Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 18 Sept. 2005 and 22 Oct. 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

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

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

Marinero, by all means if you think you can add to having this become a more complete and more accurate article, you're free to edit the article proper. Because AR so staunchly wars against those who say anything they regard as inadequately admiring of AR, doing so may lead to conflict; it's best to have solid documentation before doing so, and read our NPOV manual: we want statements like "X says Y is a cult", not "Y is a cult". Every change you make will be fought tooth and nail by advocates, even when they know what you have written is true. If this doesn't discourage you, by all means, go forth and write. - Outerlimits 11:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Outerlimits. Thank you for showing me the ropes around here:) I shall read the NPOV manual, as you suggest. Marinero 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
If Outerlimits is suggesting that Marinero's challenge belongs in the article, I'm afraid I have to disagree. A challenge is not encyclopaedic in nature. I think the challenge itself is a wonderful idea, it's just not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I think it can certainly be discussed on this Talk page, and I'll add it to my website as well. Of course, I doubt AR people will respond. I called the Foundation twice to invite them to debate (they pretended to not know who I am, although they put up a whole website to try to debunk me, go figure), and I listed my debate offer on the front page of my website for months, and I challenged APerey et al to a public debate in NYC multiple times via Wikipedia Talk pages. The result? Not one AR person even *acknowledged* that the debate offer was on the table. As always, this offer is still valid, and I'll make a special trip to NYC as soon as AR people decide they're not afraid of a public debate Michaelbluejay 19:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Michael. I didn't interpret Outerlimits's post as saying I should insert my challenge into the article, nor is it my intention to do so. I'm glad you think the challenge itself is a good idea, though. Marinero 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have made my first changes to the article (two changes, one in the first paragraph, one in the second). I changed the following sentence: "From the 1940s its description of the world and of the human self as in an aesthetic relation has affected those who studied it--who credited it with many positive changes in their lives." to: "From the 1940s its description of the world and of the human self as in an aesthetic relation has been studied." Sure, some people who have studied AR have credited it with positive changes in their lives, but not all, as the ARists would have us believe. Since there is no way to know precisely how many people credit AR with positive changes and how many do not, and since the statement, as originally written, is plainly untrue, I have changed it to remove the self-serving, unverifiable claim. I have also changed "The Friends of Aesthetic Realism deny they are a cult, avering that anyone who considers Aesthetic Realism a cult is a deeply flawed individual with a 'fixed sclerotic mind'." to "The Friends of Aesthetic Realism deny they are a cult." If the ARists are going to allow themselves the liberty to state their opinion of their detractors (typically, quoting Eli Siegel, as they seem incapable of having any original thoughts), then the detractors' opinion of the ARists should also be included. Personally, I feel it is best to eliminate any opinion from this paragraph, but it's all or nothing, baby. You can't have it your way alone. Marinero 20:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I actually think it was Outerlimits who had added (or at least edited) the "fixed sclerotic mind" thing. I do find the statement "The Friends of Aesthetic Realism deny they are a cult" to be lacking. I think any reader will *presume* that a group labeled as a cult will deny it. So to me the sentence is wholly unnecessary. If we are to include the denial then it should be more substantive, somehow. Maybe something such as, "Aesthetic Realism supporters say that the charges of cultism come from people who hold an unfair grudge or who are just trying to gain attention and make themselves feel more important." This need not be the exact wording, but you get the idea. I just think we should either remove the denial completely or else add some meaningful detail to it.
My preferred fix for the summary is "Since the 1940s its students have embraced its description of the world and of the human self as in an aesthetic relation. Many of them have credited this study with many positive changes in their lives." This removes the passive voice, and allows the very true claim that many adherents do claim a positive result, even if not all of them do. But I won't make the change myself because I've had a hands-off approach to the article itself for some weeks now because I have an obvious bias and my presence here is controversial. I preferred to let other third parties do the actual editing, to lessen the furor and controversy, though that hasn't worked so well because the two AR proponents here (TS and Aperey) think the other editors are actually me. Ya can't win for losing around here. Let's see how long it takes them to claim that I'm you, as well. Michaelbluejay 20:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

OK, how's this? Since the 1940s many students of Aesthetic Realism have embraced its description of the world and of the human self as in an aesthetic relation. These students have credited their study with many positive changes in their lives.Marinero 22:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I want to thank TS for the time he has spent setting the record straight about Aesthetic Realism on wikipedia, and for criticizing the malign and truth-distorting purposes of Michael Bluejay and his ilk (of course, the question still remains: how many of these persons are there really?)
I especially liked the way he related the mean-spiritedness of Bluejay to that of a biographer of Thomas Jefferson who thought he was so clever and important trying to point out where this very eminent president was not at his best.
By the way, I think anyone who has had to do with this entry on Aesthetic Realism (including the moderators) should take a good look at the article on President Jefferson in wikipedia. As you will clearly see, his large, historical meaning is placed squarely up front in it. Where Jefferson’s ethics have been called into question, including as to his ownership of slaves, and his relations with Sally Hemmings, it is done in a respectful, thoughtful manner (these sections come after lengthy descriptions of the goodness and usefulness of his presidency.) If this entry were written in the manner of “Jefferson might have done some good things, but since there is two sides to every story, we’re going to make sure you know as much dirt about him as possible, even if we have to manufacture some…”, anyone with a modicum of good will would feel there was something terribly wrong with it.
Eli Siegel founded Aesthetic Realism nearly 65 years ago, and thousands of persons have had to do with it in one way or another. One would think if it had had such a bad effect on so many people’s lives, at least a good number of them would have come forth at this point to document the damage inflicted upon them. But as TS has had to point out repeatedly despite Bluejay’s protestations, there are only about a handful of people who are willing to back him up. As a person who has studied Aesthetic Realism for many years and knew Bluejay’s accomplices, I wish I could say that I’m surprised that these people are acting in such a despicable manner. I’m not. --SW
Well, I was using the ">>" to differentiate my posts from others, but it looks like that's not going to work. Anyway, there's quite a difference between writing about Jefferson and writing about AR. Jefferson has been very well known for hundreds of years; the historical verdict is in on Jefferson. We can look back on his presidency and his thought and see how they have contributed to making our country what it is today. In general, people agree that Jefferson's influence on our country has been positive. On the other hand, no matter how much the ARists wish it were otherwise, there is no consensus, no verdict on AR other than among a tiny handful of people. The fact is, the vast majority of people in this country and this world have never heard of ES and AR. There is no proof of the effectiveness of AR; there are only gushing testimonials from believers, who try to pass these off as "scientific." At the same time, there are others who state from their own personal experience with AR that it did not have much of a positive effect at all on them. Why are the ARists afraid for this information to be known? Surely, Jefferson must have had his critics in his day; there must have been a host of editorials railing about this policy or that decision. Only the passage of time has shown that Jefferson's policies did not, in fact, doom the nation. On the contrary, it is generally agreed that he had a strengthening effect. That's why it's appropriate for an article about Jefferson to be shaped by all those things: he EARNED it. His ideas have stood the test of time and the close scrutiny of millions (not "thousands.") Surely Jefferson never tried to muzzle his critics, or to heap personal insults on them because they disagreed with him (and if he did, wouldn't that lessen our opinion of him?). And surely, the fact that he withstood all that criticism and prevailed makes him even greater in our eyes today. The ARists want nothing but glorious praise heaped on AR, just because they say it deserves it. They accuse those of us who have seen things we don't like about AR of making things up, of lying. They ascribe motivations to our actions, instead of respecting the fact that we truly feel as we say we do. Heck, they don't even grant us the respect of recognizing that we are more than just one individual. They think they should have the whole article to themselves. In a grudging bow to reality, they would allow us to have a sentence or two, mildly phrased, somewhere near the end. They grossly inflate their numbers by claiming that "thousands" have "had to do with (AR) in one way or another," while admitting that a person who is handed a copy of their rag TRO on the street and glances at it would qualify as one of the "thousands" (by the way, just how many "thousands" is that? Is it 2,000? 10,000? 500,000? Wasn't Eli Siegel an advocate of precision in language? Why all this dancing around with vague terms like "thousands," "having to do with," and "one way or another"? Do they really think they're fooling anybody with this stuff?). If there is one thing that should be respected about Thomas Jefferson above all others, it is that, thanks to him and others like him, there is such a thing as freedom of speech in this country. This freedom is what allowed Eli Siegel to express his views. It is what allows critics of AR to express their views. If history proves the dissenters wrong, then so be it. Then and only then can the ARists have their gushing article. The ARists have a lot to learn from Thomas Jefferson. Marinero 05:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

I hate to disagree with the only other former AR student who's taking the critical stance around here (I'm assuming Willmcw, Outerlimits, Jonathunder, JamesMLane, and CDThieme weren't students), but I do think there have been over a thousand students of AR. There's currently maybe 120 or so, in its heyday there were several hundred I think, and this group has been around for over six decades with a lot of turnover. So "over a thousand" is certainly plausible. Maybe even 2000. Beyond that I'm a bit skeptical. But probably over half the people who have ever studied have passed away by now, or close to it. The membership itself is aging since kids aren't being born into the group in the numbers they used to be; it was obviously pretty dumb for AR to start discouraging members from having children because now there's not a new generation to carry the torch when the current one passes on. It was clear from the protest I did at their Thursday night seminar a couple of months ago that the group is getting old -- most seemed over 50, maybe even over 60. And a good chunk were even older than that. Arnold Perey is 65. When all these people pass on that will be it. This group is finished in 10-15 years regardless of my efforts, and even if I never put up my website at all. Their weekly seminars and presentations have recently been reduced to mere *monthly* events, probably for the first time in decades. Their numbers are dwindling. (They're welcome to share hard numbers if they want to claim otherwise, but they won't.) They're on their way out, it's almost all over. Michaelbluejay 08:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Predicting the demise of people one is trying to hurt is in very bad taste. There is no need for me to repeat what I said in the heading of this message. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.114.86.135 (talk • contribs) 17:21, September 27, 2005.

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

Huh, for some reason I was thinking 1000+1 would qualify as "thousands", but now I'm not sure why I thought that. And perhaps even 2000 is pushing it as a description of "thousands". In any event, I doubt AR people will provide any documentation of how many students they've had, or in what contexts (consultees, class takers, seminar attendees, etc.). Now, perhaps either of the books Self & World or The H Persuasion alone has sold multiple thousands of copies, but it would be disingenuous to count all the purchasers as "students" of AR. One of the AR apologists here, I think it was TS, claimed a while back on these talk pages that I couldn't have possibly studied AR because I moved to Texas when I was young, the idea being that it's impossible to study AR except at their headquarters on Greene Street in Soho, Manhattan. That would be par for the course for them -- count everyone who even heard the phrase "aesthetic realism" as a student when they want the number to be large, and deny that their detractors were actually students unless they did the most intense forms of study for multiple years. Apparently my lesson with Siegel and the consultations I had at their HQ don't count. Michaelbluejay 19:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

September 27's anonymous changes

I've re=edited the anonymous author's changes so they are less biased, attribute the claims being made, and in some cases are now less deceptive. James Bready's comment is no longer truncated, for example, and despite what ARians may think marriage and having children is not "impossible" for homosexuals. - Outerlimits 20:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Deceptive is right. Boy, you'd think they would just stay away from that Bready quote rather than chance its appearance in full. Great, let it stand as it is, fully and honestly. As for the line about marriage and kids, I think it shows a surprising ignorance about homosexuals. I notice someone also completely changed the bit about persons having "presented evidence" of their change. Maybe they saw my challenge (to have their bodily responses tested while watching erotic images) and decided to back off. Marinero 04:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not about any challenges. Wikipedia isn't here to prove that people "changed" or that people didn't "change". We're here to document that they claimed they had "changed". It's not about deciding issues, it's about stating claims as claims rather than facts. - Outerlimits 04:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, this being the discussion page, I thought I'd suggest a way they could prove their claims. Then Wikipedia would publish the results as facts. You'd think they would jump at the chance. I would not insert my challenge into the article. However, if I have misunderstood the purpose of the discussion page, please let me know (although surely I would not be the only one, from what I've read).Marinero 04:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Didn't mean to sound like I was finding fault! Any way to improve an article is fair game on a talk page. I don't think penile plethysmography wuld to prove anything though. Not that it's going to happen<g>. But we really aren't here to "prove" claims. We're here to report claims, or report how others have evaluted them, rather than to evaluate them ourselves. And yes, from personal insults to ad hominem arguments, this is the very model of a majorly dysfunctional talk page :). - Outerlimits
I know you are but what am I? Michaelbluejay 05:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for a good laugh, Outerlimits :-) Marinero 05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Call for Mediation by Arnold Perey

So much abusive language, and so much reverting and re-editing has been used against two editors, myself and TS, that it has become impossible to edit this article fairly.

There is no dialog, there is no agreement. Instead, several other editors (Outerlimits, Jonathunder, Marinero, CDThieme, and Michaelbluejay) have imposed a false and misleading point of view and put aside the views of others regardless of how many times these views were expressed, documented, sourced.

In fact one can see a definite smear agenda behind their edits--not a legitimate point of view at all. One of the revealing characteristics is that they see no value in any view but their own and claim absolute truth for it.

Therefore I am calling for this article to be frozen at the July 12th date, 16:29, 12 July 2005. This is when the only agreed-on version was posted. It was at that point unfrozen by Thryduulf.

And following that, I call for mediation: a civilized dialog between the contending parties for the purpose of finding out the truth and getting it into the Wikipedia article.

For: Regardless of the truth, regardless of the points of view of others, these several individuals or aliases have imposed their notion and attacked anyone who disagreed. Their attacks can be seen in the Talk pages (unless, of course, there is a way of deleting permanently and selectively and they have used it).

You will note that, as is standard procedure in such attacks, the aggressors justify themselves by crying out that they have been attacked, censored, etc.

However, the Talk archives will show what actually has happened. They will show the extensive reasoning and documentation which I an a few others have posted and which it has been in the interest of the attackers to ignore or to smear--as if by putting a contemptuous label on something that is true they have made it false.

The two most attacked sections at this time are:

1. The introduction, beginning "Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel..."

2. And the section titled "===Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality==="

However, the attempt to smear can be seen elsewhere.

The website "The Crazy World of Michael Bluejay" <http:michaelbluejay.com> has a collection of misrepresentations from sources with their own agendas--many of them anonymous--and is a focal point for the persons whose "editing" I regard as, essentially, vandalism.

--Aperey 17:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:requests for mediation. Requests go there. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
"One of the revealing characteristics is that they see no value in any view but their own and claim absolute truth for it." That's funny, that's exactly how I feel about you and your fellow cult members, Aperey. "You will note that, as is standard procedure in such attacks, the aggressors justify themselves by crying out that they have been attacked, censored, etc." That's funny, that's exactly what you're doing in this rant of yours, Aperey. Marinero 02:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Aperey, as mentioned before, mischaracterizing a conflict over content as vandalism won't aid you in any way. You have previously been given links for wikipedia:vandalism and for wikipedia:NPOV: it's not clear from your current posting that you've read them. Unrelenting ad hominem attacks don't help your case either. This article has already led to one "mediation" in which you participated (though you failed to adhere to the ground rules stipulated thereby); it doesn't need more. Mediation is not a means of getting an article locked onto a version you prefer, nor is it a court of appeals that will obviate your need to adhere to the NPOV policy. You seek a version of the article in which no criticism of Aesthetic Realism is brooked, but such a version is unacceptable in Wikipedia, and I do not think you will find any mediator willing to cooperate with you in producing such an article. - Outerlimits 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

1st Section

I deleted the last sentence "William Carlos Williams, writing decades earlier, spoke of "the extreme resentment that a fixed, sclerotic mind feels confronting this new"" because it does not pertain to (chronologically) to the cult allegations. It does not appear to relate in anyway to the paragraph. Brazos 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Victims of the Press Section

Deleted "or "belittlers," as James H. Bready calls them in the Baltimore Evening Sun" now reads "Critics contend that Aesthetic Realism's claim of a press boycott was a paranoid feeling of persecution". I did this because the link in question was already mentioned and calling critics belittlers is snide and adds nothing to the sentence. Brazos 05:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Prominence

An editor recently added this:

  • Since the 1990s Aesthetic Realism has come to prominence for its value in diverse fields, including the arts.

In what way has it become prominent? -Willmcw 18:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Revisions 10/4/05

Added the last two sentences to the section below (first paragraph of article). The AR cult members do NOT get to describe the motivation of the detractors without allowing the detractors to state in their own words what motivates them. The primary motivation is not a disagreement with the philosophy itself, but the cult-like behavior of the AR leadership and its "students."

"Meanwhile some former students, and others, contend that Aesthetic Realism is a cult. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation points out that new thought has historically been met with insults, including the poetry of Keats and the evolutionary theory of Darwin. On the other hand, many of those who believe Aesthetic Realism is a cult really have no major quarrels with the philosophy itself. Their contention stems from what they percieve to be the slavish devotion to Siegel of its adherents and the tight control exercised over them by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation." Marinero 04:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also removed the blatantly propagandist sentence to the effect that "most" people who studied AR "seriously" continue to lead heterosexual lives (AR and Homosexuality). What does the writer consider to be a "serious" study of AR? Furthermore, was there a scientific poll that the writer can cite? Is the writer personally acquainted with everyone who has studied AR to change from homosexuality (or is this where the writer's definition of "serious study" comes in to allow him/her to say whatever he/she wants?). Marinero 04:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've chimed in to rephrase some of the more misleading sentences recently introduced, and present the rationale here: [1] Inserting interpretive comments into Siegel's actual published explanation is misleading, especially when they are referenced to a book in which they don't seem to appear. Siegel didn't feel his text needed these interpolations. [2] "Men who changed" is a misstatement of a claim as a fact: should be men who claimed to have changed, or men who said they had "changed". [3] The assertion that "most of the individuals who studied seriously prior to 1990 continue to lead heterosexual lives" is unverifiable. [4] References have previously been given that show that the three members of the "Consultation with Three" all agreed on television that gay men would find AR's teachings offensive. This was subsequently published by AR in The H Persuasion. It's intentionally misleading to change this agreement of all three to "One Aesthetic Realism teacher". [5] It's not the "possibility of change" (should that be "false hope of the possibility of change"?) that caused gay men to detest Aesthetic Realism's teachings that their homosexuality was caused by contempt of women. [6]And AR's teachers are still "presenting the change from homosexualty". They're doing so right here! It's only the classes that have stopped. [7]That AR says it is for full civil rights for everyone is irrelevant in this section. [8] restore mention of forces marshalled :Consultation with Three, The Masculine Inquiry. No reason to leave these out. A few questions: Is it true that AR students used to show up at AIDS gatherings and pamphlet them, claiming that AR was the answer to AIDS? (I suspect this may be someone's garbled memory, but the time frame was right at the end, and it certainly sounds plausible). If true, this might further explain the resentment for AR doctrine and action. The best place to look for news stories on this would be the NYT between say 1984 and 1990, unless AR can assure us there's no reason to look. -- Outerlimits 09:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that ACT-UP protested AR. Such protesting was probably sparked by something, possible AR AIDS demonstrations. I believe they were known for conducting "victim of the press" protests, so AIDS demonstations would fit in with that. Yes, the NYT might have covered them, or the Village Voice. It'd be interesting to get more information about the AR protests, whatever their subject. -Willmcw 09:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Outerlimits, regarding your additions about the gay cure in the intro -- I think there was already too much detail in the intro about AR's gay cure and now there's even more. Why not just mention it briefly, and then provide the detail further down in the "AR and Homosexuality" section? Right now the intro seems like it's trying to be the article, rather than a summary. I'd change it myself, but I'm trying to take a hands-off approach to the article itself, at least for now. What do you think? Michaelbluejay 09:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
To echo the point, the intro is getting too long. A sentence on each concept should be enough. -Willmcw 09:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I think Outerlimits's last sentence in the intro is fine, as it is in keeping with the historical nature of the intro and sums up where the AR Foundation is today. The cult allegations are also fine, because they alert the reader that all is not sweetness and light here, and there will be more to follow later in the article. What is NOT fine is the ARists' attempt to argue the point right there in the intro. I think it is obvious that they don't think AR is a cult; no need to state it. However, since they insist on doing so, and since they do so by deliberately mischaracterizing the detractors' point of view, I felt it had to be countered. Frankly, THAT is what is making the intro too long. But I will not remove my answer to their argument as long as their argument remains a part of the intro. Marinero 13:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe there is a reasonable balance in the present version. I probably could find a way to move that information to a later point in the article if the proponents of AR could find a way to shorten the paragraphs which precede it. They, however, seem primarily interesting in taking the information out of the article no matter where it is placed, and that is not acceptable. - Outerlimits 22:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC) If we're looking to cut things, one of the first things to go should be AR's assertion that it is somehow comparable to the poetry of Keats or Darwin's The Origin of Species. - Outerlimits 22:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed intro

Okay, here's my stab at a nice, clean, no-nonsense intro. I also think it's accurate and NPOV, though I know APerey and TS will object. Michaelbluejay 09:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Current intro

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel. It is now taught by a faculty of consultants at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City. According to Aesthetic Realism, the purpose of this education is to "encourage people to see the world all through their lives in the best way they can" and this can be accomplished by learning how the world has an aesthetic structure of opposites in oneness, such as freedom and order, rest and motion, for and against. Meanwhile, contempt, "the addition to self through the lessening of something else," is seen by Aesthetic Realism as the root source of both self-dislike and injustice throughout society, including unjust wars.

In the 1920s Aesthetic Realism, in its beginnings, was known (1) for Eli Siegel's Nation prize winning poem "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana" and (2) Siegel's criticism of prejudice and unjust economics. From 1955 when the Terrain Gallery was founded it was known for its explanation of beauty, quoting Siegel's concept: "In reality opposites are one; art shows this." Since the 1940s many students of Aesthetic Realism have studied its description of the world and of the human self as in an aesthetic relation and have credited their study with many positive changes in their lives.

In the 1970s and 1980s Aesthetic Realism was brought to wide public attention when some of its students were interviewed on national television and later (1978) placed advertisements in major media outlets in which they said they "had changed from homosexuality" (to heterosexuality) through this study. Three of the total of twelve teachers of Aesthetic Realism, calling themselves the "Consultation With Three," ran classes for those who similarly wanted to change. Later three more instructors, "The Masculine Inquiry," joined them. These classes, which engendered considerable hostility, were no longer offered after 1990. Meanwhile some former students, and others, contend that Aesthetic Realism is a cult. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation points out that new thought has historically been met with insults, including the poetry of Keats and the evolutionary theory of Darwin. On the other hand, many of those who believe Aesthetic Realism is a cult really have no major quarrels with the philosophy itself. Their contention stems from what they perceive to be the slavish devotion to Siegel of its adherents and the tight control exercised over them by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation.

Since abandoning publicizing itself as the answer for dissatisfied gay men in the 1990s Aesthetic Realism has promoted itself on the basis of other goals, such as ending poverty, enhancing the understanding of art, and ending racism. (see below).


Proposed intro

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. Its principal teachings are that beauty is the making one of opposites, and that contempt causes unhappiness and even insanity. Students of Aesthetic Realism credit their study with improving their relationships with other people, increasing their well being, and in some cases changing them from gay to straight. They also claim that Aesthetic Realism has the answer to racism. The philosophy is taught by advanced students called consultants at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.

Critics claim that while many of Siegel's ideas have merit, the group of Aesthetic Realism students is a cult, having common cult characteristics such as fanatical devotion to the founder/leader, belief that the have the one true answer to universal happiness if only people would listen, paranoid feeling of persecution, and extreme intolerance of criticism. [1] Aesthetic Realism students counter that their detractors are liars who are simply trying to make themselves feel important. [2]

Proposal discussion

Gee, I dunno, I think it's OK to give a clearer definition of AR in the opening paragraph; for instance, the use of the word "contempt" without also providing the definition of the term as AR sees it is kind of murky. I would also prefer the more formal terms "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" as opposed to the vernacular "gay" and "straight," just because the former seem more appropriate for an encyclopedia article. However, I think your second paragraph is dead on, and I'm all for including it. Yeah, it will make the intro longer, but it also expresses the "detractors'" point of view quite well. Marinero 02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact is AR doesn't use the term gay: they were so embarrassed by the notion that they took to abbreviating the word "homosexual" with "H". Of course, information removed in any shorter intro should be moved elsewhere in the article. Here's a modified intro version: - Outerlimits 03:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Modified proposed intro

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy founded by the American poet Eli Siegel in 1941. It teaches that beauty is the making one of opposites, and that contempt causes unhappiness and insanity. Students of Aesthetic Realism say their philosophy improves their relationships with other people, and increases their well-being, and they have promoted it on the basis that it changes homosexuals into heterosexuals. They also claim that Aesthetic Realism is the answer to poverty and racism. The philosophy is taught by advanced students called consultants at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.

Critics claim that while many of Siegel's ideas have merit, the group of Aesthetic Realism students is a cult, having common cult characteristics such as fanatical devotion to the founder/leader, belief that they have the one true answer to universal happiness if only people would listen, paranoid feeling of persecution, and extreme intolerance of criticism. [3] Aesthetic Realism students counter that their detractors are liars who are simply trying to make themselves feel important. [4]

(Taking the liberty of italizing the text to set it off, any technique will do.) A very minor suggestion: Let's please leave out the external links. They are both already represented in the "external links" section. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Um, Marinero, my idea is to make the intro *shorter*, not *longer*. Outerlimits, I like your edits to the Intro, it's fine with me. Yes, the detail that's being excised should be moved down into the article. Willmcw, I think external links are most useful when provided in context, rather than just lumped together in a pile at the end of the article. That allows readers to follow a topic that interests them as they come across it. That's the whole promise of that whole hypertext thing. :) What do others think? Michaelbluejay 07:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The external links would become footnotes when incorporated into the article, so that's nothing to worry about. The other version I pondered had the second sentence as "It teaches that beauty is the making one of opposites, and that contempt for the world, for women, or for human beings cause unhappiness, homosexuality, and insanity, respectively. " A bit twee perhaps. And it still would be nice to have the historic sweep of marketing devices: "Since it stopped marketing itself as the answer for dissatisfied gay men in the 1990s Aesthetic Realism has promoted itself on the basis of other goals, such as ending poverty, enhancing the understanding of art, and ending racism." - Outerlimits 08:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The premise is here to include all the relevant information internally so that external links are only "icing on the cake". I'm sure I'm not expressing it right - the definitive guideline is Wikipedia:external links. Anyway, I didn't mean to distract from the discusion. The shorter intros seem better to me. So long as the key ideas in the article are reflected briefly then we're good. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, that page didn't seem to discourage linking within the article. Oh, and Outerlimits, though AR's current focus on racism is indeed new (their dredging up a few old quotes by Siegel on the subject notwithstanding), the focus on art and class issues has been part of their rhetoric since the beginning. Heck, the whole thing is based on art. On class issues, Siegel's anti-capitalist book "Goodbye Profit System" was published in 1970. Also, as for their abandoning their cure for homosexuality, I've always contended that they stopped because their position was getting more unpopular as society got more tolerant, but now I'm realizing that I missed another important reason: So many of their prominent success stories fell off the wagon that they couldn't promote their cure with a straight face any more. You know, when the reporters came knocking and asked, "So persons X, Y, and Z in this book you published changed permanently and still sing Siegel's praises?" And the answer would have to be, "Well, uh, they decided that they didn't want to be completely fair to Aesthetic Realism and Eli Siegel. You know, if they'd only tried harder to acknowledge their gratitude to this beautiful philosophy then the change would have been permanent." Riiiight. Michaelbluejay

11:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[Later note from Samivel] In 1968, I (A. Perey) wrote about the way Aesthetic Realism sees racial prejudice in my description of culture shock as arising from contempt in a paper presented first at the Terrain Gallery and two years later at the American Anthropological Association (1970). It was published in India in 1975 or 6 by the University of Delhi Anthropology Department. This is documentary evidence that the interest in racism was present and very much alive in students of Aesthetic Realism before there was a particular interest in the change from homosexuality. .... As to the rest of the above statements we have to take things up one by one. Samivel 20 October 2005
Michael, I understand that *your* idea was to make the intro shorter. *My* idea, however, is that brevity for its own sake, while omitting information that would help the reader to understand what is being talked about, is not such a good idea. Again, I think that AR's definition of contempt, which is very specific, is essential if you really want to let people know what AR is about. We have to be fair to both sides here (unlike the ARists, who would exclude our point of view altogether if they could). Marinero 14:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I've never suggested that we omit information, just that all the details shouldn't be in the intro. By all means, we can expand on the definition of contempt, the gay cure, etc., in the article. But a summary should be a summary. Michaelbluejay 19:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Sure, everybody has an idea of what contempt is, but not too many people would know that we're talking specifically about "the disposition to make more of oneself by making less of others" (or however it goes). That definition is unique to AR. Where is it written that you can't define an unusual term in a summary? Not to mention that the ARists will never accept such a ho-hum description of AR. The fact is, no matter how much we argue amongst ourselves, any intro that is written totally by us will be instantly reworked by the ARists. So I guess it really doesn't matter what we write. That's my two cents' worth, although I must say I am rapidly tiring of this whole issue. Marinero 02:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
AR uses lots of terms idiosyncratically. "Student", "change from homosexuality", "consultation", "consultant", "contempt", "scientific" and lots of others. I don't think it's practical to define them all when first used. I note that an erroneous definition of contempt ("the difference between what something deserves and what you give it") - which would apply equally to overesteem - was introduced by one of the ARians in the homosexuality section. It probably should be eliminated. But as Marinero points out, there's not too much point in pouring too much work into this if it's simply going to be eliminated by the next ARian who wanders by in a fit of pique. - Outerlimits 04:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Whether one calls them members or students, they do study AR, and therefore fall within the literal definition of student. Nothing idiosyncratic about it. Similarly, one who changes from homosexuality refers to just that; whether people do or do not actually change, the ARists use the term to mean one who has changed. Again, it means exactly what it says. People do, indeed, consult with AR consultants, whether or not one agrees with the advice given in these consultations. One can consult with AR consultants just as one might consult a doctor or a fortuneteller. Just because the purpose and content of these consultations differ, that doesn't mean that one is a consultation and one is not. And anybody who is consulted, be it a doctor, a fortuneteller, or your next door neighbor, is by definition a consultant. As for the "erroneous" definiton of contempt, AR says that being fair to something means giving it exactly what it deserves; no more, no less. Therefore, overesteem is contempt. This is a heavy concept, and it should be thought about before passing judgment. Only the term "contempt," as used by the ARists, is sufficiently different from the commonly accepted definition to warrant special mention. I am trying to be fair here. The fact is, there is much to be admired about the philosophy itself. I have said this from the beginning, and I shall continue to do so. Many other detractors have said the same thing. I'm afraid we are now getting into a situation in which people who know nothing at all about the philosophy of AR are making judgments without any basis and trying to write the article from that perspective. Marinero 05:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
That's just the thing -- "Aesthetic Realism" isn't just a philosophy founded by Eli Siegel, it's *also* the culture created by the students of that philosophy. It's one phrase which refers to very different things. I'm not here to debate the merits of the philosophy and never have been. And even if I weren't familiar with the philosophy itself that wouldn't invalidate my criticism of cult aspects which I've documented thoroughly. Basically, I don't think one has to have read Self and World or attended consultations to see that AR is a cult -- it's pretty obvious and transparent. It wouldn't surprise me if Outerlimits' first experience with AR was this Wikipedia article, and that s/he easily came to the conclusion that AR is a cult simply by observing how APerey and TS behave here. Michaelbluejay - 06:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I know you've said that your beef isn't really with the philosophy, Michael, as have a surprising number of the people who have left testimonials on your site. That's why I was so angry with the ARist's talk of sclerotic minds and belittlers. They would LOVE to have us be against AR because of the philosophy itself. That would take the focus off of their strange doings. But you know, it's not really such an unusual situation. Lots of men who started out great became drunk with power. I sincerely believe this to have been the case with Siegel. I have read I don't know how many letters from "students" written to him while he was alive, and they all gush with the same adoration and praise that they heap on him today, after his death. And you had better believe that these letters would not have been written if Siegel himself hadn't made it clear that they should be. At the very least, he obviously failed to put a stop to them. My personal take on the philosophy is that much of it is brilliant and true. I also think Siegel got some things wrong, such as the homosexuality thing and the extreme left-wing focus. Furthermore, I disagree that studying AR can make for such huge changes in peoples' lives. The ARists themselves are always policing themselves and each other to guard against contempt, even those who have been with AR for decades. So, it's not as if contempt goes away. According to them, it's a lifetime struggle. Not to mention this insane obsession with regret. Aperey wrote about regret somewhere in these pages and concluded with "take it from someone who knows." Well, just how does he know? The same way everyone else does: it's pounded into their brains almost from the very beginning. I assure you that Aperey never came to this realization on his own, no matter how much he claims to "know." They tried that with me, of course, but I never could find all this regret in me. Another HUGE flaw, in my opinion, is that they try to objectify the subjective. If Siegel wrote that X was a great artist and Y was lousey, that became "scientific" doctrine. Same thing with the art classes and the lectures on music, poetry, etc. Wonder what they would think of "Back in Black" by AC/DC? My taste in music is pretty sophisticated, but I can't help it, I dig that tune. It's fun. It rocks. I don't care if other people like it or not, and I don't go around telling people why they should like it. Different people see value in different things. That's because we're different! The most dangerous and slippery concept of AR, though, has to be this business of "being completely fair to Eli Siegel and AR" and "being grateful without limit." Gee, without limit? That means that one should be willing to kill for Siegel. Believe it or not, that's part of why I remain anonymous. I'm scared of people who have no limits. Well, I apologize for going on so long and getting away from the subject of your post. I say, include it all in the article. Include the philosophy and the cult behavior. Write about both truly and honestly. Marinero 07:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a few comments fairly directly related to the article: if you read it in context, the definition of contempt is certainly erroneous. Siegel never said that men are homosexual because they have too much regard for women. I'm amused that AR uses the term "contempt" to mean excessive esteem, and wonder how they square that with believing Siegel is the greatest thinker who ever was....but I digress. When AR talks of "consultations" for the purpose of "changing from homosexuality", they mean amateur psychotherapeutic group meetings. That's not the usual meaning of consultation. And though one may consult a fortune-teller, one is unlikely to have a "consultation" with one. The term "consultation" is used by AR to lend gravitas to their group sessions. It's not a standard use of the term, nor a particularly neutral one. If I ask my next-door-neighbor where the bus stop is, he's not a consultant, and I haven't had a consultation. Cults often distort the normal meanings of terms for their own purposes, and it does no harm to point this out. In response to an implied question, I've been aware of AR since the David Susskind show and the flurry of publicity that ensued. That they were cult-like was obvious then, but I agree that even were it not, their activity here would be more than a powerful clue. - Outerlimits 00:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Siegel did say that, all the time. He called it "adoring contempt," by which he meant a making too much of women while secretly dismissing them. I do agree with you on their attitude toward Siegel; actually, it's their attitude to everyone else, for how can they say Siegel was the greatest human being that ever lived unless they know every single human that ever lived? As for consultations, here's one dictionary definition: "to ask the advice or opinion of <consult a doctor>." An AR consultation consists of one individual seeking advice from three AR "consultants." The dictionary does not say that the advice given has to be correct. A consultation does not consist of asking a question such as where is the bus stop; however, if you told your neighbor about your marital problems and sought their advice, it most certainly would be a consultation. I disagree with you about fortune-tellers. Change that word to "oracle," such as the Oracle of Delphi, and you will find that the verb most commonly associated with "oracle" is "consult." I still think AR is a cult, though:) Marinero 02:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
That's an interesting example. The difference between a fortune-teller and an oracle is that one believes the latter to be more deeply authoritative - perhaps inspired by a god - and more accurate. Which may be part of the reason it was chosen as official jargon for AR's consultations - the word itself adds a sense of authoritativeness. I've seen "adoring contempt" I think in one of the AR gay books, but the emphasis seemed to me to be far more on the dismissal than the adoration. If you can think of a good written example, I'll take another look (if not, don't worry too much about it!). Anyway, what I mean is that AR meant something specific by "consultation" (basically a three-on-one amateur therapy session). That's not what most people think of when they hear the word. If this were an article on the I Ching, I'd want to define what consulting the I Ching consisted of, too<g>. - Outerlimits 03:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Call for mediation

As I read how several individuals (Bluejay, Marinero, Outerlimits) are talking over how to misrepresent a valuable philosophy and the people who teach it, I also am calling for mediation.

I too think the article should be frozen at the point where responsible editors left it.

And therefore I will revert it to that point.

The first step in mediation is to ask the opposing party if it is willing to have mediation. Bluejay, Marinero, Outerlimits, are you willing to have mediation?

I suggest Ms. Munro as mediator. (See mediation page.) 

--Samivel 20:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation is not the first step in settling disputes, Samivel! You have yet to even begin discussing this page. Your only comments on the article's content consists of inflammatory edit comments. You've made 13 total edits, all to this article -except for your requests for mediation. Perhaps you should edit some other articles, get a general sense of Wikipedia, and get a sense of what NPOV is before entering into disputes over it. Mediators will want to see exactly what the issues are, and some evidence of trying to delineate and settle those issues before devoting their time to them. I do not feel it would be productive to enter into mediation with you at this time. I'll also be returning the article to its condition before you reverted it. You can't simply arrive and declare that you are more "responsible" than those who have been editing the article by fiat. - Outerlimits 22:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

And to think that Outerlimits and I have been arguing about one word for days, LOL. What unmitigated gall these people have. Has anyone noticed how Samivel's writing sounds EXACTLY like Perey's writing, which sounds exactly like everybody else from AR? The more they try to deny they're a cult, the deeper the hole they dig for themselves. One question: would it be possible to have two separate Articles on AR? I'm beginning to think this is the only way to solve this impasse. Marinero 02:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I recommend against creating a second version, known locally as a "POV fork". There used to be an article titled something like "Criticism of AR", but we re-integrated the material. -Willmcw 03:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is comical. Samivel, if you bother to check the archives of this talk page linked at the top (esp. pages 1 and 2) you'll see that I enthusiastically agreed to mediation. The first thing the mediator asked was for each side to stop editing the article and the Talk page. I honored that, but of course APerey couldn't help himself. Our mediator never returned and that was that. But I'm certainly willing to try again. But be warned that you're not going to get what you want. You apparently think that a neutral third party will take your side, but reality is what I posted months ago on this talk page:

Hey, AR cultists, have you failed to notice that every single independent Wikipedian who has dealt with this article has edited YOUR cheerleading and that NO ONE has supported your censorship of salient details, such as the fact that Eli Siegel killed himself? Stop saying that my fighting your censorship constitutes vandalism. By excising criticism you don't agree with and littering the article with NPOV remarks, you're the real vandals -- obvious to everyone. If you disagree, appeal to the Wikipedia community and see if they back you on your efforts to censor and to insert NPOV cheerleading. Michaelbluejay 00:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I have read all the talk pages in the archives and Michaelbluejay's talk page. It looks like Willmcw was the mediator. Willmcw invited Michaelbluejay to be part of the editing.
Several editors are attempting to build a compromise version of the AR article which will be NPOV and stable. As you've been actively involved in editing, and have a distinct POV to contribute, you're invited to participate. Talk:Aesthetic Realism/temp Cheers, -Willmcw 21:07, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
To this invitation there was no response. I would appreciate less ugly language please, Michaelbluejay. Calling other people cultists and such like never made a person right who was wrong. It sounds a bit demented to tell the truth. --Samivel 22:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Hell, JamesMLane is as neutral an editor as they come, but when he didn't take the AR party line APerey lost no time in jumping all over him as an enemy of AR. And by the way, I can read your mind: Right now you're thinking that I and JamesMLane and the future unknown mediator who won't take your side et al are perpetuating the cruel press boycott of Aesthetic Realism because we're furious about our great respect for Eli Siegel and are unhappy that we can't make ourselves superior to it. Does that sound familiar? Michaelbluejay 04:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


So are you willing to mediate? --Samivel 18:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What did I just say? Michaelbluejay 00:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Since the active editors all seem to favor mediation, I'll post a request of mediation on the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation page. -Willmcw 21:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
You've listed a great many more people in your mediation request than have agreed to mediation. I believe only Samivel and Michaelbluejay have so done. - Outerlimits 23:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that mistake - I've corrected the entry (though I think Aperey also agreed previously). I hope we can all work together, in whatever format. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "Sometimes people don't mind losing a tumor even if it took 10 years to grow." is supposed to mean in this context, but it does not properly describe a major re-write of the article. Please seek consensus for making major changes, and please provide cogent edit summaries. I have placed a request for mediation. I suggest that editors avoid making major changes until the mediation process has had a chance to succeed. A useful effort would be to clarify the differences between editors (and find points of agreement). Thanks, -Willmcw 22:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
O.K. --Samivel 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry that it seemed like I was trying to ditch everybody's hard work. I was objecting to some things that were added after July 12. I don't know how we can clean the article up and make it solidly NPOV without starting at that early point again.
I object to the last sentences in the introduction very much and I hope they won't be in the protected version that everyone logging on will see. These sentences have a nasty tone to them and are not NPOV in my opinion:
On the other hand, many of those who believe Aesthetic Realism is a cult really have no major quarrels with the philosophy itself. Their contention stems from what they perceive to be the slavish devotion to Siegel of its adherents and the tight control exercised over them by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation.
Since abandoning publicizing itself as the answer for dissatisfied gay men in the 1990s Aesthetic Realism has promoted itself on the basis of other goals, such as ending poverty, enhancing the understanding of art, and ending racism. (see below).
They are saying, as if it's a fact, that there is a "tight control exercised over them by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation" and so on. This is a smear. They are saying "Aesthetic Realism has promoted itself..." etc., and calling their motives into question. They have no sources for this stuff. It is made up. I can see that all they are doing is trying to top the statement made earlier which is in favor of Aesthetic Realism, by a longer and quite foul statement against it. This is not good editing. I hope it will not be retained. These editors are trying to cast a good thing in a bad light. I know they have been working hard to do it, but that does not justify keeping it. I just feel like saying, "HELP!" --Samivel 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I see that a there was a good discussion of the introduction in the section above, at #Proposed intro, et seq. It's too bad you didn't participate. Seeing that it had some strong support from those who did comment, I'll go ahead and us it to replace the current intro. -Willmcw 22:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
For the record, Willmcw wasn't the appointed mediator. He was simply acting as one editor trying to improve the article. The appointed mediator was User:ClockworkSoul, who suggested to both Aperey and MichaelBluejay that they "disengage from the article for a couple of days". JamesMLane 23:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Samivel, mischaracterizing our motives will not help your cause. In fact, if you weren't so blinded by your fanatical following of Siegel, you would see that we are speaking of our own personal experiences with AR. Or maybe you do see it, as you have conveniently left out of your quote "what they perceive to be...," which explains it all. The fact is, you are lying when you say that we are stating things as if they were facts. No matter how hard you try, you will not succeed in telling me what I perceive or don't perceive. The problem for you and your fellow cult members is that quite a few people perceive the same thing I do. Marinero 02:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Every time you do the name calling you show that you have no substance to your argument. So keep it up ----Samivel 04:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A mediator has volunteered at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Any objections to user:Essjay as mediator? -Willmcw 03:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree to Essjay, whom I already feel sorry for. Bring it on. Michaelbluejay 09:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Let Essjay do his best. I am hopeful.--Samivel 22:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I've responded on your behalf. I assume that user:Essjay will contact the involved parties and take it frm here. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I am sure that the editing I did will not be welcomed with open arms. Why don't we discuss each of the point of difference? You are making very big accusations. They are quite serious and you don't just plop them into this formal reference work gaily and let it go at that. Why wasn't I asked what I think first? This shouldn't be a free for all. This is what I wrote, and every sentence is backed up by facts:
Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet Eli Siegel in 1941. It teaches that every person’s deepest desire is to like the world honestly. And one can like it because it has a structure that is beautiful: the making one of opposites, such as order and freedom, energy and repose, simplicity and complexity. It also says that a person can learn from art how to understand and resolve conflict in one’s own life. Contempt, it says—defined as lessening other things to build oneself up falsely—causes unhappiness and mental insufficiency, and can go so far as to cause insanity. Students of Aesthetic Realism describe the philosophy as improving their relationships with other people, including in marriage, making them kinder, and more creative in their professions. Some years ago, a number of students publicized Aesthetic Realism as having changed homosexuality in themselves to heterosexuality. Students of Aesthetic Realism also have written that both poverty and racism arise from the way people people have been contemptuously lessened for their color or used for their labor without being respected. They say that the study of contempt and respect as understood by Aesthetic Realism is the answer to poverty and racism. The philosophy is taught by consultants at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City.
Critics claim that while many of Siegel's ideas have merit, Aesthetic Realism students constitute a cult and have negative characteristics listed by an “anti-cult” school of thought. [5] Many scholars object to the anti-cult movement as unscientific and say it has been exploited to make harmful and false accusations. [6] Aesthetic Realism students contend that the detractors are not telling the truth, but are putting forth “as deep-dyed falsehoods as we have seen anywhere”. [7] They say that Aesthetic Realism is no more a cult than Princeton University is.

--Samivel 23:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The revised introduction was discussed for four days. You cannont expect an negraved inviation to discuss matters. The revised introduction was agreed to by the involved editors. For you to come through and edit over tha consensus version without prior discussion makes it appear that you are the one engaging in the free for all. I'm going to revert to the previous version until this new proposal has been discussed. -Willmcw 23:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I was too impulsive. But if any of the other editors were in my position I think they would understand my reaction to what I perceived as something baseless, ugly, and accusatory.

I would appreciate if Marinero, the newest of the editors, would refrain from attributing motives to the editors he calls the "ARists" such as "they would prefer not to mention"... etc., etc. This is as ad hominem an attack as any.

Excuse me, whoever you are, but that is laughable coming from an obvious AR cult member. I suggest you clean up your own "Friends" website and the article first before you complain about anybody attributing motives to you. While we're at it, how about addressing my actual arguments instead of trying to dance around them by accusing me of that at which you yourself excel? Marinero 02:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The ARists allow mention of the cult allegations because they know they have no choice, but they always want to take it back in the very next sentence, as if to say "... but we all know this is just a pack of lies... ". It is also clear that they would prefer not to mention the whole failed "change from homosexuality" episode. The way it's presented above is also disingenuous, for it makes it seem as though people just realized one day that they had changed from homosexuality as a result of studying AR, when in fact AR promoted itself for years as having the means to change. Of course, they don't want to mention that many of the people who claimed they had changed -- including several people who contributed to books on the subject -- later decided they had not changed, after all. They want to present AR as making for wonderful marriages and families without mentioning the multiple marriages of Ellen Reiss and others or the horrible infighting and name-calling that exists in families now precisely because of AR (I think Michael Bluejay and Derek Mali know something about this). I should add that all the above statements are backed up by facts. Basically, the ARists insist on "owning" the article. They want to gush endlessly about AR while glossing over its failures and passing judgment on their detractors. In other words, they want to publish a piece of pro-AR propaganda. What on earth makes them think anybody's going to fall for that? Marinero 16:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
It's rather astonishing that so many ARians think that repeated deletion of Mr. Siegel's teaching on homosexuality (that "all homosexuality arises from contempt of the world" and that "this changes into contempt for women") will result in the elimination of this teaching from the article. I've restored the censored material, and merged Samivel's intro with the previous one, ignoring the ad hominem edit summaries. - Outerlimits 17:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro, again

An editor has repeatedly reverted the replacement of the long introduction with the shorter version that was discussed above. The most recent reversion summary was:

  • There is no consensus intro. I was not consulted nor was APerey or TS. Your intro was not truthful.... So, do you agree to mediation?

First, there was a consensus of the editors who participated in the discussion. Second, it is not the standard in Wikipedia to "consult" other editors about revisions. The discussion here serves that purpose. (Incidentally, there is no way to contact TS as she has never registered for a username and has a dynamic IP). Third, if there are errors in the text then it would be better to discuss them here than to revert the whole thing. Last, it is not clear who is being addressed by the question. The immediately previous editor, user:Jonathunder, has not been very active with this article so I would not expect him to participate. -Willmcw 21:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As I'm sure you know, Millmcw, there is a little attack group here who agree, together, on how best to attack Aesthetic Realism. This is not a consensus by any real use of the word. If we are going to get a truthful article and not a smear job agreed to by a few people all of whom have exactly the same POV, we must be more severe about the lying. Meanwhile, I'm not here to take up the volumes of obfuscation that this little crew provides. Good night and good luck.--Samivel 21:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Calling the contributions of your colleagues at Wikipedia "lying" is not going to improve the editing atmosphere around here, and could be construed as a personal attack. Please, let's focus our attention on the material, not the editors. -Willmcw 21:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Mediation is not a substitute for discussion, Samivel! You have yet to even begin discussing this page. Do you imagine mediation would be fruitful without discussion? - Outerlimits 02:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I've once again restored the information about AR's teachings on homosexuality that Samivel is removing, without discussion, from the article. - Outerlimits 23:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


[From Samivel] The information that you are calling "AR's teachings on homosexuality" are different from the teachings that TS and Aperey say are its teachings. I have carefully read earlier versions of the article. You didn't really discuss the points with TS, did you? You just put in what you wanted, didn't you? Even though the logic of TS was convincing and he was scholarly about sources and concepts, more so than his interlocutors.
I saw in the history that you slowly deleted other editors' descriptions phrase by phrase and substituted yours. I will give the references if you wish. Sometimes you discussed it but mostly you didn't. When they gave their reasons, it had no effect on how you wrote your portions of the article. You continued to use words in a POV way instead of an NPOV way. The picture you give is not true to the facts but is an "ego version." Do you wonder that I think your section shouldn't be there until it has been discussed carefully and is really NPOV?
I want to see a sign of the desire to negotiate in good faith on your part. Until then don't expect me to be passive about this. I will wait a little while but not too long.
If anyone calls this an ad hominem attack, I suggest that they look at the contents of what I am saying and not counterratack by reflex. --Samivel 04:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
What's expected is that you will discuss the article rather than its contributors. You haven't discussed the article at all. As for the teachings of AR on homosexuality, they are direct from Eli Siegel's mouth and pen. - Outerlimits 04:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, yes, ego is BAD. Musn't have an ego. Must sit around praising Eli Siegel and Ellen Reiss all day. Must be grateful without limit. Must accept AR-induced guilt trip. Must not have a mind of one's own. 67.183.180.226 13:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Last night Sir Charles Barkley spoke on Lenno about too much ego interfering with how well a basketball team plays. The term "ego" is a good one and pretty much everyone understands that it means an excess interest in onself and insufficient interest in anybody else.

Claim

I don't see the note, so I'll respond to the edit summary: "documentation" is far more POV, than claim, in that it asserts the truth of the statement. No one was objecting to documents: the objection was to the idea. I've substituted idea; another alternative would be assertion. - Outerlimits 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was writing the note when your reply came in on top of it. So I took out my comment about the world "claim" and wrote a few more things in the note below. Thanks! --Samivel 20:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

OK that's better

[Samivel reply]
I am taking up your suggestion to comment on particular points in your long section on homosexuality. I see that the thing I wrote before on the Talk page was general where it needs to be specific.
For the record, I think a reconciliation is possible here. We both need to stick to the facts and get a wider perspective.
My first comment, based on what you just said on the Talk page, is that I do not believe you have placed Eli Siegel's quotes in enough explanatory context. Some of that context is in an earlier version. I can find it if you like but don't have time now. For example, the way Mr. Siegel uses the word "contempt" needs to be defined here. What does it really mean? Is it sensational or is it ordinary. Is there contempt in the everyday fact that hardly anyone is interested enough in other people's inner lives? Everyone has this kind of "backburner" contempt every day. It is not meant in a sensational or horrible way. It has a philosophic meaning: The more we give a thing the value it deserves, the less contempt we have for it and the world it came from. The painter Chardin gave more value to a dish of strawberries than people usually do. I keep a painting of a dish of strawberries on my desk (in postcard form). I think it's beautiful. It encourages me to see more beauty in things.
My second comment is this: I also think that first-person accounts (all written prior to 1990) of people who told about changing are important. Many of them explain how they came to have bodily feelings, even passion, even love--for a person of the opposite sex. And, they weren't attracted to people of the same sex anymore. These accounts should be respected and not dismissed as wishful thinking. They are authentic.
There is a short account (it's not about homosexuality though it's relevant) by Digital_Scribe on one of our archived Talk pages. I suggest you look it up. It has meaning.
That's all for now. I look forward to your reply. --Samivel 20:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
user:Digitalscribe's note, a first person account by an anonymous editor, is interesting to read and gives a background on what one person believes but it isn't suitable for use as a reference. See Wikipedia:no original research. -Willmcw 20:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. But suggested Outerlimits read this because it's a factual account and sounds sincere. It's really "FYI"--for his information.--Samivel 19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I had read it when it was written. I didn't question its sincerity.
I believe Eli Siegel's quotes are best presented in the context in which they were presented to the public, rather than explained away with hand-waving legerdemain. He presented his concepts as bullet points, as did the "Consultation with Three". Possibly his infelicities of expression were partially responsible for the hostile response to his theory on the origins of homosexuality: if so, we falsify history by "adding context" more than thirty years later. Siegel's concept of "contempt" will certainly have been adequately explained in the many paragraphs prior to this point in the article.
First person accounts are certainly very interesting, but they cannot simply be accepted as truth. In order to scientifically determine the efficacy of Aesthetic Realism in transforming homosexuals into heterosexuals, what would be needed is not testimonials (which form one data point), but longitudinal study. No such study exists for Aesthetic Realism, but studies which evaluate other "ex-gay" groups' claims, and which include those said to have been "changed from homosexuality" by Aesthetic Realism, show that the claims far outstrip any measurable "success". -- Outerlimits 02:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a fact that many people who said that their study of AR changed them from gay to straight eventually decided they had been deluding themselves and hadn't really changed at all. This includes people who were AR "consultants" and taught others how to change. What we know is that many who insisted strenuously that they had changed eventually admitted that they really hadn't.

Are there many people who currently believe that AR has changed them from gay to straight? Absolutely. But it's impossible to know how many have truly changed and how many are simply fooling themselves. It's just really, really hard to take the claims seriously when many who made those same claims forcefully eventually admitted that they were mistaken. Who among the current set of true believers will be the next to say that the cure was really no cure at all? There's no telling.

In any event, the obvious presence of these defectors means that it would be dishonest to present AR's "change from H" as unquestionably effective. Michaelbluejay 18:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[From Samivel:] At this point I will comment on what Michaelbluejay just wrote. As soon as I can I'll take up what Outerlimits said, which is much more serious in its import. But one thing at a time.
First let me note that there are many unsupported statements in what Michaelbluejay wrote. What does he mean by "many"--a frequent Wiki question--when he says, "many who insisted strenuously....etc."?
As to the matter of insulting people in advance by calling them "true believers" etc., it won't change the facts at all. Neither will his nettling use of the word "cure" which he uses on his website and which he knows has been called dishonest. It's already carefully discussed in http://www.counteringthelies.com, Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies, so there's no point in my dealing with it.
Is there any basis to say these men and women are "fooling themselves?" Michaelbluejay actually gives none and really can't. He gives some reasoning which has no definite reference to ascertainable facts. We have to ask whether people can be aware of themselves and honestly report that they have changed. I think they can. Further, I think that is what occurred.
Now I know that others will say that my observations on the subject are "original research" and have no place in a Wikipedia article. That is the policy, and I accept that. But the same criteria that apply to me also apply to Michaelbluejay--who is presenting personal notions.
More later about particular sentences. --Samivel 00:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. See my user and talk pages. I, Arnold Perey, am using the name Samivel instead of Aperey in order to keep my real name a little further from this writing. The purpose is not to have a sock puppet. Several people guessed this. It's an aboveboard attempt, I hope, and doesn't break procedural rules. Later when it's possible I'll merge the usernames and have only one.--Samivel 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Funny, this emphasis on numbers all of a sudden, when the ARists love to use meaningless numbers such as "wide public acclaim," "thousands," etc. If Aperey -- umm, I mean Samivel -- objects to the use of the term "many," then that term cannot be used by the ARists, either. Since there is NO way to know who changed and who didn't, I suppose the only acceptable word for both sides is "some." This means we say "some men later said they hadn't changed...," while the ARists have to say "some men say they changed." However, "some" of the men who decided they had not changed were, indeed, AR consultants, so that is a fact that should be included.Marinero 02:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I am holding you to a quantitative standard that Wikipedia describes in its pages on NPOV. It's a sudden emphasis. At last we are at the point where we can look at the truth value of your numerical statements. Obviously this is not to your liking.--Samivel 04:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Samivel, you asked, <<Is there any basis to say these men and women are "fooling themselves?">>

No, there's not, and that was the point I was trying to make -- that we *can't know for sure*. Let me repeat it for you: "It's impossible to know how many have truly changed and how many are simply fooling themselves."

This is not a reply. It's a rather foolish slur.----Samivel 04:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

As for why the question even arises, let me repeat that again for you too: "It's just really, really hard to take the claims seriously when many who made those same claims forcefully eventually admitted that they were mistaken. Who among the current set of true believers will be the next to say that the cure was really no cure at all? There's no telling."

Incidentally, "cure" is the correct word, since AR considers homosexuality a problem/malady that should be fixed, but I'll argue that one another time. Michaelbluejay 02:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, look again at Countering the Lies. It is an improper and inexact word. I shall give details in my next comment.--Samivel 16:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Changes to the intro based on Samivel's criticism of Michael Bluejay's use of unclear numerical terms such as "many":

1) "However, most scholars say that 'movement' is unscientific and it falsely accuses many organizations" was changed to "However, some scholars say that 'movement' is unscientific and it falsely accuses some organizations." 2)"Aesthetic Realism students say a small number of detractors have lied about it" was changed to "Aesthetic Realism students say a number of detractors have lied about it...". 3)"In fact Aesthetic Realism classes in poetry, anthropology, art and art history, and other subjects meet the highest academic standards of scholarship and critical analysis" was changed to "In their opinion, Aesthetic Realism classes in poetry, anthropology, art and art history, and other subjects meet the highest academic standards of scholarship and critical analysis." This last one changed, obviously, because it presented opinion as fact. Marinero 05:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you make changes without discussing them first? Each of your changes can be questioned. I won't change all of them immediately. I will only change your #2 which is too obviousl to leave as it is. I leave you time to comment.
First as to the phrase "most" scholars -- that is a fact, and I am quoting an excellent source. (Hyperlink reference upon request.) The American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association both officially stated that the "experts" in the "anti-cult" movement do not have a scientific basis. What is your source?
Re: your changing "In fact" to "In their opinion." I agree there should be some change. But the one you have made is not accurate. Recognized authorities who are not students of Aesthetic Realism have said that the Aesthetic Realism approach to the subjects mentioned is valid and meets their own exacting standards. These opinions must be included. If some of them were so impressed that they began to study Aesthetic Realism themselves, they did not stop being scholars and authorities! (I am talking about voices in American literature & poetry, the arts and art history, the social sciences, etc.) You will see some of their names in the Aesthetic Realism Timeline here in Wikipedia and in external references, etc. So I am revising the sentence to a broader one. For each particular subject I have a particular authority in mind as a source. So we won't have this:
"The fact is, Aesthetic Realism classes in poetry, anthropology, art and art history, and other subjects meet the highest academic standards of scholarship and critical analysis."
But we also won't substitute "In their opinion," since that is incorrect. (There are authorities who don't study Aesthetic Realism who have this opinion too.) Therefore I will post this, which is correct and has sources (see Timeline of Aesthetic Realism:
"Authorities in their fields have said that the Aesthetic Realism explanations of poetry, literature, the social sciences, music, art & art history--explanations taught at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation--meet the highest academic standards of scholarship and critical analysis."
Second, yes, the number of "detractors" is small. There under 10 detractors who speak about Aesthetic Realism in an ugly way in the entire world. Isn't this is small number? Michaelbluejay never came up with a larger number although TS asked him repeatedly for names.
In fact, the "detractors" shouldn't even be in the article because the whole business is a made-up controversy.
This is what I mean. The process of generating a controversy which really isn't one was described in a recent New York Times Op Ed article as to the evolution "controversy." Someone says something publically which is untrue and doesn't have a basis in fact. A person who knows the facts says this is wrong and gets attacked for it. Presto, there is a "controversy." But in reality there aren't two sides. Why? because one side is untenable.
This has happened in Wikipedia and it is remarkable. It does not matter that the accusation against Aesthetic Realism is baseless. It does not matter that a couple of people (call them Jack and Jill) began by uttering outlandish falsehoods. The insufficient merit of the accusation has been put aside.
This formula for creating a fake controversy was utilized by Ellen Mali and her son Adam Mali who secretly went about calling Aesthetic Realism a cult. It came out on the Web. After a while, an objection was made by students of Aesthetic Realism. There was retaliation against them. Presto, there was a controversy. Only one side wasn't real. Ellen Mali and her followers now could say -- "We are important. We have a controversy. We are critics."
That's all I have to say for now.--Samivel 16:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


[From Samivel] Considering what is said in the "Aesthetic Realism and homosexuality" section, I have a number of questions ranging from major to smaller matters of word choice and tone. But I begin with one sentence alone.

This is a sentence which, from beginning to end, I don't see as correct at all:

Such choices, once made, were enforced by community pressure to extinguish homosexual behavior, and by quickly marrying those who had so chosen to other Aesthetic Realism students in an attempt to reinforce heterosexual behavior.

What is your source? If you have none, the sentence must be deleted.

FYI, to begin with, I was there during the entire 20 year period when men and women changed, and this sentence does not correspond to what I saw. Although my personal observation is "original research" and not admissible in Wikipedia, it is the reason that I know there can be no source for this sentence.

First, a specific objection. Aesthetic Realism is philosophy and is interested in how people see the world. Whoever wrote this sentence has used phraseology arising from Skinnerian behavioral psychology. (For example "extinguish homosexual behavior"!) This is inappropriate to the philosophic approach of Aestetic Realism. Skinner of course was not interested in how people see, and he generalized from rats, quite falsely, to homo sapiens. Aesthetic Realism encourages a person to like oneself for how one sees. Just as in art, it views technique as arising from feeling. Feeling is first. The subtle preferences that Aesthetic Realism honors cannot be "extinguished" or "reinforced" by external pressures and I am sure Aesthetic Realism has never been iterested in doing so. It never has, in all the time I have studied it. If some one or few people interpreted their experience otherwise, the reason they did needs to be looked into.

Second, there are people who changed who didn't marry for years (e.g. Sheldon Kranz). There are also some who fell in love quickly. In matters of love, one can't force the issue. These simple facts alone invalidate the foolish phrases in this sentence, "quickly marrying...in an attempt to reinforce heterosexual behavior..."

That's all I can write now. --Samivel 17:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Samivel, aren't you the one who was repeatedly reverting the article to your own POV version without discussing it first? I didn't expect my changes to go unchallenged, but I did succeed in pointing out your hypocrisy.
Speaking of hypocrisy, since when does AR hold The American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association in such high esteem? Certainly not for the 5 years when I was having "consultations." Please don't even try to suggest that AR consultants ever showed anything but the most utter contempt for psychology, sociology, or any other "ology" that differed from the AR POV. It's truly incredible to me that you would actually use these associations to justify your case.
As to the number of detractors, you have no way of knowing how many former "students" of AR consider it to be a cult. You only know that there is a relatively small number of them who have taken the time and trouble to write about it on Michael's website. And just for the record, I am perfectly capable of arriving at my own conclusions about things without being influenced by others. My opinion of AR stems from my own, years long experience, not anybody else's. That's all I can write for now. Marinero 02:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
(1) It would be very foolish to try to understand (or write about) a philosophy only in the terms in which it would describe itself. We are under no such constraints here. This is not an article about "how Aesthetic Realism sees itself". There's no particular reason to imagine that Aesthetic Realism has a monopoly on understanding Aesthetic Realism - or even that it is particularly insightful in its understanding of its own group dynamics, or its own functioning either as a philosophy, or as a school.
(2) This is an objection to the word "quickly" on the basis of one counterexample? Kranz certainly married - like other "changed-from-homosexuals" - women who were students of Aesthetic Realism, at least one of them also a "changed-from-lesbians". I have no objection to removing the characterization of the celerity with which it occurred. - Outerlimits 03:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
So, what changes are you in favor of? As to my reverting to previous versions without discussion, I'm trying not to find that necessary. But I do expect a little dialog about the specific issues I raise. You asked me to comment specifically, and I'm doing so. I am now trying to use reason and logic--recollecting that in previous discussions TS said that you, Bluejay, et al weren't interested in these. I was hoping you might be. Meanwhile the above paragraphs aren't too clear. Do you think they really take up the sentence I am objecting to? They don't say why you think this sentence is right and should stay, or whether you agree it is wrong and should be deleted.--Samivel 23:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't tell from the above statement if you are addressing me or Outerlimits. At any rate, I'm still waiting for you to address all sorts of issues I have raised. 1)Are you willing to submit to a scientific experiment to determine if you have really changed from homosexuality? 2)Why do you keep saying that we are attacking the philosophy, when we have repeatedly stated that is not the main issue? 3)Does AR believe that psychology, as practiced today and as championed by the American Psychological Association, is worthy of great respect? Does your mention of the American Psychological Association's alleged stance on cults signify that you hold the majority of their views in high esteem? 4)If AR is so wonderful for marriages and families, why are there so many divorces within AR and why are there so many dysfunctional families? If AR is just a school like Princeton University, why do fathers publicly denounce -- indeed, repudiate -- their own sons just because the son doesn't like the school? Is this an example of a loving, AR-educated family? These are just some of the issues I have raised that have been completely ignored by you. I'm still waiting for a dialog on these issues, Aperey. Marinero 09:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply from Samivel. These questions, like other verbose attacks on this page, can easily be disposed of. Answer to (1): Why do you say I have changed from homosexuality? I am not one of the men who changed. But as you know, if you want the Aesthetic Realism Foundation to respond, it has already said it no longer presents the change from homosexuality. Men and women who changed were attacked verbally early on, were brave, and still are being attacked 15 years later, including by you. They were attacked not because of any alleged failure, but because of their undoubted success. Answer to (2): You are obviously attacking the philosophy because you are attacking the people who teach it. You have lied about so many other matters, and you are lying on this point too. “We repeatedly stated that is not the main issue” – dear God, listen to him. Answer to (3) I personally believe that the psychologists who represented the American Psychological association in the 80s detected unscientific claims and protected the scientific basis of psychology, as best they could, by denying them the “imprimatur” of the APA and the ASA. This is not an “alleged” stance but a matter of historic record. Google it, the way some other editor(s) did and stop lying. Answer to (4): You are quite wrong in what you say here about marriage and the family. You are glib but incorrect. Have you any source for your indictments? Any real numbers? Of course not. If you had, we’d have seen them by now. AND: This junk about fathers and sons—it has the same value and the same purpose as asking the question, “When did you stop beating your wife?” Did you ever hear of a Yale father furious with a son who chose Princeton? Wake up and look at the world!
1)Forgive me, I seem to have confused you with one of the men who contributed to the last "Change from Homosexuality" book. I have not attacked anyone who claims they have changed. I have merely CORRECTLY pointed out that an unknown number of these men, including a number of former AR consultants, later decided they had not changed, after all. Now please answer my question. Go back and read it again, if you need to. You have not answered it at all. I'm not surprised.
2) I'm really getting tired of your cavalier use of the "L" word, Aperey. In fact, I have to conclude that it is you who is lying about me and my motives, because you don't know me and you know even less about my experiences with AR. You really sound quite rabid, you know. As to your ridiculous claim, that's like saying that I'm attacking Jesus Christ because I don't think the Inquisiton was morally right.
3) There you go again with the "L" word. Is this the only way you know to debate? Isn't it a kind of lying to pretend you've answered my question, when you have completely evaded it? Read the question again, Aperey. You have not answered it at all. I'm not surprised.
4) I could name names, but I really don't want to. However, I will make an exception for Ellen Reiss. I know she has been married and divorced more than once. If anyone should exemplify AR's allegedly wonderful effects on marriages and families, it is she. Get real, Aperey, everybody knows there's some crazy marriage and divorce musical chairs going on there. And your pathetic attempt to equate the Mali family infighting to "a Yale father furious with a son who chose Princeton" would be laughable, if it weren't so tragic. How many Yale fathers set up a website (or worse yet, allow others to set it up) for the sole purpose of publicly berating their sons because the sons chose Princeton? How many Yale fathers invite other people to pitch in and write testimonials about the evil, duplicitous characters of their sons because the sons chose Princeton? The fact that you don't see anything wrong with this makes you look mentally, shall we say, not all there. Any normal person would be more apt to regard AR as a cult on the basis of this alone. You think you're helping AR with these outbursts, but you're only revealing how brainwashed you are. Now please answer my questions. Marinero 05:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Your duplicitous behavior at Wikipedia sadly makes it impossible for me to assume -or pretend to assume - that TS is someone other than Arnold Perry/Aperey/Samivel et alia, and your attack is rendered no less personal by being put in his mouth. So perhaps we can leave "TS" out of this.
My enumerated points are directly responsive to ("take up") your stated reasoning. If you have left some of your reasons for objection unstated, I would be more than happy to hear them. I do not think the sentence in question cannot be reworded, and your suggestions as to how we might convey the unusually large number of ex-gay Aesthetic Realism students who happened to marry other Aesthetic Realism students are eagerly anticipated. Is it your position that homosexual behavior was not discouraged by the Consultation with Three? And that marriage does not reinforce heterosexual behavior? - Outerlimits 03:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any real answers to the questions I raise. Can you clarify? Where are they?
Further, TS was not me, he was RIGHT in his general approach, and my taking another username was aboveboard and in keeping with Wikipedia practice. Any other questions?
I don't doubt that someone who has studied AR for years knows more about the philosophy than one who hasn't. However, as happens often in heated debates, we really keep talking past each other here. I've been trying to point this out, but the ARists always insist on falling back on their pre-approved mantras. I'll say it once more for the record: I don't think the philosophy itself is bad, although I don't think it's as great as it's made out to be. My main contention (and that of most of my fellow "detractors") is that the way these people behave and live is very indicative of a cult. And I mean a cult in the very same sense as Scientology, the Moonies, and the Rajneeshies. Just because some people have mislabeled some groups as cults, that doesn't mean there aren't true cults out there. The ARists keep insisting that we are saying "foul things" about a "great philosophy" because of our "sclerotic minds," but that's not what we're saying at all. I think the article is going to have to go into more detail as to WHY we consider AR a cult; otherwise, we'll just be letting them get away with their propagandist mischaracterizations. Marinero 21:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Archive_6&oldid=826920198"