Sir, your 'ample documentation' includes no actual names, just anonymous 'sources'...." Jesus, you want me to read the website to you? I'm sorry you couldn't find any names on it besides my own. In any event, until you START SIGNING YOUR OWN NAME your cries about anonymity or pretty silly. Michaelbluejay 22:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

In any case, it's a lie to pretend that the only people who have called AR a cult are "former students". I'll add the New York Post reference to the article. - Outerlimits 06:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The Post is a right-wing tabloid. An insult from the Post is like a drop of dew from a flying pigeon. It's to be expected.

>>On the "Countering the Lies" website, I am attacked and called a liar for daring to suggest that the ARists are left wing extremists. Their hypocritical claim is that "Aesthetic Realism is not about politics, but ethics." Yet not once while I was "studying" Aesthetic Realism did I read a single word of criticism of the unethical shooting down of a Korean airliner by the Soviets, the unethical "ethnic cleansing" of Milosevic or the unethical massacre by the Chinese government in Tien An Min Square, all events which took place during my "study." On the other hand, their rag TRO was rife with venom against anything even vaguely associated with the Republican Party, not to mention practically every action of any Republican President. Once, during a "consultation," I happened to mention that my mother once had a somewhat left wing point of view. One of my "consultants" instantly chimed in "I like your mother already." I didn't say "left ethics," I said "left wing." And I was met with sympathy, for once. And look at the post above. The mindset is clearly that to call something "right wing" is the worst insult that could possibly be leveled against it. Furthermore, the writer assumes that everyone reading his or her words has a left wing (excuse me, left ethics) perspective and will instantly agree with what they have written. I say, if you want to be truly ethical, be critical of injustice, wherever it comes from. When it comes to injustice, the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge both have a lot to answer for. If you're too blind to see that, then at least be honest and admit your views. Quit dancing around the issue with this "ethics" garbage. You can't have politics without ethics anyway, so just admit that AR ALWAYS think the left is more ethical than the right. AR is left wing because Eli Siegel was left wing. If you don't admit this, then you're not being ethical.Marinero 01:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

TS, I note with interest your phrase "how many names out of thousands of people". I assume the "thousands of people" refers to those who have studied Aesthetic Realism. Is there a basis for this figure? Is there information about the number of people who are currently students and/or consultants and/or supporters and/or adherents and/or whatever neutral term you might prefer? (I ask it this way because, if I recall correctly, my past use of the term "adherents" was criticized as being unfair to AR, though I intended it neutrally.) Many readers would be interested in any reliable information we could provide about the extent of participation in AR study. JamesMLane 16:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It is perfectly obvious that Aesthetic Realism is not a cult. It's also perfectly obvious that a few people--always the same ones with a occasional new additions--are on a vendetta to lie about it. This is not new. Meanwhile thousands of people have studied Aesthetic Realism, whether studying Aesthetic Realism: We Have Been There in a university course, or Eli Siegel's The Ordinary Doom in a popular prose anthology used by teachers some years ago, or reading The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known online, or reading articles in their local papers--and they have strong opinions about its value and beauty. Some of them undoubtedly have been posting comments in Wikipedia, outraged at the injustice being perpetrated; yes, the lies. Only Wikipedia editors seem unable to see this or do anything about it. The NY Post is a known right wing rag. To be insulted in it is like getting a badge of honor. I am proud of the insults flung at me in Wikipedia. I'm proud of what I represent. --Aperey 19:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

>>And TRO is a left wing rag. Thank you for confirming my point, Aperey. By the way, I am equally proud of the insults flung at me on your cult website. Marinero 01:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

To Willmcw: Yes, a handful of people do call Aesthetic Realism a cult and that is dealt with in its own section in the article. To highlight it further at the beginning of the article is overkill. It gives this totally unsubstantiated charge a credibility it just doesn’t merit.

>>Pardon me for butting in, but what do you have to offer to give "credibility" to AR, other than your own brainwashed opinion(s)? Marinero 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It’s a little bit like highlighting at the beginning of an article on Abraham Lincoln that he had a penchant for wearing tall hats—and then, in about paragraph 17, mentioning that, by the way, he also signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Someone objects and is told: "Well, it is a fact that he wore tall hats." The way, at certain key points, this article includes and excludes, highlights some facts and diminishes others, and the choice it makes as to how words are used, reveals a disturbing bias that is anything but NPOV. Also, since Aesthetic Realism has no “members” it is clearly POV to so casually use that word as if it were such.

>>I know, it would be great for you if we all just took your word for everything; only problem is, we don't. Some of us gave AR the "critical workout" Eli Siegel asked for, and it is our HONEST opinion that AR is a cult. Many of us also share the opinion that a group of people who write and speak in EXACTLY the same way, as if it were one person speaking, who spend every moment of their lives (even during sex) obsessed with some guy's teachings, no matter how nifty, and who contribute money and attempt to intimidate others (like me) into contributing money to The Cause, might reasonably be called "members" of a cult.Marinero 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, the New York Post article that was added to the links list is a second link to the Michael Bluejay web site. I thought we were only allowed ONE link to each web site as a matter of policy? If not, then I will add back in others to the Friends of Aesthetic Realism site that respond to the Jewish Times and Post.

To He of Many Names: The question isn’t anonymity; the question is documentation for a pretty serious charge. If there are all these people who call Aesthetic Realism a cult, where are they? Who are they? I notice you can’t even provide ONE name here let alone two-dozen. I invite you for what is now the third time to please do so in order that we may take you seriously. Why, any objective observer would have to wonder, are you so reluctant to provide the documentation for your charges? Could it be because it doesn’t exist? It does seem to me you are doing some fancy footwork about this matter.

To the person writing as “James M Lane”: The Omnibook of Personal Development, to name but just one source, speaks about the “thousands” of people who have studied Aesthetic Realism. I don’t think that number is very much in dispute.

To the person writing as “Outerlimits”: The New York Post article does not show at all that “it’s a lie…that the only people who have called Aesthetic Realism a cult are former students.” The article, in fact, supports that contention. It quotes the SAME two former students who have been quoted before bashing Aesthetic Realism (both of whom are very close personal friends of Ellen Mali), Heide Krakauer and Ann Stamler. It also quotes Ellen Mali's son Adam and her two hand-picked and coached "cult experts" whom she steered the Post reporter toward. Indeed, it was those same former students who contacted the Post and provided the material so that this artice could be written--something the Post was only too happy to do without asking too many questions (since it was in the process at the time of trying to have the New York City schools privatized by showing how inept the Board of Education was). It should also be noted that NOTHING came of the New York Post article. This was a one day story and then it vanished, in spite of the all the Post's attempts to keep fuelling the fire. The respected and highly successful teachers (see their students' test results year by year) the Post tried to ruin continued their distinguished careers with the full support of the New York City Board of Education. I think the results (or should I say the non-results) of that article speak eloquently about how seriously it should to be taken. And by the way, The Post also printed a letter by a former student of Aesthetic Realism, Shiela Fineman of Queens, New York, in response to that piece of sordid tabloid journalism on February 9, 1998. Her letter, under the headline “Aesthetic Realism is No ‘Cult’” read as follows:

The Post article does indeed quote non-ARians who call AR a cult. I don't know why you think willful misrepresentation helps your case. It only undercuts whatever faith one might otherwise have in what you say. - Outerlimits 21:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I am writing in response to the article on Aesthetic Realism. As a person who used to study Aesthetic Realism, I am firmly in opposition to referring to the Aesthetic Realism teachings as those of a cult. Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel and based on specific principles that define humanity. It is a philosophy that one chooses to study, and you do not become a so-called “member.” Also, you can choose to believe what you want and test the philosophy to see if it is true for your life.

Although I have studied the philosophy only limitedly, I still believe the basic principles to be true and useful in everyone’s life. No one is forcing me to say or write this. In fact, I am not in contact with any students of Aesthetic Realism at all-but I certainly feel the need to point out that the term “cult" is very much inappropriate.

(New York Post, Monday, February 8, 1998, pg.26)

There were NO letters printed in the Post from former students of Aesthetic Realism agreeing that Aesthetic Realism was a cult. Another significant fact.

And now, let us wait for Michael Bluejay to share with us at long last his impressive and lengthy list of people who call Aesthetic Realism a cult. I'm glad I haven't been holding my breath. I would have passed out by now. [--TS 8 September 2005]

TS, I don't know why you address me as "the person writing as "James M Lane'". Most Wikipedians establish an account and register a user name. The custom in this community is to refer to editors by their user names (or a shortened form of a long name). It's not a rule, but it does seem to make for more congenial discussions. You don't need to use a phrase like "the person writing as" in referring to a user name; that's understood. As for the substance of my comment, I wasn't addressing what was or was not "disputed". I'm just trying to give the readers better information. It's rather vague to say that "thousands" of people (how many?) have "studied" it (what level of application? does reading one issue of the newsletter count?) over some unspecified period of time. Is there, for example, any information as to the number of people currently taking classes at the Foundation? JamesMLane 07:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

>>I agree that it would be useful to know how many people are currently studying AR. If AR is a lifelong study, as the ARists claim, and it is so beloved by so many thousands, then it is logical to deduce that there are thousands of people currently studying AR. If not, then why not? Why would all these people stop studying the greatest knowledge in the history of mankind? Did they learn all there was to learn? If not, then isn't their turning away from AR contemptuous of Eli Siegel and AR, to use the Arists' much beloved AR speak? Could it be that all these thousands of ex-students are now dead? If so, then AR would seem to have fallen on hard times as far as attracting new students; why would that be? Or do the ARists mean that anybody who has ever read the words "Aesthetic Realism" in a college class or a kindergarten class or wherever, is a "student" of AR? How many of these thousands saw enough value in what they learned to pursue a rigorous course of study in AR? Marinero 01:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

People all over the world have studied Aesthetic Realism in books and periodicals, in colleges and schools, using loved texts their professors once assigned. Some are following all this junk in Wikipedia with horror. --151.205.108.170 14:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

>>Oh, so it's OK to study AR on your own? So it's not a lifelong study, after all; a quick perusal of a journal or book, or maybe a class will do? That's quite a statement, to call everybody a student of AR who has ever looked at the AR rag TRO or had AR shoved down their throats in a high school art class because their teacher was more interested in teaching AR than art. Which begs the question: how many of these thousands of people are willingly signing up to study AR classes labeled as such, and how many are being force-fed AR when they signed up to study art or music or whatever? Marinero 01:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

An opening is general. These removed sentences are opportunistically specific.

I have removed these lines because they are ridiculously specific, and transparently geared to prejudice the reader toward seeing Aesthetic Realism as "one of those things" that claim too much and can't be serious. That, of course, is exactly what the people who wrote it intended. I say remove the junk, let the truth about Aesthetic Realism stand. I know some people are afraid of it and will start jeering immediately.

But think of this article as an ethical academy in 100 years will see it. Do we really want to be seen as falsifying, in public, a great philosophy?

I cut the following:

--including improved marriages, ending excessive drinking, better parenting, and resolving personal difficulties such as eating disorders and stuttering. In the 1970s and 1980s Aesthetic Realism was known for descriptions—written by men and women who studied it—of changing from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Some former students and others contend that the Aesthetic Realism Foundation is a cult. Other former students, current students, and scholars disagree. This is a lie, "as deep-dyed a falsehood as we have seen anywhere".--Aperey 21:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Stop lying about me

TS, your demand for named sources has been addressed repeatedly, here and on my site. Your failure to understand or accept the answers is not my fault. And since you address me once again as "To He of Many Names", I tell you again, STOP LYING ABOUT ME. I write under my own name, period, no one else's. If you can't understand that, fine, but keep your inability to understand to yourself. I'm not going to respond to anything else you say until you stop that nonsense. And I'm definitely not going to respond to your complaints about anonymity as long as you hypocritically continue to remain anonymous yourself. Michaelbluejay 03:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

We have seen name-calling, indignation, obscurantism and now, it seems, we are to feast on silence--but apparently there aren't even a meager twenty-four names that can be provided to back up a certain slanderous web site with at least a modicum of fact. I have met anonymous #1, anonymous #2, anonymous #3 and so forth on that trashy web site. It is all bun and no beef. It would make any tabloid journalist the world over proud. But let the truly disinterested reader who is willing to be guided by documented facts and those alone be adequately warned. And if those readers want actual names of former students of Aesthetic Realism who will tell the truth about it--they abound. Besides Shiela Fineman quoted above, there are, to name only a few, Mark Lale, Henry D'Amico, Jerry Amello, Marvin Mondlin, Dennis Tucker, Mara Bennici, Pamela Goren, David Berger, Francine Weber, Lorraine Galkowski, Ames Huntting and Francis Amello to give just a short list--all of whom haven't studied Aesthetic Realism in years but can be contacted by anybody if they are looking for non-students with knowledge of Aesthetic Realism to confirm that it is not a cult. The individual of many incarnations above can't even match that list with an equal number of names, so he huffs and puffs and desperately tries to change the subject. [--TS 9 September 2005]

In reference to your calling me "the individual of many incarnations", I tell you again, STOP LYING ABOUT ME. I write under my own name, period, no one else's. If you can't understand that, fine, but keep your inability to understand to yourself. I'm not going to respond to anything else you say until you stop that nonsense. And I'm definitely not going to respond to your complaints about anonymity as long as you hypocritically continue to remain anonymous yourself. Michaelbluejay 16:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue isn't me. It is your inability to document your accusations, which appear even more ludricous given your inability to do so. Lacking solid names who will confirm your rantings against Aesthetic Realism (beyond that small circle of the usual suspects) you have left yourself no other choice but to beat up on me. It doesn't change a thing. You still haven't proven your thesis. I can certainly undersand why you want to hurry away from this topic. On the other hand, I have provided solid names in my posting above that can be easily verified. Let the objective reader decide for himself. What a sad thing it is to see a person so driven by a hateful (and I might add, totally misplaced) vendetta. By the way, I had the privilege (and it was truly that) to hear Eli Siegel speak to your dear mother on several occasions in Aesthetic Realism classes. The kindness he showed toward her--and the deep encouragement--would be obvious to anybody who witnessed this. I sometimes wonder to myself if you would have embarked on this unseemly campaign of yours, aimed at besmirshing the goodness of his lifework, had you seen and heard what I did. Perhaps not, for I dare to believe, despite so much evidence to the contrary, that there are shreds of kindness in you. But then again, the elixir of bringing a great man down has intoxicated many others before you. [--TS 9 September 2005]

I like the "man of smoke and mirrors" metaphor. It describes it all pretty well. It's a pretty big victory for Mr. Bluejay but it won't make him happy. I suppose the details can wait.--Aperey 05:33, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

To someone who wasn't sure whether AR was a creepy cult or just some really really dedicated students, this last post by Arnold Perey pretty much tells me what the score is. Wikipedia is not a place to intimidate your critics, so knock it off. CDThieme 00:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Since a word to the wise is not welcome to you, I'll keep my desire to help in check. Meanwhile, I don't think your "tough" talk is very frightening. A critic is a person who sees the facts and comments honorably on them--whether for or against them. You, on the other hand, and your cohorts, are not critics at all. You make up "facts" which have no source when you wish and you ignore documented facts when you wish. Is this a critic? Not in my book.--Aperey 05:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

For those following the discussion, you will have to refer to the history of this page for the remarks to which CDThieme actually responded, as Apery has changed them after they were responded to. - Outerlimits 06:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope you do--and see what the fuss is all about.--Aperey 06:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The post by CDThieme should be taken as a word to the wise. Before coming to this article, I had a smattering of knowledge about AR, because I live in Manhattan and I've occasionally seen the newsletters and other material (including the "Victim of the Press" buttons). I could see some cultish aspects but also some evidence the other way, notably that there wasn't the kind of heavy proselytizing that's a strong indicator of cultishness. Over the last several months, however, I'd have to say that my view has shifted somewhat, based on the way this article gets edited. Nothing that's happened here is definitive proof of cult status. My experience here suggests to me, however, that some Wikipedia readers who check out the talk page as well as the article itself may well have the same reaction as CDThieme did. JamesMLane 06:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

two paragraph opening

The usual two-paragraph opening for "controversial" subjects at Wikipedia is one paragraph of "the truth as supporters would write it", and one paragraph as the opposition would write it. And the first paragraph should not be made overly long or overly boring in an attempt to push the second paragraph "below the fold" and not be read. - Outerlimits 21:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Whatever the tradition may be--and I'm not sure you are really describing it--it is wrong to introduce a subject with the most horrible things people are saying--which are in fact flagrant untruths--as the thing in the most prominent position. However, that is your intent. Stop the lying and start acting like a person interested in truth.

Aesthetic Realism describes a guilt and anger interchange. When you are unfair, you feel guilty. Guilt is uncomfortable, so you get angry at the thing you are unfair to. This gives a boost to the ego that sends you flying high. And, you don't admit you were wrong. This makes you feel guilty again. Even more guilty! So you get even angrier. You go up and down, up and down in the guilt-and-anger interchange. The only way out is honest regret. Take it from one who knows.

>> Well now, the only question is, who's being unfair and reacting angrily as a result? Reading your vitriolic posts, Aperey, a reasonable person might conclude that it is you. Thank you for providing us with an explanation of your behavior.Marinero 03:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

When this article was written, with no help from Outerlimits, Bluejay, Jonathunder, Theiss, or any of the other individuals who are now so interested in it, we thought they would return once the major work was done. Why would they come back to an article they did not work to create? Well, to try to get their way by snipping and rewording things to suit their agenda. Don't worry, you can never make Aesthetic Realism into something it isn't. Give up now because it's not going to happen. --Aperey 22:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind here. I came here, incidently, because some time ago a respected editor was pleading for help on the IRC channel, and when I looked into it I saw what a complete mess the article was. Having done a small bit of work, along with many others, to make it readable and somewhat balanced, I will politely decline your invitation to go away. This one is staying on my watchlist. Thanks all the same. Jonathunder 02:17, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

Given the powers of discernment and dedication to truth that you've demonstrated so far, you'll have to forgive me for not taking your proffered long-distance assessment of my emotional and moral state to heart, though I'm sure it has the same explanatory utility as the rest of AR.

Try to restrict your verbosity in the first paragraph, and avoid dividing it. Try to avoid stating contentions of ARians as fact in the second paragraph. Claims are claims and refutation is a judgement call.

As for the "AR on homosexuality" section: it doesn't need a discursion on "will power or therapy"; it doesn't need yet another reference to Corsini (who is in the reference section); it doesn't need Siegel's comments on whether AR is ferocious or not. And it will most certainly not take AR's position as "proven". We still need some evidence that AR's teaching has been used to support an anti-gay agenda by some group (other than AR). - Outerlimits 01:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how you managed to forget, since I gave you the quotes, but the APA's demur is ONLY as to (1) changing through "will" and (2) changing through therapy. Both don't work. As to the desire on the part of right wing or religious groups to use of the fact that men and women changed from homosexuality through Aesthetic Realism in behalf of their own agendas, I do not feel like "naming names" although I recollect one or two. Do your own research. I certainly think I'm as credible a witness as you, and you don't bother to support your statements with any better documentation than Creationists use to support theirs, against the fact that evolution occurred--a matter I'm rather familiar with as an anthropologist. Details on request. For now, think it through on your own and stop throwing out facts that don't suit your agenda.--Aperey 05:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The APA quotes would be apposite if the discussion were about what the APA believes rather than what the consensus opinion is. As for your contention that AR's position provided ammunition for anti-gay groups, it's rather meaningless unless you do "name names" of such groups. - Outerlimits 06:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The consensus opinion has no validity if not based on all the facts. --66.147.178.184 06:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

We know that AR disagrees with the consensus, Aperey. We've made that very clear in the article. You saying that the consensus is "not based on all the facts" doesn't make it so. - Outerlimits 06:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

All of this also conveniently obscures the very factual question of where the actual names are to document the charge made by one individual that there is a large mass movement of former students claiming Aesthetic Realism is a cult.

While I sympathize with some of what Aperey wrote, I don't think it was too helpful. Aperey seems to be somewhat unaware of how much he "sets off" a certain individual--who seems to respond to any posting by him with that customary lack of reason we usually see in those run by emotional prejudice. I would respectfully suggest that this is not the place to offer the fine points of philosophic discussion. Careful scholarship, the excitement of new ideas, and philosophic inquiry don't appear to be high on the priority list of the one trying to draw blood in his attacks on Aesthetic Realism and who is using wikipedia to give this purpose a mainstream patina.

That is true. I'll be thinking of another way. For the moment I'll take the opportunity to temporarily withdraw and keep an eye on things. --Aperey 18:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, far more serious is the fact that the consensus article that got this whole thing unfrozen is slowly disappearing and the malicious language that got it frozen in the first place (and was gradually removed by the edtiors after all of us made hard compromises during a lengthy and tedious editing process)is now reappearing. Weeks of work down the tube. One can only hope the editors will intervene and stop this mischief and sabotage. I'd even welcome having this whole thing frozen again, my fingers are getting so numb. I've refrained from doing any editing on the piece as some of the mischief was reappearing (content to note it and request action by the edtiors)in an effort to keep faith with the editing process, but I no longer can so in good conscience. So, I've taken out some of the most blatant POV language--clearly inappropriate here (while refraining from removing some of the stuff with which I strongly disagree but compromised about)and will continue to do so for as long as I must. [--TS 10 September 2005]

Since TS is continuing his personal attacks on me by saying that I have multiple identities on Wikipedia, I'm taking action I saw suggested in the Wikipedia Help pages: Editing out personal attacks. I will not sit here quietly and continue to be lied about.

Willmcw, do you know Outerlimits, Jonathunder, CDThieme, or any of the other long-time editors here? If you do and can vouch that they are not me I would appreciate it. That might get TS to stop saying that I'm them. Though I doubt (s)he would apologize even if proved wrong about this. Michaelbluejay 15:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It's fine to remove personal attacks if you like, but taking out the paranoid fingerpointing actually makes the remaining material sound more sane. - Outerlimits 18:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the censored material. Wikipedia presents all sides, not just one organization's point of view. A strictly laudatory introduction is inappropriate. Add'l point: AR's assertion that its philosophy converted homosexuals to heterosexuals was a claim, not a "disagreement". Restored the (silently removed) Post reference. - Outerlimits 18:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, this individual is VERY INTENT (and quite nervous it seems) about what I've got to say. He doesn't want any independent minded readers here getting the idea that maybe there isn't a mob of people who agree with him. So much so he now censures my comments just as he vandalizes the article itself. Are we getting some picture of what we are dealing with here?

I might point out that when he made all those angry, awful (and false) charges against Arnold Perey some while ago and was clearly proven wrong, he didn't use his interpretation of the wikipedia policy to go back and delete his remarks. He admitted he had been wrong and apologized (which I wrote that I respected him for) but then said that wikipedia policy would not allow him to delete his own remarks, let alone those of others. A polite word for this is "inconsistent."

I think he is very anxious that the editors not ask themselves the questions I've asked--or even see them. It has been very suspicious that all these people suddenly show up together on wikipedia after not hearing from them for a long while and right after Michael Bluejay falls silent. But others might garner that suspicion themselves without my help.

Meanwhile, the most straightforward and simple thing he could do would be to document his charges (which would put this whole matter to rest and show me how wrong I am) by providing a modest list of a few dozen names of former students who are indeed calling Aesthetic Realism a cult and willing to do it publicly. This could be verified so that all could see he has been right all along. Nothing could be simpler. If he does so, and we see that there are all these independent former students out there agreeing with Michael Bluejay, I will apologize at once--though, of course, I still wouldn't agree with their perspective. Yet he seems unable to do this even after I provided a list of former students who have no connection with the Aesthetic Realism Foundation and haven't for years, but who are nevertheless saying definitely and in a proudly public way that Aesthetic Realism is not a cult. If this was so easy for me to do to prove my thesis, why is it so hard for him to do to prove his? And this matter IS important. Again, to make such a serious charge don't we need documentation?

In the future I will keep a copy of my remarks here so I can edit them back in. I don't intend to be censured and I'm sorry there is such anger that I refuse to be fooled.

PS: Post reference is a second link to the Bluejay web site. Deleted it because the policy here is that this isn't allowed. [--TS September 10, 2005]

>> TS, just because someone levels a charge anonymously doesn't mean the charge is a lie, anymore than defending something and giving your name means that it's true. Furthermore, just because there is a small group of people claiming a certain group is a cult doesn't mean that their claim is a lie, anymore than having a large group (say, Scientologists) claiming their group is not a cult means that they are telling the truth (I know, tortured syntax; sorry). Remember the story of the Emperor Has No Clothes? There was only one boy stating the truth, but it was true, nevertheless. And then of course, there's the fact that true cult members are too brainwashed to admit that they belong to a cult. In fact, one would expect such brainwashed individuals to be extremely vehement in their defense, just as you and Aperey are. By the way, since you are so size-conscious, that list of names you provided was pretty small.

I am not Michael Bluejay. I have never met Michael or Adam Mali, although I have corresponded with them 2 or 3 times at most. I "appeared" when I did because I found Steve Hassan's and Michael's websites. Prior to that, I had no idea how or where to state my honest opinion of AR and tell my story. I choose to remain anonymous because I don't wish to "out" myself. If that makes me suspicious, so be it. I invite everyone reading this page to visit Michael's website, read my post, and decide for themselves whether it sounds genuine or not. If I can introduce just enough doubt in one person's mind to keep them from getting involved with AR, then I'm happy.Marinero 03:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the Post reference is a reference, not a link. This is an article about AR, not by AR, and it will include the views of all, not just AR's views about itself. - Outerlimits 18:44, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Hallucinations debunked

(quotes by T.S., indented replies by Michaelbluejay)

"He doesn't want any independent minded readers here getting the idea that maybe there isn't a mob of people who agree with him. So much so he now censures my comments just as he vandalizes the article itself. Are we getting some picture of what we are dealing with here?"

Excellent attempt to miss the point. You can make the charge that there isn't a mob of people who agree with me til you're blue in the face, that's perfectly fine. What's NOT fine is falsely claiming that I'm using multiple Wikipedia identities. Can you understand the difference?

"I might point out that when he made all those angry, awful (and false) charges against Arnold Perey some while ago and was clearly proven wrong, he didn't use his interpretation of the wikipedia policy to go back and delete his remarks. He admitted he had been wrong and apologized (which I wrote that I respected him for) but then said that wikipedia policy would not allow him to delete his own remarks, let alone those of others. A polite word for this is 'inconsistent.'"

Hey, if you're going to bring up this example, why not mention what *actually* happened. First of all, "all those angry, awful, and false charges against Arnold Perey" were simply my misreading that he was the author of something YOU wrote. Second, I said that I *wanted* to delete my comments except I thought that striking my own comments would be considered historical revisionism. I was then advised that I *could* strike my comments but then it would make APerey's response appear out of place and be potentially even more damaging to him, so I didn't. I NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER said that "Wikipedia policy would not allow [me] to delete [my] own remarks." The claim that I did is as truthful as the charge that I use multiple Wikipedia identities.

"It has been very suspicious that all these people suddenly show up together on wikipedia after not hearing from them for a long while and right after Michael Bluejay falls silent. But others might garner that suspicion themselves without my help."

Outerlimits, I'll take your advice and leave junk like this intact because you're right, it does help rather than hurt my point. But it's really hard for me to do so. I don't mind disagreements, but I can't stand the charge that I'm surreptitiously using multiple identities. I do wish you and the other editors would address this, because it's not just me who's being slandered, it's you. TS is basically saying you don't exist, that your thoughts are not original because they're just my own under a different name. Doesn't that bother you at all? I guess maybe you have thicker skins than I do.

I will gladly state for the record that I'm not you, and I've never signed anything Michael Bluejay. I wouldn't worry about TS's accusations. Consider the source, and consider the truth. He's just pushing your buttons. - Outerlimits 02:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, the most straightforward and simple thing he could do would be to document his charges (which would put this whole matter to rest and show me how wrong I am) by providing a modest list of a few dozen names of former students who are indeed calling Aesthetic Realism a cult and willing to do it publicly."

My final answer on this topic is here: http://michaelbluejay.com/x/former-members.html#numbers .

In any event, the truth is not decided by the majority. When most people thought that the sun orbited the earth that did not make it so. I do think most people with experience with AR are closer to my position than yours, but even if not, that matters little to me. What matters to me is the truth. Michaelbluejay 22:17, 10 September 2000

Response

A noble sentiment--and I truly hope you will be able to live by it someday. Thank you for simply acknowledging that you don't represent some huge body of people. You represent you! (Which, of course, you have the right to do.) You can think whatever you want, it is a free country. But as I understand wikipedia, the information here needs to be documented. This is a scholarly venue. It is not a person's point of view about what the truth is--what they "think"--as you have now admitted is what you have to offer. It is also not the right form to carry on personal vendettas. You already have your own web site dedicated to that high purpose. As to your final comment, well, as they say, "truth is in the eye of the beholder."

Some people are ever so ready to bend truth to make it serve their prejudices, and the more noxious the prejudice the more intense their need to invoke “truth.” Thus Alexander Stephens, the former vice president of the Confederacy, said in his “Cornerstone” speech of 1861, that the American Revolution had been based on a “fundamentally wrong” premise, namely “the assumption of equality of the races.” He went on to say of the new Confederate government: “its foundations are laid…upon the real truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. Slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world to be based upon this great and moral truth.”

I reject Alexander Stephens' notion of truth. And I reject yours. Stephens surely believed that his prejudices were “true” just as I am sure you do. But you are both wrong.

Why people love Aesthetic Realism and why many people even want to study it their whole lives is a mystery to you. You cannot comprehend that the reason they care for it so much is it’s ideas; the way of seeing the world it makes possible; the excitement of a continuing intellectual dialogue with Aesthetic Realism principles in their daily lives. You have never experienced, for instance, the thrill and mental stimulation of hearing Eli Siegel lecture—on the works of William Shakespeare for example, or nineteenth century American history, or ancient Chinese poetry, or the aesthetics of medicine—and the way it can make a person want to go home and keep on exploring the subject even more deeply. And this is but one of many reasons why people love Aesthetic Realism and want to study it. Many people feel that every day studying Aesthetic Realism is another day their minds get wider and their hearts get bigger.

You are not in the position (never having been a formal student of Aesthetic Realism) to understand this at all, nor, quite frankly, are you very much interested. You reduce Aesthetic Realism to your level—the level of gossip and petty intra-personal relations. It is all about this one didn’t get along with that one, and this one was cold to his aunt, and that one said something mean to this one, and this one praised Eli Siegel in an excessive way, and that one never took a vacation and this one never goes to church and that one got mad because somebody said something harshly to him so he left and all of this together is somehow suppose to equal Aesthetic Realism being a cult. But any of these things happen in even the most respectable family or synagogue or church or social service organization in America. To judge the value of the organization or the goodness of its mission by this kind of dirty laundry says more about you than about it. (And you are not even accurate when you are airing the dirty laundry the better part of the time!) You have no sense of perspective, proportion or balance. You are not trying to see a thing truly and see it whole.

I read an article last week about Thomas Jefferson in which the author took tremendous delight in telling about all of Jefferson’s foibles and shortcomings as a human being. Boy did he make Jefferson look like a creep. You would never have known in reading this article that this is the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and was the author of America’s doctrine of separation between church and state, and established the University of Virginia. Jefferson was just somebody to debunk, belittle, smear and hold up before others to scorn. That, sir, is the driving force behind your “work” at this time in regard to Aesthetic Realism. It is your “truth.”

Poor truth, how it wanders through the world friendless and abused; an orphan at the utter mercy of our human egos. In my humble opinion (which it is also MY right to have) a whole lot of things seem to matter much more to you than truth. Is truth a KIND thing, sir? Is truth interested in the full reality of other people and their feelings--even if those people happen to hold another philosophic viewpoint or to see certain issues near and dear to our own hearts differently? Does truth wear the garb of modesty, and self-questioning, and have an expansiveness that includes everybody within its warm embrace--even a student or a former student of Aesthetic Realism? Perhaps we can move beyond virtual "reality" to solid facts. Truth would indeed be pleased. And truth deserves to be able to smile again. :) [--TS 10 September 2005]

Is there anything more ludicrous than personifying truth, purporting to read its thoughts, and pretending to speak for it? One thing, I suppose: to claim to be a truth-seeker while seeking to suppress viewpoints with which one disagrees. - Outerlimits 02:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Michael. I stand corrected. I guess you are also including in your scolding some of the greatest authors in the literature of the world too--who personified the whole range of human emotion, such as the writers of the Greek morality plays. We all know abstraction can't be personified. I wonder what all those people are doing in church every Sunday morning stupidly personifying an abstraction? And by the way, I think it is rather clear that you are the one trying to do the suppressing. I could offer a rather long list. Anyway, I'm sorry I mystified you with my exercise in creativity. [--TS 12 September 2005]

You seem very confused. Michael didn't write anything you've addressed, and you haven't mystified anyone. I'd have thought a philosophy, based on aesthetics, purporting to explain reality, and founded by a poet, wouldn't attract so many people with reading comprehension problems, difficulty differentiating their paranoia from reality, and that its teachings wouldn't lead them to confuse themselves with the great authors. And replacing the second paragraph - to balance the initial one - is hardly suppression. Removing it is. - Outerlimits 02:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

And there's a bridge in Brooklyn I've love to sell you. :) [-- TS 13 September 2005]

Hey everybody, this isn't a mud-wrestling match. This is an encyclopedia. Please refrain from making personal remarks of any kind. None of them help us edit this article. Every registered user has a talk page which may be used for personal comments, if needed. -Willmcw 22:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I would be only too glad to do so--as one who has had curse words hurled at him and been called everything from halluninating to paranoid. However, the issue I am raising is a very serious and legimiate one. If an editor is indeed trying to scam Wikipidea (as is happening here) that is a pertinent matter. And the necessity for documentation of attacks and charges that damage the good reputation of others also is. As this editor finally admits above, he has no names (none at all) he can provide to substantiate his contention that a serious movement exists calling Aesthetic Realism a cult. All he has is himself and Ellen Mali's small circle of friends (all of whom have ulterior motives). I'm not saying we shouldn't note their unproven accusations in the article (as indeed we have). That is a fact and can be documented. But we shouldn't be lifting them high as one of the first things a person learns about Aesthetic Realism, which is a means of giving them far more credence than they merit. I'm not too upset about all the foul language and viciousness being directed at me here because I do think it has usefulness in showing the independent reader the mindset of this individual. And, by the way Willmcw, since I see you have contributed to wiki articles on cults, you well know how easy it is to damn something--especially if it is new and unfamiliar thought--by simply calling it a cult. Some pretty useful things in the history of the world have had to endure that sort of slander in the past. Now it is Aesthetic Realism's turn. But I sincerely hope and pray we can stick to straight, documented facts here. Meanwhile, I find it helps to have a sense of humor.  :) [--TS 14 September 2005]

If AR's "students" (or "ex-students") are trying to scam the world by conspiring to have information they consider unfavorable wiped from, or made less prominent in, the Wikipedia article, that is indeed a very serious and legitimate issue. Since most of those who have contributed to this talk page feel that the information belongs in the article, and belongs in the second paragraph, that paragraph should remain, and we should not permit a tag-team of adherents to bully their way into having it removed. - Outerlimits 22:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is quite a "virtual community" of people here who, interestingly enough, all seem to have the same objective. Wonder why that is? And they all appear at the same time too--at just the moment they are needed. Meanwhile, none of the charges above, including the supposed "tag-team" of "adherents" is documentable, as usual. But I'd be happy to confirm it for you. Yes, it is true. We have quite a "tag-team" of A[esthetic] R[ealism] adherents here." There is my cat, Fluffy, my dog, Pandora, and my parakeet, Feathers. My goldfish, Waterwheel, wants to get into the act too but so far I haven't been able to find a way to hook up my computer under water. Do you have any suggestions? I usually give these beings a very cold shoulder because, in my opinion, they haven't been sufficiently fervent about Eli Siegel. You know, it's a cult thing. But I've made an exception recently because lately they've been so helpful to me.  :) [--TS 14 September 2005]

I reverted the work of an anonymous editor who deleted the second paragraph without explanation. -Willmcw 05:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph is deleted because it is 1) undocumented, 2) inflamatory, 3) repetitive 4) prejudicial 5) untrue 6) slanderous, 7) it violates the good faith work of many editors who participated in the editing process while this article was frozen.  :) [--TS 15 September 2005]

Which is to say that you repeatedly excised the paragraph because you feel it is those things. In fact, each sentence in that paragraph has been justified on the talk page of the article, and the paragraph is introductory rather than repetitive. And in fact both before and after any freezing/unfreezing the introduction to the article has not - until your preferred version - failed to mention that Aesthetic Realism was known in the 70s and 80s for its claims that studying it made homosexuality go away. I remind TS that this is not meant to be the article AR would write about AR, but rather an article incorporating all points of view regarding AR. That NPOV principle is a non-negotiable part of Wikipedia. - Outerlimits 14:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Returned to NPOV again for the reasons listed above. We have been over this ground many times and more than adequate refutations to the above charges have been previously provided on several occasions.

Here are just a few of the obvious prejudicial POV’s in the second paragraph making it unqualified to be used in this article. The word “claims” is used instead of the more neutral “statements made by.” (clearly a POV) The word “students” is put in quotation marks as if to imply persons who study Aesthetic Realism aren’t students. (Another POV--a charge made to defame persons who study Aesthetic Realism when the description they give of themselves should be normative in any objective article. Outsiders don't get to characterize in the pejorative people in any organization that is being reported upon objectively. We wouldn't, for instance, say in a strictly descriptive and neutral article that students at Ohio State are really devotees even if we thought that to ourselves.) The words “often in as little as one ‘lesson’” are used to make the change from homosexuality seem utterly outrageous. In fact, only once did someone say (Sheldon Kranz) that he "no longer had homosexual feelings after his first Aesthetic Realism lesson" (not, by the way, that he had completely changed yet, since the change from homosexuality has two aspects--decreased bodily feelings about men and increased feeling for women). Nowhere else in Aesthetic Realism literature is such a statement made. Clearly, this sentence with the use of the word “often” is an exaggeration and outright falsification. “One third of its twelve teachers.” Very shortly after the first consultants were named, six additional trios were formed by Eli Siegel (all of which I have previously documented here), and none of them concerned homosexuality because the response by people wanting to study Aesthetic Realism went far, far beyond this topic. Therefore, there were 33 consultants with only 3 teaching on the subject of homosexuality--a far different percentage than Bluejay would have us believe. Even more consulation trios (which I have also detailed before) on even more subjects were formed in subsequent years, making the percentage even smaller. Those are the facts. So this statement implies a concentration on homosexuality that can be shown very clearly by resort to the simple numbers didn’t exist. It is misleading in the extreme. “Some former followers,” uses the inflammatory word “followers” and also implies the presence of more people saying Aesthetic Realism is a cult than in fact exist. I think it has become pretty clear here that it is Bluejay--somewhat urged on by the Mali clan, though it seems that even they are reluctant to have too much to do with him--trying to make that charge stick, since no other names have been provided and above Mr. Bluejay clearly admits that this is only what he "thinks" former students of Aesthetic Realism feel. The use of this language clearly misleads. The word “lie” is put in quotes to imply that it isn’t a lie to say Aesthetic Realism is a cult while the clear statement on the friends web site that this charge is “as deep dyed a falsehood as we have seen anywhere,” inserted by editor Aperey and, I believe, accepted by willmcw after Aperey documented it, has been omitted. In short, this paragraph doesn't even pretend to be factual. It is loaded with nasty and very malicious POV.

Finally, while I have had years of experience having once studied Aesthetic Realism, am clearly sympathetic toward and friendly to it--and would like to see it presented fairly and accurately--I am hardly authorized to speak officially for Aesthetic Realism. They are quite capable of doing that for themselves. What I write is the TS account (as factual as I can make it based upon my notebooks, files, Aesthetic Realism literature in my possession and memory), not the A[esthetic R[ealism] account. I do believe, however, that Aperey, as a current teacher on the faculty, does speak in a more official capacity. Perhaps he can comment on the accuracy of what I have said.  :) [--TS 15 September 2005]

TS states he's "returned" NPOV. That's not at all what he's done. He's removed points of view he doesn't agree with. Actually reading our NPOV page would help him figure out why this isn't the same thing.

With regard to his other points, none of which would justify a reversion, as they are disputes over wording, not fact: claims are claims, and must be presented as such. "Students" is in quotation marks because those who "learn" AR are not studying at a school, which is implied without them. (And one does not revert if one disagrees with punctuation, one fixes it). Ohio State is a school; the Aesthetic Realism Foundation is a foundation. Those who believe in AR choose the word "student" as a means of reinforcing their particular point of view; they are anxious to explicitly claim they are not "followers" or "adherents" or "members" of AR. (e.g. Ellen Reiss: "Not as a 'disciple,' but as a careful scholar and human being, who has watched Siegel skeptically for years, I consider him the most important thinker in the history of the world." ) It is not "neutral" to adopt ARs terminology outside of quotations. TS's imputation that Sheldon Kranz is the only person to claim he had been gay and never again had homosexual sex after their first AR lesson is simply false. Martha Baird writes, on page 49 of The H Persuasion, "It happens that neither Sheldon Kranz nor Ted van Griethuysen, after their first Aesthetic Realism lesson, ever had another homosexual experience." If this claim makes the "change from homosexuality" seem "utterly outrageous", it's a claim made by Eli Siegel's wife, not by any Wikipedian. As for the figure of 3 out of 12 teachers, it is given in The H Persuasion and is an accurate reflection of the proportion of manpower that was marshalled by AR to combat homosexuality at the time under discussion. I have no objection to the inclusion of the florid Aperey quote in addition to "lie", which predominates on the Friends website. As for former followers being former followers, you can hardly insist that we refer to "students" as such because they prefer it, while insisting that "former followers" not be allowed the same right of self-designation.

By the way, you've used up your three reverts for the day, TS, so please don't revert for a fourth time or you run the chance of being blocked. Besides which, repeated deletions are not the appropriate way to make your case. - Outerlimits 18:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that the way to make your case is not to keeping reverting. Glad that is settled. As to the arguments made above, they are misleadingly selective and, in some instances, just plain inaccurate. Clearly, they are POV. Meanwhile, the use of certain very carefully chosen portions of The H Persuasion (ripped out of context and divorced from the totality of what is said in that book) is an interesting strategy. It is used very often with all kinds of things. I hear tell people use the Bible that way too. You can make a case that God supports killing people by quoting certain passages of the Bible out of context. Or that God hates gay people (this is a big one and has been done often). Or that God supports slavery. The phrase "My country, right or wrong" is quoted often to express a philosophy of non-critical patriotism. However, the full quote is "My country, right or wrong. When right to be kept right, when wrong to be made right." Quite a difference, don't you think? And by the way, a lot happened after the publication of The H Persuasion. I appreciate your trying to freeze Aesthetic Realism in time, but it just isn't true to life.

"Not having homosexual experiences" is different from "changing from homosexuality." And the Aesthetic Realism Foundation is an EDUCATIONAL Foundation, with students (at least, that is how New York sees it--having granted it the same non-profit status as Columbia University). As you are fond of saying, you don't get to call it what you want. Aesthetic Realism students "prefer" being called students the way men prefer being called men, African-Americans prefer being called African-Americans, and baseball players prefer being called baseball players. People like to be referred but what they actually are. It's a strange thing.

I'm glad you want to speak out for those who call themselves "former followers." By the way, have any of them gotten names yet? It would be comforting to know they really do exist in the real world as well as in cyberspace. :) [-- TS 15 September 2005]

You seem to be quite cognizant with their names, more so than I. The quotes are accurate and have been stripped of no "explanatory" context. I in my turn am sorry that you want to suppress "former followers". That's not what we do at Wikipedia. So then if we call the current crop "students" without the quotation marks you'll be happy with "former followers"? - Outerlimits 03:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. James Randi, George Lucas, and the National Restaurant Association also run educational foundations, but it's a stretch to call such things schools. Similarly, The H Persuasion is hardly the Bible.

Reverts

Editors must not engage in revert wars. In particular, there is a firm rule prohibiting reverting the same article more than three times in a 24-hour period. Editor TS has apparently violated that rule and I must ask that editor to voluntarily refrain from any further edits for a day, the usual response to a violation of the WP:3RR. Please discuss proposed changes here. If these reverts continue we will have to protect the page again. -Willmcw 00:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It is untrue that I have reverted the page more than 3 times today. I reverted at 7:55 AM, 12 Noon and 4:03 PM. :) [--TS 19 September 2005]

• Original edit[2]
• 22:33, September 14, 2005 65.140.180.28
• 11:56, September 15, 2005 65.135.45.205
• 15:50, September 15, 2005 70.111.213.157
• 20:11, September 15, 2005 65.144.243.139
• Those are four reverts. (if TS was registered then I wouldn't have to discuss this matter on this page.) -Willmcw 01:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philosophy

*Talk:Aesthetic Realism. Should the article be permitted to include historical information that current teachers of the philosophy seek to deemphasize? 03:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest this shorter, more accurate, more neutral version. All the facts should be rechecked of course

Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality

Aesthetic Realism sees all situations, including homosexuality, as philosophic. "The large difference between Aesthetic Realism and other ways of seeing an individual," wrote Eli Siegel, "is that Aesthetic Realism makes the attitude of an individual to the whole world the most critical thing in his life" (Self and World, p. 1). As early as 1948, writer Sheldon Kranz stated that studying Aesthetic Realism changed his preference from homosexual to heterosexual by encouraging a more accurate way of seeing women, the world, and himself. In the 1950s and 60s other students also said their preference had changed. Four were interviewed on the David Susskind Show (1971) together with four members of the Gay Liberation Front and published their book, The H Persuasion, containing (1) the transcript of an earlier WNDT (Channel 13, New York City) Jonathan Black interview and (2) personal case history narratives written by each author to show the scientific basis of their change.

Aesthetic Realism consultations began in 1971. At this time there were twelve teachers for women and men, three of whom—Consultation with Three—concerned themselves primarily with men who wished to change from homosexuality (see Timeline, 1971).

In 1978, advertisements saying "Yes, We Have Changed" were printed in four major newspapers, signed by 50 men and women who stated that they represented over 140.

The possibility of gay men and women wishing to become heterosexual--and successfully doing so--ran counter to the growing consensus that considered homosexuality neither pathological nor amenable to change. While agreeing that homosexuality was not pathological, a mounting number of men and women (1971-90) presented autobiographical studies with evidence that their own homosexuality had changed through the study of Aesthetic Realism. For men, this concept was the basis: (1)"All homosexuality arises from contempt of the world, not liking it suffiently. (2) This changes into contempt for women" (The H Persuasion, 1971). Men wrote that not liking the world sufficiently was countered by the study of how to see the world fairly. Still, there are others at the present time who contend that these individuals had not in fact changed.

Aesthetic Realism angered persons and engendered adverse publicity by espousing its viewpoint. Some religious institutions began to adapt it to back up religious doctrines. As a result, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation decided in 1990 to discontinue teaching the change from homosexuality.--Aperey 04:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

While there's lots that could be cut out of the Aesthetic Realism article - non-germaine snippets of poetry and whatnot - there is no need, other than AR's discomfort with their own history - to shorten the homosexuality section in particular. I don't think you can say your sanitized version is more "neutral", nor more accurate - for one thing we have no documentation of any important religious institutions which used AR's teachings as a basis for anything. It leaves out the fact that the first troika - the "Consultation with Three" - acknowledged that gay men would find their teachings offensive. It leaves out names. It includes a basically irrelevant first sentence. It confounds autobiographical claims with "evidence". It implies that AR was "agreeing" with something when AR's point was not agreement, but a claim which ran counter to experience. Of course, it also leaves out AR's self-serving public statement that it's no longer making public statements, which is not a bad thing. I don't think your version is particularly "neutral", but rather slanted toward ARs assertions. It is a step up from simply deleting, of course. - Outerlimits 04:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not see anything in the above remarks that any substantial not to use this somewhat abbreviated version. I think "less is more" here.

As to the "offensive" matter: Any viewpoint that offers a means to change something is by implication questioning that thing--otherwise there would be no point in changing it. Any reader would take for granted there would have to be opposition by some. So it's not really relevant to say the teachers knew that some people, at least, would find their viewpoint offensive. Others welcomed it and found it hopeful. To preserve balance, if there is a mention of some finding it "offensive" there should also be a mention of others finding it "hopeful." The writers of autobiogrphical case histories say it made them hopeful in The H Persuasion.

As to your saying that real autobiographical case histories of dozens of people who changed from homosexuality through the study of Aesthetic Realism are nothing but "autobiographical claims"--at last the truth about your POV comes out. But it is only your point of view, your opinion. While you have a right to express that opinion, and I have carefully included it in my shorter version, you do not have a right to impose that opinion on this article as the only "truth." I acknowledged your point of view directly when I wrote, "Still, there are others at the present time who contend that these individuals had not in fact changed."

In my rewriting I have included the opinion of the men and women who changed--that is, their opinion that in writing about the cause of homosexuality in themselves, and how they changed, they were substantial and scientific. Apparently Corsini in his 1981 Innovative Psychotherapies saw significant scientific merit too. And this is entitled to an equal say in Wikipedia.

There has been no significant history left out of this shorter version, I believe. Some verbiage has been pruned, and an attempt has been made at a better balance of viewpoints than before. As to the first sentence, that is the Aesthetic Realism viewpoint to the matter of homosexuality. Part of that sentence you already cut; but the rest should, in fairness, remain. Aesthetic Realism sees every aspect of sex as philosophic.

And Aesthetic Realism itself is based on poetry.

So for this time I am subtituting the shorter for the longer version. I imagine further discussion will follow. --Aperey 21:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the continued tinkering with the second paragraph, now that the attempt to eliminate it has failed:

Assertions are not "documentation", and the syntax of the 1st sentence as edited by Aperey is stilted. There's no reason to exclude the total number of teachers. And AR's version of "a history" is AR's alone. AR likes to view the "failure" to accept its teachings on flaws in those who fail to do so; others might raise the suspicion that the teachings themselves may be wanting. Neither of those has to appear in the second paragraph, and AR's viewpoint needn't take up so much space in it. I've stated it more concisely in the last change.

As for Aperey's new version substituted in the article I indeed have additional comments and edits. Version notes: *remove unneeded 1st sentence. By this point, it's well-established, or the preceding portions of the article need rewriting.

• change "preference" to "sexuality"
• if homosexuality is not a disease, and AR is not a therapy, then biographies are narratives and not "case histories". That's not a point of view: self-report is not "documentation". If you want people to believe AR doesn't think homosexuality is a disease, you'll stop using medical and therapeutic terms.
• attribute the view that Kranz's view of the world was "more accurate" by using quotation marks
• add back in Kranz's claim never to have had gay sex after his first lesson
• The bit about the press conspiracy can go if you're ashamed of it, as long as it's covered elsewhere in the article. Perhaps a sentence about the claims of the ads that the "truth" about "change" had been suppressed can be added to the "Victim of the Press" section.
• removed irrelevent "other guests" on Susskind
• removed absurd (if anticipated) claim that biographical narratives are "scientific"
• if space is an issue, the fact that AR teachers taught "women and men" goes. No one's contended they taught anything other than women and men.
• restore the names of papers where the ads appeared. People may want to look them up. - Outerlimits 21:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)