This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Previous discussions:
Dear ARfan (for want of a better name), I wish the facts were clear. Unfortunately, there don't seem to have been any articles written about AR in the mainstream press, and no books either. That puts us in the precarious position of writing the history ourselves. This particular article has been very unstable and it would be good if we could draft something that at least reflects all the truths in a balanced NPOV way. I suggest that we begin at the beginning - the lead paragraph. I agree that the homosexuality change theory, even if it is AR's main "claim to fame", should not sit alone like that in the introduction. We need to have a basic summary of the philosophy in a sentence, plus a mention of the foundation. Here's what we have now:
Revision:
How can we improve on that for the lead paragraph? - Willmcw 07:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Willmcw--I hope I'm not too late. But I think a little more is needed--if we're still putting some history in the introductoray paragraph. How is this, instead of the last sentence? --
"ARfan" sounds trite to me and doesn't denote intellectual seriousness. And again, I dispute that Aesthetic Realism was ever "best known" for the homosexuality matter. After I wrote the last entry I recalled the Smithsonian Magazine review of Self and World. As for articles in the mainstream press, how about The Washington Post and the Baltimore Evening Sun? Both are referenced on the Aesthetic Realism web site.
Here is my suggestion for improving on the opening sentences.
"Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel (1902-1978). 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 life is to see the world in the best way" and this can be accomplished by learning how the world has an aesthetic structure of opposites in oneness. Contempt, the desire to lessen the world in behalf of oneself, is seen by Aesthetic Realism as the root source of both personal unhappiness and injustice throughout society. While the purpose of Aesthetic Realism is to describe the nature of the world, those who study it have credited it with many postive changes in their lives--including improved marriages, ending alcoholism, better parenting, and resolving personal difficulties such as eating disorders and stuttering. For a period of time in the 1970's Aesthetic Realism was also widely known for the many men and women who credited it with changing them from homosexuality to heterosexuality."
This gets in your desire to highlight the focus on homosexuality while placing it in a wider and more accurate context. I don't believe Aesthetic Realism says contempt is to be "avoided." It is part of human nature, according to Aesthetic Realism, and needs to be understood by a person in order to combat its ill effects. In keeping with the idea of opposites, there is also a proper role for contempt. For instance, there would be something wrong with a person who didn't have contempt for Hitler. Not to feel this would be a lack of care for reality. The idea is to make the opposites one. What makes contempt wrong is that a person uses it in behalf of himself and to lessen rather than respect what is not himself.
And can we please get rid of that "backfired" matter? It is really objectionable.
OK--why not just call me TS. I'm really hoping this article can be fair and accurate and also "set" so I can move on to other things in my life!
How about: "For a period of time in the 1970's Aesthetic Realism was known for the public statements made by many men and women that through its study they had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality." That, to me, is a very NPOV statement--and it is completely true.
I also think some of the language used by Willmcw above is far better than "backfired" and essentially accurate. How about: "The matter (or "subject" if you prefer) of changing homosexuality unwittingly drew Aesthetic Realism into the culture wars, where it did not really agree with either side in an increasingly public and heated debate on this issue, and which generated ill-feeling toward it. In response, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued this aspect of the philosophy's study in 1990, stating that in such an "atmosphere of anger" calm philosophic discussion of homosexuality was not realistic and that, in any event, the subject itself was not "central to the study of Aesthetic Realism."
I don't think it is necessary, but if you want you could also add: "The Aesthetic Realism Foundation did not disavow the statements of the men and women who said they had changed from homosexuality through its study, but it also reliterated its position that it is for full civil rights for everybody, including homosexual persons." -- TS, 14 June 2005
I think the new editing is going in the right direction.
Since, as I said earlier, I respect the desire of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation not to get enmeshed in the anger surrounding the subject of homosexuality, I am leaving this to your own best judgement.
Meanwhile I would like to add some of what I have seen and give some opinions that might be helpful.
1. I interviewed three of the persons who signed "Yes, We Have Changed" advertisements and they told me: (1) there were only four or five ads altogether. (Not exactly a media blitz.) The ads were of modest size. (2) The people who signed the ads took care of them, not the Aesthetic Realism Foundation. The signers created them, paid for them, put them in the newspapers. (Some of the signers were in the advertising industry, and still are as far as I know.) So you now have a social scientist reporting that three eyewitnesses corroborate what TS writes. I am confident that we have got some verified facts here.
Wiki has not been picky about publishing "as if" true the totally unverifiable imaginary "factoids" of some others. Why so finicky about the actual truth?
2. Is the word "claimed" really the right word? To be fair--to be really NPOV--it's the wrong word. Simply to write "stated" is better. I began studying Aesthetic Realism in 1968. I had studied works on the subject of gender as part of anthropology (for ex. Gregory Bateson's classic Naven). So in August '68, when I heard Sheldon Kranz's paper decribing the logical basis on which he had changed from homosexuality years before (it was in the 1940s I believe) and married Anne Fielding--I knew I was listening to a scientific description of the highest caliber. For this and many other reasons it is clear to me--and anyone who knows people who signed the ads--that they shouldn't be described in Wiki as "claiming" to have changed. "Claim" already prejudices the reader into thinking the claim is hollow. The signers of these ads ought to be given their due--a presumption of integrity, not fraudulence. I believe each one felt some new emotion to which he or she had formerly been a stranger--and then wanted to say, "Yes, we have changed."
3. Was Aesthetic Realism best known for changing homosexuality? Perhaps in the gay world it was--but that does not mean it was so in the art world, in the literary world, and in the world of anthropology or the social sciences. In fact, it was only a small part of the picture, albeit highly visible for a short time.
4. I have put on a blog of mine the writing on Aesthetic Realism and Structuralism. It's a subject I've lectured on from time to time and I am pretty sure what I wrote is philosophically correct. It's something various anthropologists have asked me about over the years, including Conrad Arensberg one afternoon in his office at Columbia in 1968. Can some of it be used in Wiki? See this link.
5. There is, indeed, an anti-Aesthetic Realism gang of which Bluejay is only the most recent mouthpiece. They plan a reunion in NY City on the 17th of June, according to his web pages. These web pages of his on Aesthetic Realism are less than a year old. The lynchpin of the gang is Ellen Mali of Evergreen Colorado. Next is her son Adam Mali, now a restaurant owner there, who wrote a web page of astonishing misrepresentations a few years ago. Then, her close girlfriend Heide Krakauer, who lied in print and was "busted" for it [1]. There is a recent "defector" whom I don't particularly want to name but whose spiteful writing I recognize among the Wiki anons. And there are a few others who also hide behind a screen of anonymity. Ms. Mali, former executive director of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, tried to use this educational institute as her "fiefdom" and caused much upset, but didn't get her way; finally she left in the early 1990s, to try to avenge herself on the Foundation by using the internet, etc.. This little gang has come out with a stream of lies that would curdle vinegar. Bluejay was just enlisted because of his internet savvy, and took to the job eagerly. There is no mystery. Just a gang. -- -- Aperey 17:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, what Aperey describes is pretty near to what I remember happening. Some reunion that will be! I can't think of a group I'd rather socialize with less. I have long felt Michael Bluejay was just the webmaster for Mali & Company. Glad to have it confirmed.
I mostly agree with Aperey. I typed out my responses and when I went to submit them, his had been posted. So here is what I wrote, and you can see it mostly goes along with the above:
I can't answer all of this. Here is what I do know. After Siegel won the nation poetry prize and moved to New York City he began giving classes in poetry at his home to interested poets and other artists including painters and photographers. They felt the principles he was talking about--namely, even then, the opposites in a poem that made for beauty--definitely applied to other areas of life as well. They requested that he expand his lectures to include other topics, which he did. Over the years he continued developing his ideas and presenting them in his lectures. The size of his classes grew. At one point not everybody studying with him could fit into the room where he taught at one time. There was a rotating list of who got to come to lectures because of space considerations. Siegel lectured five times a week--on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday nights and Saturday and Sunday afternoons--for over forty years. The sheer volume of his lectures, and the topics he covered is astounding. They are all the property of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation--most of them on tape and quite a few transcribed into manuscripts. Some have been serialized in the bi-weekly publication of the Foundation. But they represent only a small number. In 1941 Eli had developed his ideas firmly enough to present the four basic principles of what would become Aesthetic Realism, although he first called it Aesthetic Analysis. The name was later changed (I don't know when but it was quite early) because Siegel felt the word "analysis" denoted too much of a clinical and theraputic sense when he considered what he was doing as primarily philosophic and educational. The Society for Aesthetic Realism, with Siegel's wife Martha Baird as secretary, was founded in the late 1940's. Siegel's students were the force behind renting a building (then on Grove Street) and opening the Terrain Gallery there in 1955--dedicated to displaying the work of artists as explained by Aesthetic Realism principles. I don't know when the Aesthetic Realism Foundation was formally established--but it was sometime later using the same facilities as the Terrain Gallery. As Aesthetic Realism grew, the Foundation purchased its own building in SoHo (where it is currently housed) sometime in the 1970's. Aperey would know the exact dates. Consultations began in the old building on Grove Street in 1971. Siegel believed that three consultants should speak to one person because their joint seeing would be more useful to that individual. I don't know exactly who all the first consultants were although I know Sheldon Kranz, Margot Carpenter and Ellen Reiss were three of them. I believe Dorothy and Chaim Koppelman were too. Persons coming to study Aesthetic Realism would then attend classes and have consultations at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation instead of studying directly with Eli Siegel. He continued to teach classes in his home for people who were consultants or wanted to become consultants. One could apply to study with Eli Siegel for that purpose after a period of time studying Aesthetic Realism itself at the Foundation. Siegel himself kept studying and formulating Aesthetic Realism to the end of his life. When he died most of his works, including Self and World, the basic text of Aesthetic Realism, had not yet been published. Other unpublished works included Defintions and Comment: Being a Description of Reality and The Aesthetic Nature of the World. There was also a large body of unpublished poems--many written in the inside covers of the thousands of books he owned and read. The mind of the man was incredible. He could talk about some obscure person from the fifth century nobody had ever heard about and describe him and what was in his mind so vividly through looking at his writings that you felt that person was sitting right next to you in the room and you'd known him all your life. Siegel made you want to go home and read more. I would stay up late into the night reading poetry by Tennyson, Poe and a host of lesser known authors--and I had always hated poetry! And Siegel had great humor too. Sometimes I laughed so hard in those lectures my side would hurt. But the humor was never depreciating of others, something I really appreciated.
As I understand it, the victim of the press buttons were the result of the way the press--which wasn't very interested in philosophic thought and saw news mostly as dirt it could uncover about something--responded to Aesthetic Realism with either silence or snobbery. Siegel began discussing the effect this attitude of the press--which he never considered to be only about Aesthetic Realism but a general attitude in the press that preferred the sensational and contempt and what a clever reporter could do with truth instead of truth itself--had on his students. He said people generally don't want to respect anything because they think it lessens them. But the respect is somewhat bearable if the thing has lots of press notices and is well known because then you can feel important being associated with it. The victim of the press buttons were mostly worn by students to remind themselves not to underestimate the effect the press was having on them every day. After all, you told somebody you studied Aesthetic Realism and they looked at you like you had three heads! People wouldn't have done that if they had been reading about Aesthetic Realism in some established source like a newspaper. And this had an effect on his students that he, in his kindness I feel, wanted them to be aware of. I don't know who came up with the idea of the buttons, but I don't believe it was Siegel himself. One of the things about Siegel was how little he went after publicity. His students, however, felt that Aesthetic Realism was important knowledge that should reach people and tried to have that happen in many ways--including the ads. It was slow and frustrating work and very discouraging to many. It was decided by the Foundation many years later and well after Siegel's death to discontinue wearing the buttons because at that time articles and letters written by students were being more readily printed in the press (as apparently they still are) and it seemed there was a somewhat different attitude, at least in the secondary media. I don't know exactly when this decision was made, but I believe it was early in the 1990's. The times were also very different then from the mid 1970's when the buttons were first worn in an era that had more excitement about diverse theories and practices such as primal scream, meditation, est etc. Wearing the buttons didn't seem as odd at that time as it did later in the culture of the 1990's.
I think you've got it essentially right about the difference between the role of the class chairman (academic dean) and executive director (business manager). That was essentially the case. The last sentence about the Foundation sounds okay to me. I know Eli Siegel stressed the difference between therapy and education in describing Aesthetic Realism but had limited success in getting the distinction across--i.e. the Psy Dictionary. Not that therapy is a terrible word. People's lives were certainly affected centrally. But Siegel felt it was much too narrow a word to describe Aesthetic Realism--i.e. changing the name from Aesthetic Analysis.
Anyway, I'll try tomorrow or the next day to take some of what we've been discussing and have agreed about already on the talk page and put it into the definition we are editing if you think that would be okay. Maybe you could boil down the information I've given above into a few sentences since I tend to get too detailed. TS 16 June 2005
The TS description is accurate, is true. I might disagree with some details but not the whole, at all.
Some notes on where I think the description would not be right.
1. This wouldn't be quite correct: Something like "The ARF building in SoHo houses the gallery and bookshop (also used for large meetings), classrooms, consultation rooms, and offices."
How about: The Aesthetic Realism Foundation building in SoHo houses the Terrain Gallery, bookshop, classrooms, consultation area, and offices. The gallery space is also where public events (such as seminars and theatrical events) take place.
I'd say the word "meetings" isn't quite correct. I think it gives the wrong impression to say large meetings take place at the Foundation--suggesting a union meeting, a town meeting, or a religious meeting. The larger events are (1) public seminars, in which people study Aesthetic Realism through papers presented by consultants and associates [in other words strictly education]and (2) dramatic events like concerts, readings, and dramatic presentations, which are entertainment combined with eduation. These have neither the form of meetings nor the content of meetings, and if one came expecting a meeting one would be disappointed.
2. "Therapy" is definitely the wrong word. Aesthetic Realism is a way of seeing the world. "Philosophic education" is closer. Of course a psychological dictionary would see everything from a psychologists' point of view.
But let's see the context in which the word is used. Then we could decide.
For clarity's sake, consider this: Siegel wrote in Self and World that "the large difference between Aesthetic Realism and other ways of seeing an individual is that Aesthetic Realism makes the attitude of an individual to the whole world the most critical thing in his life." [P. 1]
A person's attitude to the whole world is his philosophy. At the same time as the way one sees the world becomes increasingly accurate, the way one sees men, women, books--everything--becomes increasingly accurate.
I described it somewhere in the talk page. -- Suppose you don't like Chaucer very much but you don't know Chaucer very comprehensively or in sufficient detail. Then, because you want to appreciate Chaucer more, you go to a good teacher. The teacher shows you how the different characters in Chaucer--the Prioresse, the Knight, others--are deeply interesting as people and tell you things about yourself, and how the poetic lines of Chaucer are carefully and wildly made, and you see things about Chaucer's kindness. Then you come to respect Chaucer, you like Chaucer, even love Chaucer more--in proportion to how deeply you know him and his work. And, surprisingly, you are proud of yourself for your knowledge and your deeper emotion about this world literary figure's poetry.
For "Chaucer" read "the world," and you have a rough idea of how Aesthetic Realism teaches a person "to like the world more as the one means of liking yourself." As you can see it isn't therapy at all. It's learning about the world and what's in it.
That's why Aesthetic Realism accents the study of poetry, the social sciences, history--something that therapy doesn't do.
-- Aperey 15:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is a structure for us to talk about the scratch page. While we can add comments, if we do all of our discussion there then the text will be hard to decipher. The headings below represent a suggestion for the structure of the article. Let's discuss any changes to the structure under this heading, and the contents of articles sections under relevant headings. Ithis might help us keep the discussions on track. Thanks, - Willmcw 05:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with the changes made by Aperey here. [TS 17 June 2005]
Aesthetic Realism hasn't "discarded" any "claim." People stopped abusing alcohol as they learned to like the world and see it with more depth and wonder. If this should not be put in exactly this way out of deference to AA, that's okay with me. But stop trying to imply Aesthetic Realism is hiding something, Outerlimits. It isn't! (TS 17 June 2005]
Remembered by whom?
Homosexuality hasn't been part of the Aesthetic Realism curriculum for fifteen years now--and it wasn't for thirty years before 1971.
There are a whole lot of people who "remember" Aesthetic Realism for things other than the homosexuality matter. It seems as if this matter is big in Outerlimit's mind--which is fine. But he makes a generalization that simply isn't true. Elsewhere in my previous comments I gave a pretty substantial list of the ways Aesthetic Realism was known by the public other than for the change from homosexuality even during the years it was publically discussiong homosexuality--including ads and articles on other subjects. And many people came to study Aesthetic Realism in those years who weren't homosexual. [TS 17 June 2005]
This is true, so I agree with the implied suggestion that "widely" should be removed from the article. [TS 17 June 2005]
This is not true at all. Again, this is Outerlimit's point of view. [TS 17 June 2005]
Yes, it's Outerlimits viewpoint but I do dispute it. You can't sum up millions of people, call them the general public, and say "a member of the general public ... remember[s] the 'change from homosexuality' episode" because there are billions of people in the world--and they know different things about Aesthetic Realism. You know the old Persian story about the blind wise men who each touched a different part of an elephant (trunk, leg, side, tusk) and each summed up the elephant in his own terms: "The elephant is like a snake" -- "The elephant is like a tree" -- "The elephant is like a wall" -- "The elephant is like a spear." Well, different sectors of the population know Aesthetic Realism chiefly in terms of one aspect: poetry, art galleries, or music, or anthropology, or literature, or homosexuality. It depends on the interests of the people in question. Outerlimits is affected by the approach to homosexuality, and that is very understandable. But it isn't the only thing people in the 80 year history of Eli Siegel's thought have been interested in knowing about--or which has received some national attention (with or without the help of the press). This should be accounted for in the final article. Meanwhile, Aesthetic Realism is all of these things and more. -- Aperey 23:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{The above would replace the following: TS} Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by American poet and critic Eli Siegel. According to Aesthetic Realism "the purpose of life is to see the world in the best way", which involves appreciating the duality of nature and avoiding contempt. The philosophy is taught by consultants at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City. In the 1970s it was known its claims that many men and women that they had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality through studying Aesthetic Realism.
I do not agree to this change in my wording. See my reasons below. [TS 17 June 2005]
Outerlimits is not correct. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation still to this day says that men and women DID change from homosexuality through their study of Aesthetic Realism.
(See the Aesthetic Reallsm Foundation statement on the Countering the Lies site.) Outerlimits keeps using the word "belief" to give the implication these men should not be taken at their wordor are somehow deceived. Meanwhile, I know many of those who DID change and now have good marriages and even children. Outerlimits can believe what he wants, but what these men say happened to them should not be presented with suspicion on wikipedia, only reported factually. It is up to the reader to decide, not Outerlimits!
Again, I object to the phrasing "avoid contempt," for all the reasons I've written about previously. I also object to the phrase "appreciating the duality of nature." That is not at all how Aesthetic Realism sees the subject of the opposites. Aperey is right on the mark--and shouldn't we take his phrasing since he actually teaches the subject? [TS 17 June 2005]
By the way, I think Outerlimits is Michael Bluejay. He does seem to have one way of writing for all occasions. He's entitled to be immune to the facts, but not to push that viewpoint on others. -- Aperey 22:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aesthetic Realism is based on four basic concepts: "(1) Every person is always trying to put together opposites in himself or herself. (2) Every person in order to respect him- or herself has to see the world as beautiful or good or acceptable. (3) There is a disposition in every person to think we will be for ourselves by making less of the outside world. And (4) All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."
[need explanation of contempt]
Since there's no support for the curent history version, I'm going to remove it from the Scratch version so we can start with the new. - Willmcw 20:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
The question is whether to handle aspects of AR's history in separate thematic sections or as part of a chronology. Homosexual change is the main such issue. The development of the AR Foundation is another. My preference is that we should write the article based on the facts that we can find, and facts are often particular to certain dates so writing articles chronologically is much easier. What facts do we have for the homosexual change matter? The books, the TV appearances, the ads, all of which gave the AR story. Do we have any newspaper articles, TIME stories, gay magazines or books that mention any of this? What else can we add to that? - Willmcw 05:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Since the ARF developed over time its development should probably be handled as part of the chronological story of AR. - Willmcw 05:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
As currently structured, this is where criticism of AR goes. The criticisms which have been mentioned include the allegation that AR is a cult and that its success at homosexual change has not been depicted accurately . Keeping with the spirit of handling most issues chronologically, perhaps it would be better to mention the criticisms in their logical chronological order rather than segregating them in a separate section. Can we assign dates to any of those criticsms? - Willmcw 08:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I am a new voice. I studied AR for a number of years with Eli Siegel and in classes with Ellen Reiss and others. In the 70's most of the men and women who joined to study had deep questions about their sexuality. However, the "backfire" that occurred was not just a that there was virulent animosity from the gay and enlightened community but that many of the folks that "changed" changed back! These people ultimately left AR. For the record I can name names. Those that stayed have been pushed into marriages. At least two of the authors of the H Persuasion returned to the gay life.
The reason many people have joined Mr. Bluejay in a campaign against AR is that this philosophy has been used to hurt and confuse many who have studied it. The study is a joining into a social structure run by folks with possibly good hearts but also a heedless passion; as we have seen from Dr Perey's remarks. Imagine a young man told that his desire towards the same sex is contempt and that since he already knows that his continuing in that direction is caused by his deep anger at the respect he feels for Eli Siegel. These great academic philosophers would castigate and ignore those that could not change.
I am sorry to bore you with this but the garbage academic discussion by Arnold Perey is too far removed from the horrible consequences of this cult.
The aggrandizing of AR by Dr. Perey should not be allowed on your site.
No-longer-a-believer
For the record, men and women who changed from homosexuality through their study of Aesthetic Realism and are now happily married with spouses and children even though they no longer study Aesthetic Realism also exist. Some have statements on the Countering the Lies site. It is insulting and quite false to say men were "pushed" into marriages. Those who study Aesthetic Realism and marry do so of their own free will. Also, Aesthetic Realism teaches that contempt is a disposition present in all people--homosexual or not. Nobody is exempt. [TS 19 June 2005]
These are things that could be cleared up in open discussions and I hope they will be some day. But it's clear to anyone that there's still that "atmosphere of anger."
I might add that even things that appear on websites are suspect as sources, because the Web is the easiest place to say anything one pleases and bear no responsibility for it.-- Aperey 21:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If I were to ask about the value of a new theory in physics, would I go to non-physicist sources for the most accurate information? Herein lies a dilemma.
What is the best source for information about Aesthetic Realism?
I feel sure that good will and objectivity can resolve this question. But it may take some more discussion. Cheers, -- Aperey 18:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Questions:
How did Siegel "found" AR? By writing a book? By starting to give lectures under that name? Were consultations given in Siegel's home prior to ARF?
Some answers: -- I put these as best I could into the Timeline.
I. By writing a book? No--Self and World was written in 1942-3 although his work on definitions started in the 1920s or earlier.
II. By starting to give lectures under that name? The lectures were in 1944.
III. Were consultations given in Siegel's home prior to ARF? Yes
Here is source material:
Gay movement leaders said it was dangerous for there to be ex-gays telling about changing from being gay to being heterosexual. If being gay was not obligitory but a matter of choice, they said, it would make it harder to get legislation for equal rights. (Equal rights under the law is guaranteed in the U.S. They were probably wrong.) Then they tried to discredit the male and female ex-gays and keep the word from getting out. It was politics. They also didn't like anyone questioning being gay, and the fact that so many of these ex-gays actually preferred being heterosexual was a thorn in their side that made them angry. This is why they're yelling now on Wikipedia at the Aesthetic Realists. It isn't because men and women "claimed" to change. That is not dangerous, that is just annoying. It's because they really did. And they're not saying being gay is "sinful" or its "sick." They're actually reasonable people who preferred something else.
Since these comments and edits are getting more complex to follow, I've tried to gather everything we've agreed to so far into one coherent whole. Hopefully this will be close to the final product, but why don't we go on with any edits from here. Here is my modest effort at putting it all together (with a few minor additions of my own along the way. [TS 22 June 2005]
This is not the article I would write if I were the sole author of this piece. It gives far too much prominence to a minor bit player in the history of Aesthetic Realism--Michael Bluejay--and to his baseless twistings of the truth about Aesthetic Realism as well as to the "anonymous" voices who speak for and through him. Nevertheless, there is some value in placing what he says into the larger context of what Aesthetic Realism truly is, so I think this article has its usefulness and value. I hope the "critics" don't try to butcher it too much to push their POV. [TS 22 June 2005]
I fear this gives far too little attention to AR's continuous concerns about homosexuality, which dates from far before 1971 - at least as far back as Kranz's purported "change". Possibly this will be appear less so when headings are introduced, though the "change from homosexuality" has to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. But this can be rectified once this goes live and can be relentlessly edited. Since protection seems to have fulfilled its goal of forcing the anonymous reverters to discuss changes rather than insist the article be written their way only, it's probably time for deprotection. We should probably also invite Mr. Bluejay - once an editor here but who stopped editing in response to a mediator's request - to review this version and make any appropriate additions or revisions. - Outerlimits 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[Sidenote: Mr. Bluejay absented himself, or else is writing under another username, which Wikipedia allows. Once we have come up with an agreed-upon version it is in keeping with his technique to revise it in his own terms. But time will tell. -- Aperey 23:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) ]
Well, I've had enough. I've never posted here before (and it is unlikely I will again) though as a person who studied Aesthetic Realism for years, still thinks of it fondly, and is in touch from time to time with friends who currently study it, I've been following the Wiki debate with great interest and no small amount of irritation. I'm not interested in being an editor because at least I acknowledge there are many others far better qualifed than me to describe what Aesthetic Realism is. However, this last posting finally got my fingers moving on the ole computer keyboard, quite furiously I might add--kudos! So I ask: What "continuous concerns" about homosexuality did Aesthetic Realism have prior to 1971? That is a pure fiction. Sheldon Kranz often said (and wrote) that he changed from homosexuality without the subject itself ever being discussed. He said his way of seeing the world changed and with it came new feelings for women that included body and which he had never felt in his life before--along with a decrease in his physical attraction to the bodies of men. It would be a surprise indeed for Mr. Kranz' widow--still very much alive--to see his change placed quaintly in quotation marks as if to falsify their marriage of many years simply because Outerlimits doesn't WILL it to be so. I am a strong supporter of gay rights. A person should be whatever makes him happy. A politician who didn't support domestic partnership benefits would never get my vote. But I am also for the right of a person to take a different direction in life if that is what he desires. It is very clear that many have done exactly that in studying Aesthetic Realism and this is what has Outerlimit's goat. And, by the way, Michael Bluejay is the least qualifed person to comment on Aesthetic Realism I know. He never studied it and his only interest is in twisting around everything about Aesthetic Realism he can to make sure nobody finds out what it really is. I have a rather strong suspicion, in fact, that "Outerlimits" might well be Michael Bluejay in one of his many anonymous guises. (Call me crazy but never call me gullible!) I have it on good authority that the closest Michael Bluejay ever got to studying Aesthetic Realism was being wheeled into the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in a baby carriage when he was an infant, one guest visit to a lecture by Eli Siegel when he was a child before moving far away from it to Austin, Texas, (where he actually grew up--at least in a manner of speaking) and a short visit with his aunt in New York City (who DOES study Aesthetic Realism and who writes on Countering the Lies about bringing him to a program at the Foundation when he was 13). That's it. Period. Of course, he probably thinks he knows a lot about Aesthetic Realism since his mother filled his head with lies about it for years. Asking Michael Bluejay to comment on Aesthetic Realism is a little bit like asking Osama Bin Laden to critique Gandhi's theory of nonviolent resistance or like asking a Southern Plantation owner following the Civil War to write an honest article on the historic importance of the Emancipation Proclamation! One would have to be a fool to expect honestly on the subject considering the source. But anyway, it would suit Outerlimit's purposes to have the Bluejay fiction about Aesthetic Realism on wikipedia masquerading as objective fact since he himself is hardly interested in the truth of the matter and seems to be a Johnny one-note on the subject of homosexuality. I'm quite sure we can take him at his word and he will be "relentless" in trying to revert whatever objective piece wikipedia decides to post. (In case you missed it everybody--that was half threat and half boast. "You think you are going to get to something balanced about Aesthetic Realism willmcw, aperey, TS and others? Not while I'm around!) I'll sign myself Fed Up!
While it's clearly tempting for AR's anonymous editors to see all their difficulties as the result of one person, it's simply not the case. And ad hominem argumentation is inappropriate, so it will remain unanswered. I am not particularly concerned with Mr. Bluejay beyond the extent that it is important that all viewpoints are represented here. On the substantive points: "Change from homosexuality" is in quotation marks because it is a quotation, and because it is an idiosyncratic term used by AR. Tom Shields' Ted van Griethuysen's "nearly continuous concern" quotation appears in the "H Persuasion". If you don't believe a book published by AR's house publisher, that's not my fault. As to my insistance that AR not try to cover up either their history with or teachings on homosexuality, and that they speak plainly about Siegel's suicide, I regret that they have such difficulty with their own history that they have made it necessary, but the job of the Wikipedia is to provide truthful information, not only a sanitized version told from AR's viewpoint. -
Outerlimits 01:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.S. "Fed Up!" appears to have misunderstood the phrase "relentless editing" which is simply Wikipedia jargon for the normal editing process. - Outerlimits 01:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm new at this so I make mistakes along the way. I agree we aren't ready to declare victory yet. But I hope victory is closer. [TS 24 June 2005]
Do we have any place where the most nearly agreed-on version of this article appears?
I have been looking for the last few days and don't see it.
I appreciate how much work it is to consolidate different opinions. And I'd like to be more useful.... but where?
-- Aperey 23:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.S. What did Tom Shields actually say? I don't think Outerlimits got it right or is quoting right. There was hardly any concern about homosexuality around Aesthetic Realism before 1971. Sheldon Kranz wrote about his change from homosexuality in 1968. Even so, it was under the title "David Crane Himself" because at that time he wanted to remain anonymous. Three years later, he used his own name. I remember his presenting that paper because it was one of the very first things I heard at an Aesthetic Realism presentation at the Terrain Gallery and it wowed me. It was August 1968. Kranz was a poet and a professional editor at MacMillan. It's all an ascertainable part of history. -- Aperey 23:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.P.S. Why does Willmcw say Wikipedia's job is to represent different POVs and not ascertain the truth while Outerlimits says the point is the find out the truth? (I take it to mean Outerlimits' version of the truth is the only one permissible.) Where are we?
While this back and forth between Aperey and Outerlimits is interesting, it really has very little to do with the subject at hand.
Let's get to an HONEST article about Aesthetic Realism, gentlemen!
Outerlimits, I don't think your way will do that at all. There is a myopic quality to how you see Aesthetic Realism as you magnify a relatively minor aspect of it while diminishing its central and most important features. I know we all can see things through the thick filter of our own self-interest and concerns (I battle against this everyday), but it does seem to me that far more perspective and objectivity is required if one is to write a dispassionate and accurate description of Aesthetic Realism And an article freighted with references to Aesthetic Realism in relation to homosexuality just isn't it! I don't care who wrote what in The H Persuasion. I studied Aesthetic Realism during these years and while homosexuality was certainly among the topics discussed--and, to be sure, an important aspect of Aesthetic Realism in that period--it was hardly center stage, even then.
Aperey, you sound reaonable and patient but a bit too defensive. I think the OBJECTIVE editors here see what's up and the direction in which this article is going will be fine--even if some junk has to be included in the name of "objectivity." I think enough of the big stuff about Aesthetic Realism will be here to show what it actually is.
I just came to this site after reading some of the newest statements on Countering the Lies by people who are former students and who haven't studied Aesthetic Realism in years--and those statements in their clarity and passion are pretty good indications that a whole third group of people exist beyond the current body of Aesthetic Realism students on the one hand and the small contingent of snippers who are taking cheap pot shots at everything and everyone that moves around Aesthetic Realism on the other. This third group is the former, ex-students who look back upon their study of Aesthetic Realism with gratitude and fondness--and know it is anything but a cult no matter how slick the Bluejay virtual reality machine operating these days on the internet might be. And, frankly, we are legion! I think as more and more former students become aware of these outrageous attacks we will step forward and develop into a potent force. And please note that when former students speak out they all have names--unlike that anonymous crew of character assassins being given far too much currency by the Bluejay rantings. So thanks to Hank D'Amico, Mara Bennici, Mark Lale, Jerry Amello and all the rest of you for trying to set the record straight! I want to tell you how moved I am by your statements! Maybe I'll soon gather up my courage and write one for myself.
As to the matter at hand--I hope the editing I did to the article is preserved somewhere. It was mostly a bringing together of what is already here, but in my research I found a couple of important quotes about Hot Afternoons that I don't believe have been unearthed yet, and I added them to the article. I'm hoping they weren't lost when my revisions were understandably taken down. But just in case they were, here they are:
I think these quotes give some true idea of how Hot Afternoons affected America when it first appeared and how Aesthetic Realism developed as the logical outgrowth of the way of seeing that was in that poem. How anybody could say that Eli Siegel is not one of America's great poets is beyond me! A person would simply have to be ignorant about the history of American poetry. [TS 28 June 2005]
Hardly. We can debate, of course, this matter of what a "major" poet is. Popularity and fame are not the same thing as greatness. You do seem to equate the two in your comment. By no means was John Keats considered a "major" poet in his day. But he was great nevertheless and in time what keen poetic critics of the day were saying about Keats' poetry came to be the generally held opinion. Yet even if that never happened, Keats was still GREAT! Two plus two equals four even if the whole world is saying it doesn't! Meanwhile, you will notice that I have been very factual and rather modest in the editing suggestions I have made for wikipedia on this subject, and essentially have offered quotes from established authorities in the field for possible inclusion in the article at the discretion of the editor. I did not suggest the sentence: "Eli Siegel is one of America's great poets" for the article (although I consider it a true statement). I suggested the quotes by Beum and McDonald. I don't want to be drawn into a back and forth here aka Aperey, so I'll let you demolish my logic in withering response and just leave it at that. If you want the last word, be my guest. I will "personalize" no more, however tempted. To paraphrase Hamlet: "The article is the thing!" [TS 1 July 2005]
It is an easy matter to snipe at a person's writing by inserting a snide remark after every few sentences, as Outermits has done. However, both ignorance and ill will disqualify a person--make him a vandal not an editor--and Outerlimits has both. I point this out now because it's important for wiki administrators to see this long-standing motive to vandalize. Meanwhile I too don't intend to respond to further sniping. -- Aperey 1 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
Without taking sides about the content or tone of comments, I would like to say that it would be easier for other editors trying to follow the conversation if everyone could try to aggregate their comments into stand-alone paragraphs rather than interpolating them among previous comments. Thanks - Willmcw July 2, 2005 20:04 (UTC)
I added some new material to the time line.
Along the way I fixed some punctuation here and there. -- Aperey 6 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
I do agree it is well past time to have something much closer to the truth about Aesthetic Realism on the article page. How do we get moving on this? What more needs to be done? [TS 11 July 2005]
This article has been protected a month now due to the one anon user who wasn't discussing things. As there appears to be reasonable discussion on resolving the disputes, I think its now time to see if they've grown up or gone away. If the protection is needed again leave a note at WP:AN/I, WP:RFPP or my talk page. Thryduulf 16:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I've put together text from the temp page and pasted it into the main article. There are some areas where we are still working, primarily the homosexual change mattre and the cult allegations. The timeline is now in its own article, timeline of Aesthetic Realism. I hope that going forward we can all work together rather than overriding each other's edits as happened previously. Thanks, - Willmcw 20:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I am glad to see the article at last unprotected. And thank you Willmcw and TS for the yeoman work in bringing together so many strands into a real article. It IS a real article. This was a huge job, and having watched you undergo the difficulties in achieving it, I'm most grateful!
I hope it will not seem unfair if, for the sake of improving it here and there, I suggest that a few changes be made. (Nothing we haven't touched on before though.)
1. The first is the title of the poem. This I'll just change because no one could object. Instead of And so, Hot Summer begins, we'll have "And so, 'Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana' begins," ....
2. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation was founded in 1973. I'll just fix that. Understandable small typo in the midst of so much information. (Terrain Gallery was in 1955)
2a. To make a complete sentence, I changed the following in the first paragraph: According to Aesthetic Realism, "encourage people to see the world all through their lives in the best way they can" to the following, 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" -- hope this is OK. Someone else might think of a better way to makde the sentence complete.
3. I also think AR should be replaced with Aesthetic Realism, which is the proper usage as I have observed it for 30 years.
Does anyone object?
4. Next, if I remember what TS wrote, the following sentence does not reflect his actual observation:
The essence of what he wrote would be, instead, something like this:
Does anyone disagree with this change? I remember those days and think this description is what actually happened.
5. As we have discussed, the last sentence in the first paragraph really does not state things accurately. I think it's there by mistake as we really did settle it, or so I thought. I think there is enough detail in the Timeline to show that it needs revision. Here is the sentence: "In the 1970s and 1980s Aesthetic Realism was widely known for publicizing its claim that men and women studying it had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality."
Why don't we just use the sentence suggested by TS, or some slight modification of it?
[Notations from TS]
I am glad this article has been changed, although I agree it needs some further work.
First, I made a few minor changes for clarity that I doubt anybody will disagree with. I will mention them here just in case:
These are the only changes I made. However, I do have comments and suggestions.
Finally, I wade into what seems to be the most contentious issue about this article: the matter of homosexuality and the Aesthetic Realism Foundation’s discontinuance of teaching about it.
Somehow, this article needs to be clear that Aesthetic Realism (1) doesn’t see homosexuality as “pathological” or as a “sickness” (2) that it doesn’t agree that homosexuality is a matter of biology and isn’t amenable to change, (3) that it believes the only reason a homosexual person should change is if he himself wants to do so and feels such change will give him a better and richer relation to the world and (4) that homosexual persons should have their full civil rights and not be discriminated against in any way. I don’t think the present language does this entirely. Here is my attempt:
Finally, I would be happy to make suggestions about a fuller description of the philosophy itself. Perhaps Willmcw could pose a few questions he’d like answered so I know where to begin. [TS 13 July 2005]
For the record, I think the writing of TS on the subject of homosexuality has balance and is well informed. I think his emendations to the material that is in place now should be used in the article. What he writes really fits the facts as I remember them.
Considering the article again, I feel the section on "Aesthetic Realism and Poetry" is not clear. Perhaps it's been cut too much. We don't know why a way of seeing the world based on poetry does what Aesthetic Realism says it does. I can make some suggestions to clarify it.
I also suggest that an article by Dorothy Koppelman and Carrie Wilson (Directors of the Terrain Gallery)--which was presented at the World Conference referred to in the "Aesthetic Realism Scholarship" section--be substituted for the paper by Marcia Rackow and myself. It's a survey of how the Siegel Theory of Opposites has been used to explain beauty in the art of different periods, styles, and media--and the relation of art to individual's lives. Titled "Aesthetic Realism Shows How Art Answers the Questions of Your Life" the URL is: http://www.terraingallery.org/koppelman-wilson-art.pdf. -- Aperey 19:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't have time to keep up with all the nonsense over here but I'm going to dedicate myself to one of Perey's crimes in particular:
*[My dear Mr. Bluejay, what makes you think I wrote this? I did not write this. Please see below for my further comments. -- Arnold Perey -- -- Aperey 21:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
(1) Perey knows damn well that my mother doesn't wish to be named because I explain so in detail on my site (the one that he and the other AR people have gone over with a fine-tooth comb to try to debunk with their CounteringTheLies.com). This is a cheap shot so typical of AR people's tactics. They put my mom's name on their website for the same reason -- after they noticed in the bio on my personal page that I didn't mention my mother's name because she's private and doesn't want to be named. I asked them to take it down but not only did that request fall on deaf ears, they're now looking for other places to out her against her wishes.
(2) For someone who claims that I'm a liar Perey sure plays fast and loose with the truth. It's not true that my mother ONCE studied. She studied continuously almost out of the crib through her thirties, when I was a TEENAGER (not an infant).
(3) My relation to AR is NOT just that my mother studied -- and nor that my father studied, nor that my mother's two sisters studied, as did their parents, including my grandmother (one of the ones who "changed" from homosexuality), and not even that I had lessons with Eli Siegel. It's ALSO that I had private consultations at the AR headquarters, I attended numerous AR workshops and classes there, I participated in one of those pathetic protests at the NY Times building for their supposed conspiracy to not report favorably about AR, and I regularly attended the AR study group my mother started in Texas.
In summary, stop outing my mother and stop lying about me. Michaelbluejay 15:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Mr. James M Lane, is the statement that a non-criminal person has committed "crimes" a smear? Would you consider it actionable?
Again, I ask: Mr. Bluejay, what makes you think I wrote this? I did not write this. Whoever did, could have known the facts better. As you may know, I knew you when you were a toddler a few years old, not an infant--when, together with your mother, you had a lesson with Eli Siegel which you quote from on your web site. And so, first of all, I would never say that your mother "once studied Aesthetic Realism when he was an infant." I do not know who wrote these sentences. And second, I would not flatter you by calling you "one of the more persistent critics." As I wrote in these pages, I do not see you as a "critic" at all--no more than a person who hates Michealangelo can be considered a critic of the Pieta. Someone ANGRY WITH BEAUTY did, by the way, break the nose off the Virgin with a hammer.
So please remove your accusations, which are wild and untrue.
I will say this: Your aunt, Alice Bernstein (who is your mother's sister) believes she has a right to name persons who have spoken cheaply about Aesthetic Realism. It's part of the historical record. That includes your mother who, she has pointed out, may have encouraged your present attitude. Mrs. Bernstein's right to free expression was not interfered with by anyone when she wanted to write rather fully on the internet in "Countering the Lies". I did a search, and she's the only one who wrote about your mother in "Countering the Lies". So when you say "They put my mom's name on their website..." you leave out a few relevant facts (which are part of the whole story). Meanwhile, have you ever tried to curb the spleen of your own writing?--even so far as to stick to the truth? Perhaps if you take your lies off the internet, and keep them off, Mrs. Bernstein will reconsider whether it's necessary anymore to name names.
(I may mention that Alice Bernstein's mother--your grandmother--May Musicant, you also smeared brutally online, including in a song whose title is something like "My Grandmother Was a Lesbian." I cared for May Musicant, she and your grandfather Jack had a good effect on my life with their honesty, warmth and good humor.)
As I said, the passage you are referring to is not my writing. You have a right to correct it, but not to abuse me. (1)Meanwhile, this is the third version of your story. (2)Your mother, if she did indeed continue to study Aesthetic Realism, did so from quite a distance--in Texas. Apparently she WANTED to. She certainly wasn't pressured into it. In fact, I didn't even know about it. The obvious conclusion anyone would draw from all this, is that you have no reason to call Aesthetic Realism a cult--something that can only be studied if you live below 14th Street in New York City and are "watched" constantly by other cultists. This is what Adam Mali says it is, a person to whom you link on your website and praise extravagantly as more eloquent than yourself. (Why don't you criticize what he says? You know it's untrue!) And this is what the Baltimore Jewish Times says, which you have linked to as evidence, and it is something you know from personal experience to be completely false. For if you studied Aesthetic Realism together with your mother, as far away as Texas, without any other students such as myself even knowing it, you lived a complete contradiction to what you write on michaelbluejay.com/x. -- (3)Would you care to comment? For an intelligent person you are riddled with inconsistencies. If I have to, I will analyse them in a complete deconstruction of your website, which I don't mind saying is despicable.
So you were trapped in a cult while being hundreds of miles away from it, and it was your mother who was the "Leader" in Texas? I am ashamed of you. By the way, your contact with the Aesthetic Realism Foundation as a teenager was only one visit, right?] -- Aperey 21:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I don't mind mentioning Mr. Bluejay's mother's name as part of the history of Aesthetic Realism, where it really may be relevant, but I wouldn't go out of my way to do so. And I don't take kindly to threats. Mr. Bluejay did issue one in particular via email some months ago. It was taken seriously, but not as a deterrent to free and accurate expression. -- Aperey 21:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
To begin with, I was the person who wrote the sentence above that included the name of Michael Bluejay’s mother, not Aperey. So your anger is misdirected. Since I haven’t studied Aesthetic Realism in quite a few years I was not privy to the back and forth between Mr. Bluejay and the Aesthetic Realism Foundation concerning the use of his mother’s name. If he desires her name not to be mentioned that is fine by me. I meant no disrespect. My sentence was innocent enough and quite factual. Michael Bluejay’s connection to Aesthetic Realism is that his mother ONCE studied it—even if it was from the cradle into her 30’s. (Though people in the cradle are, I think, a bit too young to study Aesthetic Realism.) As to the "infant" matter, it is quite true I should have said "adolescent." Nevertheless, the point is the same and equally true.
A few further observations on the heated comments above. First, if my uncle is a priest that doesn’t make me a Catholic. Similarly, no matter how many relatives of Michael Bluejay study (or studied) Aesthetic Realism that doesn’t make him a student of it. Having one consultation on a visit to New York City, or going to a single demonstration for fairness to Aesthetic Realism with one of his relatives, or the fact that some private discussion group about Aesthetic Realism was hosted by his mother in the living room of their Texas home (where he grew up far away from Aesthetic Realism) does NOT make one a student of Aesthetic Realism. To think that it does trivializes the very meaning of the word. I studied Aesthetic Realism for decades and I knew everyone who studied it in those years. Michael Bluejay wasn’t one of them.
I did, however, have the privilege of knowing his grandparents and I think the way he trashes them on his web site (along with, I might add, many other people he specifically NAMES), is reprehensible. I am quite sure the persons he defames and calls “cultists” would not wish their names to be used by him. I hope he will accord them the same respect he demands for his mother—from whom, by the way, I am quite sure he inherited his antipathy to Aesthetic Realism. Mr. Bluejay seems to have two sets of ground rules—one for him and his mother and another for the rest of the world. His mother seems to be holy ground while everybody else is merely ground to trend upon. Meanwhile, I haven’t seen anything nasty at all said about his mother—and certainly nothing that could be construed even in the remotest way to be “dirty tricks.” [TS 14 July 2005]
I publicly apologize about mistakenly ascribing the paragraph about me and my mother to A(rnold) Perey when it was not his doing. I would edit the reference to him out of my post above, but I'm not sure whether that constitutes historical revisionism. If a Wikipedian with more experience knows that this is acceptable then I'll take it out, or they can take it out themselves if they prefer.
As to the rest of the allegations by Aperey and TS, they're too ridiculous to deserve comment. However my offer to debate my claims (and the counterclaims) publicly is still good, and I will gladly take another trip to NYC for this purpose once any of the AR people decide they're not afraid to engage me publcly and face to face. Michaelbluejay 05:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Would editors please stop cutting into each other's comments, re-editing past remarks, and discussing issues that are not relevant to this article? Please see wikipedia:talk page and wikipedia:wikiquette. Editing past comments and adding comments into the middle of other's comments makes it impossible for future editors to make proper sense of the discussion. And issues that don't help us write the article belong in another forum. Thanks, - Willmcw 20:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
1. Yes, it is odd that "The article now focuses on the history of AR's change efforts" when this subject is not primary in the philosophy.
2. Why not a section on how Aesthetic Realism sees poetry? Poetry is the origin of the philosophy itself. As a person who participated in its writing, myself, the present section "Aesthetic Realism and Poetry" is too telegraphic and is unclear. Needs improvement.
3. Why not a section on how Aesthetic Realism sees the social sciences?--Mr. Siegel once said that if he had to choose one category from the Library of Congress catalog in which Aesthetic Realism belongs it would be the social sciences.
4. How about a section on how Aesthetic Realism sees art? The philosophy was far better known in the arts than anywhere else for the years ca. 1950-1970. -- 66.114.86.135 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that we expand, slightly, the existing section so that it is clearer. At this point the reader will not know why the lines from "Hot Afternoons" are quoted, or why poetry has anything to do with seeing the world fairly. So I suggest the following--and will follow through on Willmcw's suggestion about other additions as best I can:--
Aesthetic Realism states that the world and all that is in it can be seen poetically. Whatever we may meet--whether fortunate or unfortunate--we can be proud of how we see it. Siegel exemplifies this in his poetry, including “The World of the Unwashed Dish,” which concerns how we may view undesirable happenings; “This Summer Morning Mariana Has,” in which we see how a morning and its details belong to a feeling, feminine being; and “Ballade Concerning Our Mistake and Knowledge of It,” which puts self-criticism in graceful and strict ballade form. In each poem, things, a person, events, are seen in large perspective. Siegel explains: “Poetry, like life, states that the very self of a thing is its relations, its having-to-do with other things. Whatever is in the world, whatever person, has meaning because it has to do with the whole universe: immeasurable and crowded reality.”
And so, Eli Siegel's 1924 poem "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana" begins,
And from that bird on that hot afternoon we go everywhere: Aristotle in ancient Greece; medieval Europe; Native America....
-- Aperey 20:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
This is an attempt to put, in a few paragraphs, essential ideas of Eli Siegel.
Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy
Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality, or the world, has a structure that is beautiful—like the structure of a successful poem or painting. Since reality, which can be defined as “everything that begins where your fingertips end,” is made in a beautiful way it can be liked honestly.
For beauty, explains Siegel, “is the oneness of the permanent opposites in reality.” The permanent opposites include order and freedom, energy and repose, many and one. A good poem, for instance, is both logical and passionate at once. Logic is order, passion accentuates freedom. So a good poem represents the structure of the world: freedom and order made one. Freedom at one with order is what we see in an electron, the solar system, a tree whose leaves are shaking in a summer breeze.
The reasoning is similar for other opposites. Take many and one. Walt Whitman explained (1855 preface to Leaves of Grass) that a good poem arises the way an organic form arises: it is one thing with many details that serve one another. American philosophers like Emerson wrote of reality as one while it has many manifestations. Siegel pointed out that since a beautiful poem is one and many, and reality is one and many, isn't this evidence too that reality is beautiful and can be liked the way we like a good poem?
Aesthetic Realism explains it is every person's "greatest, deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis." But there is another desire opposing this--the hope to have contempt for the world and the things in it, for that makes one feel more important.
One’s attitude to the world governs how one feels about the things in it—the way we see a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone. If we seek self-esteem through contempt—"the addition to self through lessening something else"—we diminish our good opinion of ourselves, lessen the capacity of our own minds to perceive and feel in the fullest manner, and are unjust to people. That is why in everything one does, Aesthetic Realism says, he or she has the ethical obligation to give full value to things and people as the one means of liking oneself. This obligation is the same as mental health, accurate seeing, and personal joy. -- Aperey 21:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Previous discussions:
Dear ARfan (for want of a better name), I wish the facts were clear. Unfortunately, there don't seem to have been any articles written about AR in the mainstream press, and no books either. That puts us in the precarious position of writing the history ourselves. This particular article has been very unstable and it would be good if we could draft something that at least reflects all the truths in a balanced NPOV way. I suggest that we begin at the beginning - the lead paragraph. I agree that the homosexuality change theory, even if it is AR's main "claim to fame", should not sit alone like that in the introduction. We need to have a basic summary of the philosophy in a sentence, plus a mention of the foundation. Here's what we have now:
Revision:
How can we improve on that for the lead paragraph? - Willmcw 07:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Willmcw--I hope I'm not too late. But I think a little more is needed--if we're still putting some history in the introductoray paragraph. How is this, instead of the last sentence? --
"ARfan" sounds trite to me and doesn't denote intellectual seriousness. And again, I dispute that Aesthetic Realism was ever "best known" for the homosexuality matter. After I wrote the last entry I recalled the Smithsonian Magazine review of Self and World. As for articles in the mainstream press, how about The Washington Post and the Baltimore Evening Sun? Both are referenced on the Aesthetic Realism web site.
Here is my suggestion for improving on the opening sentences.
"Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel (1902-1978). 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 life is to see the world in the best way" and this can be accomplished by learning how the world has an aesthetic structure of opposites in oneness. Contempt, the desire to lessen the world in behalf of oneself, is seen by Aesthetic Realism as the root source of both personal unhappiness and injustice throughout society. While the purpose of Aesthetic Realism is to describe the nature of the world, those who study it have credited it with many postive changes in their lives--including improved marriages, ending alcoholism, better parenting, and resolving personal difficulties such as eating disorders and stuttering. For a period of time in the 1970's Aesthetic Realism was also widely known for the many men and women who credited it with changing them from homosexuality to heterosexuality."
This gets in your desire to highlight the focus on homosexuality while placing it in a wider and more accurate context. I don't believe Aesthetic Realism says contempt is to be "avoided." It is part of human nature, according to Aesthetic Realism, and needs to be understood by a person in order to combat its ill effects. In keeping with the idea of opposites, there is also a proper role for contempt. For instance, there would be something wrong with a person who didn't have contempt for Hitler. Not to feel this would be a lack of care for reality. The idea is to make the opposites one. What makes contempt wrong is that a person uses it in behalf of himself and to lessen rather than respect what is not himself.
And can we please get rid of that "backfired" matter? It is really objectionable.
OK--why not just call me TS. I'm really hoping this article can be fair and accurate and also "set" so I can move on to other things in my life!
How about: "For a period of time in the 1970's Aesthetic Realism was known for the public statements made by many men and women that through its study they had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality." That, to me, is a very NPOV statement--and it is completely true.
I also think some of the language used by Willmcw above is far better than "backfired" and essentially accurate. How about: "The matter (or "subject" if you prefer) of changing homosexuality unwittingly drew Aesthetic Realism into the culture wars, where it did not really agree with either side in an increasingly public and heated debate on this issue, and which generated ill-feeling toward it. In response, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation discontinued this aspect of the philosophy's study in 1990, stating that in such an "atmosphere of anger" calm philosophic discussion of homosexuality was not realistic and that, in any event, the subject itself was not "central to the study of Aesthetic Realism."
I don't think it is necessary, but if you want you could also add: "The Aesthetic Realism Foundation did not disavow the statements of the men and women who said they had changed from homosexuality through its study, but it also reliterated its position that it is for full civil rights for everybody, including homosexual persons." -- TS, 14 June 2005
I think the new editing is going in the right direction.
Since, as I said earlier, I respect the desire of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation not to get enmeshed in the anger surrounding the subject of homosexuality, I am leaving this to your own best judgement.
Meanwhile I would like to add some of what I have seen and give some opinions that might be helpful.
1. I interviewed three of the persons who signed "Yes, We Have Changed" advertisements and they told me: (1) there were only four or five ads altogether. (Not exactly a media blitz.) The ads were of modest size. (2) The people who signed the ads took care of them, not the Aesthetic Realism Foundation. The signers created them, paid for them, put them in the newspapers. (Some of the signers were in the advertising industry, and still are as far as I know.) So you now have a social scientist reporting that three eyewitnesses corroborate what TS writes. I am confident that we have got some verified facts here.
Wiki has not been picky about publishing "as if" true the totally unverifiable imaginary "factoids" of some others. Why so finicky about the actual truth?
2. Is the word "claimed" really the right word? To be fair--to be really NPOV--it's the wrong word. Simply to write "stated" is better. I began studying Aesthetic Realism in 1968. I had studied works on the subject of gender as part of anthropology (for ex. Gregory Bateson's classic Naven). So in August '68, when I heard Sheldon Kranz's paper decribing the logical basis on which he had changed from homosexuality years before (it was in the 1940s I believe) and married Anne Fielding--I knew I was listening to a scientific description of the highest caliber. For this and many other reasons it is clear to me--and anyone who knows people who signed the ads--that they shouldn't be described in Wiki as "claiming" to have changed. "Claim" already prejudices the reader into thinking the claim is hollow. The signers of these ads ought to be given their due--a presumption of integrity, not fraudulence. I believe each one felt some new emotion to which he or she had formerly been a stranger--and then wanted to say, "Yes, we have changed."
3. Was Aesthetic Realism best known for changing homosexuality? Perhaps in the gay world it was--but that does not mean it was so in the art world, in the literary world, and in the world of anthropology or the social sciences. In fact, it was only a small part of the picture, albeit highly visible for a short time.
4. I have put on a blog of mine the writing on Aesthetic Realism and Structuralism. It's a subject I've lectured on from time to time and I am pretty sure what I wrote is philosophically correct. It's something various anthropologists have asked me about over the years, including Conrad Arensberg one afternoon in his office at Columbia in 1968. Can some of it be used in Wiki? See this link.
5. There is, indeed, an anti-Aesthetic Realism gang of which Bluejay is only the most recent mouthpiece. They plan a reunion in NY City on the 17th of June, according to his web pages. These web pages of his on Aesthetic Realism are less than a year old. The lynchpin of the gang is Ellen Mali of Evergreen Colorado. Next is her son Adam Mali, now a restaurant owner there, who wrote a web page of astonishing misrepresentations a few years ago. Then, her close girlfriend Heide Krakauer, who lied in print and was "busted" for it [1]. There is a recent "defector" whom I don't particularly want to name but whose spiteful writing I recognize among the Wiki anons. And there are a few others who also hide behind a screen of anonymity. Ms. Mali, former executive director of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, tried to use this educational institute as her "fiefdom" and caused much upset, but didn't get her way; finally she left in the early 1990s, to try to avenge herself on the Foundation by using the internet, etc.. This little gang has come out with a stream of lies that would curdle vinegar. Bluejay was just enlisted because of his internet savvy, and took to the job eagerly. There is no mystery. Just a gang. -- -- Aperey 17:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, what Aperey describes is pretty near to what I remember happening. Some reunion that will be! I can't think of a group I'd rather socialize with less. I have long felt Michael Bluejay was just the webmaster for Mali & Company. Glad to have it confirmed.
I mostly agree with Aperey. I typed out my responses and when I went to submit them, his had been posted. So here is what I wrote, and you can see it mostly goes along with the above:
I can't answer all of this. Here is what I do know. After Siegel won the nation poetry prize and moved to New York City he began giving classes in poetry at his home to interested poets and other artists including painters and photographers. They felt the principles he was talking about--namely, even then, the opposites in a poem that made for beauty--definitely applied to other areas of life as well. They requested that he expand his lectures to include other topics, which he did. Over the years he continued developing his ideas and presenting them in his lectures. The size of his classes grew. At one point not everybody studying with him could fit into the room where he taught at one time. There was a rotating list of who got to come to lectures because of space considerations. Siegel lectured five times a week--on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday nights and Saturday and Sunday afternoons--for over forty years. The sheer volume of his lectures, and the topics he covered is astounding. They are all the property of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation--most of them on tape and quite a few transcribed into manuscripts. Some have been serialized in the bi-weekly publication of the Foundation. But they represent only a small number. In 1941 Eli had developed his ideas firmly enough to present the four basic principles of what would become Aesthetic Realism, although he first called it Aesthetic Analysis. The name was later changed (I don't know when but it was quite early) because Siegel felt the word "analysis" denoted too much of a clinical and theraputic sense when he considered what he was doing as primarily philosophic and educational. The Society for Aesthetic Realism, with Siegel's wife Martha Baird as secretary, was founded in the late 1940's. Siegel's students were the force behind renting a building (then on Grove Street) and opening the Terrain Gallery there in 1955--dedicated to displaying the work of artists as explained by Aesthetic Realism principles. I don't know when the Aesthetic Realism Foundation was formally established--but it was sometime later using the same facilities as the Terrain Gallery. As Aesthetic Realism grew, the Foundation purchased its own building in SoHo (where it is currently housed) sometime in the 1970's. Aperey would know the exact dates. Consultations began in the old building on Grove Street in 1971. Siegel believed that three consultants should speak to one person because their joint seeing would be more useful to that individual. I don't know exactly who all the first consultants were although I know Sheldon Kranz, Margot Carpenter and Ellen Reiss were three of them. I believe Dorothy and Chaim Koppelman were too. Persons coming to study Aesthetic Realism would then attend classes and have consultations at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation instead of studying directly with Eli Siegel. He continued to teach classes in his home for people who were consultants or wanted to become consultants. One could apply to study with Eli Siegel for that purpose after a period of time studying Aesthetic Realism itself at the Foundation. Siegel himself kept studying and formulating Aesthetic Realism to the end of his life. When he died most of his works, including Self and World, the basic text of Aesthetic Realism, had not yet been published. Other unpublished works included Defintions and Comment: Being a Description of Reality and The Aesthetic Nature of the World. There was also a large body of unpublished poems--many written in the inside covers of the thousands of books he owned and read. The mind of the man was incredible. He could talk about some obscure person from the fifth century nobody had ever heard about and describe him and what was in his mind so vividly through looking at his writings that you felt that person was sitting right next to you in the room and you'd known him all your life. Siegel made you want to go home and read more. I would stay up late into the night reading poetry by Tennyson, Poe and a host of lesser known authors--and I had always hated poetry! And Siegel had great humor too. Sometimes I laughed so hard in those lectures my side would hurt. But the humor was never depreciating of others, something I really appreciated.
As I understand it, the victim of the press buttons were the result of the way the press--which wasn't very interested in philosophic thought and saw news mostly as dirt it could uncover about something--responded to Aesthetic Realism with either silence or snobbery. Siegel began discussing the effect this attitude of the press--which he never considered to be only about Aesthetic Realism but a general attitude in the press that preferred the sensational and contempt and what a clever reporter could do with truth instead of truth itself--had on his students. He said people generally don't want to respect anything because they think it lessens them. But the respect is somewhat bearable if the thing has lots of press notices and is well known because then you can feel important being associated with it. The victim of the press buttons were mostly worn by students to remind themselves not to underestimate the effect the press was having on them every day. After all, you told somebody you studied Aesthetic Realism and they looked at you like you had three heads! People wouldn't have done that if they had been reading about Aesthetic Realism in some established source like a newspaper. And this had an effect on his students that he, in his kindness I feel, wanted them to be aware of. I don't know who came up with the idea of the buttons, but I don't believe it was Siegel himself. One of the things about Siegel was how little he went after publicity. His students, however, felt that Aesthetic Realism was important knowledge that should reach people and tried to have that happen in many ways--including the ads. It was slow and frustrating work and very discouraging to many. It was decided by the Foundation many years later and well after Siegel's death to discontinue wearing the buttons because at that time articles and letters written by students were being more readily printed in the press (as apparently they still are) and it seemed there was a somewhat different attitude, at least in the secondary media. I don't know exactly when this decision was made, but I believe it was early in the 1990's. The times were also very different then from the mid 1970's when the buttons were first worn in an era that had more excitement about diverse theories and practices such as primal scream, meditation, est etc. Wearing the buttons didn't seem as odd at that time as it did later in the culture of the 1990's.
I think you've got it essentially right about the difference between the role of the class chairman (academic dean) and executive director (business manager). That was essentially the case. The last sentence about the Foundation sounds okay to me. I know Eli Siegel stressed the difference between therapy and education in describing Aesthetic Realism but had limited success in getting the distinction across--i.e. the Psy Dictionary. Not that therapy is a terrible word. People's lives were certainly affected centrally. But Siegel felt it was much too narrow a word to describe Aesthetic Realism--i.e. changing the name from Aesthetic Analysis.
Anyway, I'll try tomorrow or the next day to take some of what we've been discussing and have agreed about already on the talk page and put it into the definition we are editing if you think that would be okay. Maybe you could boil down the information I've given above into a few sentences since I tend to get too detailed. TS 16 June 2005
The TS description is accurate, is true. I might disagree with some details but not the whole, at all.
Some notes on where I think the description would not be right.
1. This wouldn't be quite correct: Something like "The ARF building in SoHo houses the gallery and bookshop (also used for large meetings), classrooms, consultation rooms, and offices."
How about: The Aesthetic Realism Foundation building in SoHo houses the Terrain Gallery, bookshop, classrooms, consultation area, and offices. The gallery space is also where public events (such as seminars and theatrical events) take place.
I'd say the word "meetings" isn't quite correct. I think it gives the wrong impression to say large meetings take place at the Foundation--suggesting a union meeting, a town meeting, or a religious meeting. The larger events are (1) public seminars, in which people study Aesthetic Realism through papers presented by consultants and associates [in other words strictly education]and (2) dramatic events like concerts, readings, and dramatic presentations, which are entertainment combined with eduation. These have neither the form of meetings nor the content of meetings, and if one came expecting a meeting one would be disappointed.
2. "Therapy" is definitely the wrong word. Aesthetic Realism is a way of seeing the world. "Philosophic education" is closer. Of course a psychological dictionary would see everything from a psychologists' point of view.
But let's see the context in which the word is used. Then we could decide.
For clarity's sake, consider this: Siegel wrote in Self and World that "the large difference between Aesthetic Realism and other ways of seeing an individual is that Aesthetic Realism makes the attitude of an individual to the whole world the most critical thing in his life." [P. 1]
A person's attitude to the whole world is his philosophy. At the same time as the way one sees the world becomes increasingly accurate, the way one sees men, women, books--everything--becomes increasingly accurate.
I described it somewhere in the talk page. -- Suppose you don't like Chaucer very much but you don't know Chaucer very comprehensively or in sufficient detail. Then, because you want to appreciate Chaucer more, you go to a good teacher. The teacher shows you how the different characters in Chaucer--the Prioresse, the Knight, others--are deeply interesting as people and tell you things about yourself, and how the poetic lines of Chaucer are carefully and wildly made, and you see things about Chaucer's kindness. Then you come to respect Chaucer, you like Chaucer, even love Chaucer more--in proportion to how deeply you know him and his work. And, surprisingly, you are proud of yourself for your knowledge and your deeper emotion about this world literary figure's poetry.
For "Chaucer" read "the world," and you have a rough idea of how Aesthetic Realism teaches a person "to like the world more as the one means of liking yourself." As you can see it isn't therapy at all. It's learning about the world and what's in it.
That's why Aesthetic Realism accents the study of poetry, the social sciences, history--something that therapy doesn't do.
-- Aperey 15:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here is a structure for us to talk about the scratch page. While we can add comments, if we do all of our discussion there then the text will be hard to decipher. The headings below represent a suggestion for the structure of the article. Let's discuss any changes to the structure under this heading, and the contents of articles sections under relevant headings. Ithis might help us keep the discussions on track. Thanks, - Willmcw 05:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with the changes made by Aperey here. [TS 17 June 2005]
Aesthetic Realism hasn't "discarded" any "claim." People stopped abusing alcohol as they learned to like the world and see it with more depth and wonder. If this should not be put in exactly this way out of deference to AA, that's okay with me. But stop trying to imply Aesthetic Realism is hiding something, Outerlimits. It isn't! (TS 17 June 2005]
Remembered by whom?
Homosexuality hasn't been part of the Aesthetic Realism curriculum for fifteen years now--and it wasn't for thirty years before 1971.
There are a whole lot of people who "remember" Aesthetic Realism for things other than the homosexuality matter. It seems as if this matter is big in Outerlimit's mind--which is fine. But he makes a generalization that simply isn't true. Elsewhere in my previous comments I gave a pretty substantial list of the ways Aesthetic Realism was known by the public other than for the change from homosexuality even during the years it was publically discussiong homosexuality--including ads and articles on other subjects. And many people came to study Aesthetic Realism in those years who weren't homosexual. [TS 17 June 2005]
This is true, so I agree with the implied suggestion that "widely" should be removed from the article. [TS 17 June 2005]
This is not true at all. Again, this is Outerlimit's point of view. [TS 17 June 2005]
Yes, it's Outerlimits viewpoint but I do dispute it. You can't sum up millions of people, call them the general public, and say "a member of the general public ... remember[s] the 'change from homosexuality' episode" because there are billions of people in the world--and they know different things about Aesthetic Realism. You know the old Persian story about the blind wise men who each touched a different part of an elephant (trunk, leg, side, tusk) and each summed up the elephant in his own terms: "The elephant is like a snake" -- "The elephant is like a tree" -- "The elephant is like a wall" -- "The elephant is like a spear." Well, different sectors of the population know Aesthetic Realism chiefly in terms of one aspect: poetry, art galleries, or music, or anthropology, or literature, or homosexuality. It depends on the interests of the people in question. Outerlimits is affected by the approach to homosexuality, and that is very understandable. But it isn't the only thing people in the 80 year history of Eli Siegel's thought have been interested in knowing about--or which has received some national attention (with or without the help of the press). This should be accounted for in the final article. Meanwhile, Aesthetic Realism is all of these things and more. -- Aperey 23:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{The above would replace the following: TS} Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by American poet and critic Eli Siegel. According to Aesthetic Realism "the purpose of life is to see the world in the best way", which involves appreciating the duality of nature and avoiding contempt. The philosophy is taught by consultants at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in New York City. In the 1970s it was known its claims that many men and women that they had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality through studying Aesthetic Realism.
I do not agree to this change in my wording. See my reasons below. [TS 17 June 2005]
Outerlimits is not correct. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation still to this day says that men and women DID change from homosexuality through their study of Aesthetic Realism.
(See the Aesthetic Reallsm Foundation statement on the Countering the Lies site.) Outerlimits keeps using the word "belief" to give the implication these men should not be taken at their wordor are somehow deceived. Meanwhile, I know many of those who DID change and now have good marriages and even children. Outerlimits can believe what he wants, but what these men say happened to them should not be presented with suspicion on wikipedia, only reported factually. It is up to the reader to decide, not Outerlimits!
Again, I object to the phrasing "avoid contempt," for all the reasons I've written about previously. I also object to the phrase "appreciating the duality of nature." That is not at all how Aesthetic Realism sees the subject of the opposites. Aperey is right on the mark--and shouldn't we take his phrasing since he actually teaches the subject? [TS 17 June 2005]
By the way, I think Outerlimits is Michael Bluejay. He does seem to have one way of writing for all occasions. He's entitled to be immune to the facts, but not to push that viewpoint on others. -- Aperey 22:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Aesthetic Realism is based on four basic concepts: "(1) Every person is always trying to put together opposites in himself or herself. (2) Every person in order to respect him- or herself has to see the world as beautiful or good or acceptable. (3) There is a disposition in every person to think we will be for ourselves by making less of the outside world. And (4) All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."
[need explanation of contempt]
Since there's no support for the curent history version, I'm going to remove it from the Scratch version so we can start with the new. - Willmcw 20:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
The question is whether to handle aspects of AR's history in separate thematic sections or as part of a chronology. Homosexual change is the main such issue. The development of the AR Foundation is another. My preference is that we should write the article based on the facts that we can find, and facts are often particular to certain dates so writing articles chronologically is much easier. What facts do we have for the homosexual change matter? The books, the TV appearances, the ads, all of which gave the AR story. Do we have any newspaper articles, TIME stories, gay magazines or books that mention any of this? What else can we add to that? - Willmcw 05:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Since the ARF developed over time its development should probably be handled as part of the chronological story of AR. - Willmcw 05:51, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
As currently structured, this is where criticism of AR goes. The criticisms which have been mentioned include the allegation that AR is a cult and that its success at homosexual change has not been depicted accurately . Keeping with the spirit of handling most issues chronologically, perhaps it would be better to mention the criticisms in their logical chronological order rather than segregating them in a separate section. Can we assign dates to any of those criticsms? - Willmcw 08:17, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I am a new voice. I studied AR for a number of years with Eli Siegel and in classes with Ellen Reiss and others. In the 70's most of the men and women who joined to study had deep questions about their sexuality. However, the "backfire" that occurred was not just a that there was virulent animosity from the gay and enlightened community but that many of the folks that "changed" changed back! These people ultimately left AR. For the record I can name names. Those that stayed have been pushed into marriages. At least two of the authors of the H Persuasion returned to the gay life.
The reason many people have joined Mr. Bluejay in a campaign against AR is that this philosophy has been used to hurt and confuse many who have studied it. The study is a joining into a social structure run by folks with possibly good hearts but also a heedless passion; as we have seen from Dr Perey's remarks. Imagine a young man told that his desire towards the same sex is contempt and that since he already knows that his continuing in that direction is caused by his deep anger at the respect he feels for Eli Siegel. These great academic philosophers would castigate and ignore those that could not change.
I am sorry to bore you with this but the garbage academic discussion by Arnold Perey is too far removed from the horrible consequences of this cult.
The aggrandizing of AR by Dr. Perey should not be allowed on your site.
No-longer-a-believer
For the record, men and women who changed from homosexuality through their study of Aesthetic Realism and are now happily married with spouses and children even though they no longer study Aesthetic Realism also exist. Some have statements on the Countering the Lies site. It is insulting and quite false to say men were "pushed" into marriages. Those who study Aesthetic Realism and marry do so of their own free will. Also, Aesthetic Realism teaches that contempt is a disposition present in all people--homosexual or not. Nobody is exempt. [TS 19 June 2005]
These are things that could be cleared up in open discussions and I hope they will be some day. But it's clear to anyone that there's still that "atmosphere of anger."
I might add that even things that appear on websites are suspect as sources, because the Web is the easiest place to say anything one pleases and bear no responsibility for it.-- Aperey 21:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If I were to ask about the value of a new theory in physics, would I go to non-physicist sources for the most accurate information? Herein lies a dilemma.
What is the best source for information about Aesthetic Realism?
I feel sure that good will and objectivity can resolve this question. But it may take some more discussion. Cheers, -- Aperey 18:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Questions:
How did Siegel "found" AR? By writing a book? By starting to give lectures under that name? Were consultations given in Siegel's home prior to ARF?
Some answers: -- I put these as best I could into the Timeline.
I. By writing a book? No--Self and World was written in 1942-3 although his work on definitions started in the 1920s or earlier.
II. By starting to give lectures under that name? The lectures were in 1944.
III. Were consultations given in Siegel's home prior to ARF? Yes
Here is source material:
Gay movement leaders said it was dangerous for there to be ex-gays telling about changing from being gay to being heterosexual. If being gay was not obligitory but a matter of choice, they said, it would make it harder to get legislation for equal rights. (Equal rights under the law is guaranteed in the U.S. They were probably wrong.) Then they tried to discredit the male and female ex-gays and keep the word from getting out. It was politics. They also didn't like anyone questioning being gay, and the fact that so many of these ex-gays actually preferred being heterosexual was a thorn in their side that made them angry. This is why they're yelling now on Wikipedia at the Aesthetic Realists. It isn't because men and women "claimed" to change. That is not dangerous, that is just annoying. It's because they really did. And they're not saying being gay is "sinful" or its "sick." They're actually reasonable people who preferred something else.
Since these comments and edits are getting more complex to follow, I've tried to gather everything we've agreed to so far into one coherent whole. Hopefully this will be close to the final product, but why don't we go on with any edits from here. Here is my modest effort at putting it all together (with a few minor additions of my own along the way. [TS 22 June 2005]
This is not the article I would write if I were the sole author of this piece. It gives far too much prominence to a minor bit player in the history of Aesthetic Realism--Michael Bluejay--and to his baseless twistings of the truth about Aesthetic Realism as well as to the "anonymous" voices who speak for and through him. Nevertheless, there is some value in placing what he says into the larger context of what Aesthetic Realism truly is, so I think this article has its usefulness and value. I hope the "critics" don't try to butcher it too much to push their POV. [TS 22 June 2005]
I fear this gives far too little attention to AR's continuous concerns about homosexuality, which dates from far before 1971 - at least as far back as Kranz's purported "change". Possibly this will be appear less so when headings are introduced, though the "change from homosexuality" has to be mentioned in the lead paragraph. But this can be rectified once this goes live and can be relentlessly edited. Since protection seems to have fulfilled its goal of forcing the anonymous reverters to discuss changes rather than insist the article be written their way only, it's probably time for deprotection. We should probably also invite Mr. Bluejay - once an editor here but who stopped editing in response to a mediator's request - to review this version and make any appropriate additions or revisions. - Outerlimits 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[Sidenote: Mr. Bluejay absented himself, or else is writing under another username, which Wikipedia allows. Once we have come up with an agreed-upon version it is in keeping with his technique to revise it in his own terms. But time will tell. -- Aperey 23:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) ]
Well, I've had enough. I've never posted here before (and it is unlikely I will again) though as a person who studied Aesthetic Realism for years, still thinks of it fondly, and is in touch from time to time with friends who currently study it, I've been following the Wiki debate with great interest and no small amount of irritation. I'm not interested in being an editor because at least I acknowledge there are many others far better qualifed than me to describe what Aesthetic Realism is. However, this last posting finally got my fingers moving on the ole computer keyboard, quite furiously I might add--kudos! So I ask: What "continuous concerns" about homosexuality did Aesthetic Realism have prior to 1971? That is a pure fiction. Sheldon Kranz often said (and wrote) that he changed from homosexuality without the subject itself ever being discussed. He said his way of seeing the world changed and with it came new feelings for women that included body and which he had never felt in his life before--along with a decrease in his physical attraction to the bodies of men. It would be a surprise indeed for Mr. Kranz' widow--still very much alive--to see his change placed quaintly in quotation marks as if to falsify their marriage of many years simply because Outerlimits doesn't WILL it to be so. I am a strong supporter of gay rights. A person should be whatever makes him happy. A politician who didn't support domestic partnership benefits would never get my vote. But I am also for the right of a person to take a different direction in life if that is what he desires. It is very clear that many have done exactly that in studying Aesthetic Realism and this is what has Outerlimit's goat. And, by the way, Michael Bluejay is the least qualifed person to comment on Aesthetic Realism I know. He never studied it and his only interest is in twisting around everything about Aesthetic Realism he can to make sure nobody finds out what it really is. I have a rather strong suspicion, in fact, that "Outerlimits" might well be Michael Bluejay in one of his many anonymous guises. (Call me crazy but never call me gullible!) I have it on good authority that the closest Michael Bluejay ever got to studying Aesthetic Realism was being wheeled into the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in a baby carriage when he was an infant, one guest visit to a lecture by Eli Siegel when he was a child before moving far away from it to Austin, Texas, (where he actually grew up--at least in a manner of speaking) and a short visit with his aunt in New York City (who DOES study Aesthetic Realism and who writes on Countering the Lies about bringing him to a program at the Foundation when he was 13). That's it. Period. Of course, he probably thinks he knows a lot about Aesthetic Realism since his mother filled his head with lies about it for years. Asking Michael Bluejay to comment on Aesthetic Realism is a little bit like asking Osama Bin Laden to critique Gandhi's theory of nonviolent resistance or like asking a Southern Plantation owner following the Civil War to write an honest article on the historic importance of the Emancipation Proclamation! One would have to be a fool to expect honestly on the subject considering the source. But anyway, it would suit Outerlimit's purposes to have the Bluejay fiction about Aesthetic Realism on wikipedia masquerading as objective fact since he himself is hardly interested in the truth of the matter and seems to be a Johnny one-note on the subject of homosexuality. I'm quite sure we can take him at his word and he will be "relentless" in trying to revert whatever objective piece wikipedia decides to post. (In case you missed it everybody--that was half threat and half boast. "You think you are going to get to something balanced about Aesthetic Realism willmcw, aperey, TS and others? Not while I'm around!) I'll sign myself Fed Up!
While it's clearly tempting for AR's anonymous editors to see all their difficulties as the result of one person, it's simply not the case. And ad hominem argumentation is inappropriate, so it will remain unanswered. I am not particularly concerned with Mr. Bluejay beyond the extent that it is important that all viewpoints are represented here. On the substantive points: "Change from homosexuality" is in quotation marks because it is a quotation, and because it is an idiosyncratic term used by AR. Tom Shields' Ted van Griethuysen's "nearly continuous concern" quotation appears in the "H Persuasion". If you don't believe a book published by AR's house publisher, that's not my fault. As to my insistance that AR not try to cover up either their history with or teachings on homosexuality, and that they speak plainly about Siegel's suicide, I regret that they have such difficulty with their own history that they have made it necessary, but the job of the Wikipedia is to provide truthful information, not only a sanitized version told from AR's viewpoint. -
Outerlimits 01:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.S. "Fed Up!" appears to have misunderstood the phrase "relentless editing" which is simply Wikipedia jargon for the normal editing process. - Outerlimits 01:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm new at this so I make mistakes along the way. I agree we aren't ready to declare victory yet. But I hope victory is closer. [TS 24 June 2005]
Do we have any place where the most nearly agreed-on version of this article appears?
I have been looking for the last few days and don't see it.
I appreciate how much work it is to consolidate different opinions. And I'd like to be more useful.... but where?
-- Aperey 23:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.S. What did Tom Shields actually say? I don't think Outerlimits got it right or is quoting right. There was hardly any concern about homosexuality around Aesthetic Realism before 1971. Sheldon Kranz wrote about his change from homosexuality in 1968. Even so, it was under the title "David Crane Himself" because at that time he wanted to remain anonymous. Three years later, he used his own name. I remember his presenting that paper because it was one of the very first things I heard at an Aesthetic Realism presentation at the Terrain Gallery and it wowed me. It was August 1968. Kranz was a poet and a professional editor at MacMillan. It's all an ascertainable part of history. -- Aperey 23:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.P.S. Why does Willmcw say Wikipedia's job is to represent different POVs and not ascertain the truth while Outerlimits says the point is the find out the truth? (I take it to mean Outerlimits' version of the truth is the only one permissible.) Where are we?
While this back and forth between Aperey and Outerlimits is interesting, it really has very little to do with the subject at hand.
Let's get to an HONEST article about Aesthetic Realism, gentlemen!
Outerlimits, I don't think your way will do that at all. There is a myopic quality to how you see Aesthetic Realism as you magnify a relatively minor aspect of it while diminishing its central and most important features. I know we all can see things through the thick filter of our own self-interest and concerns (I battle against this everyday), but it does seem to me that far more perspective and objectivity is required if one is to write a dispassionate and accurate description of Aesthetic Realism And an article freighted with references to Aesthetic Realism in relation to homosexuality just isn't it! I don't care who wrote what in The H Persuasion. I studied Aesthetic Realism during these years and while homosexuality was certainly among the topics discussed--and, to be sure, an important aspect of Aesthetic Realism in that period--it was hardly center stage, even then.
Aperey, you sound reaonable and patient but a bit too defensive. I think the OBJECTIVE editors here see what's up and the direction in which this article is going will be fine--even if some junk has to be included in the name of "objectivity." I think enough of the big stuff about Aesthetic Realism will be here to show what it actually is.
I just came to this site after reading some of the newest statements on Countering the Lies by people who are former students and who haven't studied Aesthetic Realism in years--and those statements in their clarity and passion are pretty good indications that a whole third group of people exist beyond the current body of Aesthetic Realism students on the one hand and the small contingent of snippers who are taking cheap pot shots at everything and everyone that moves around Aesthetic Realism on the other. This third group is the former, ex-students who look back upon their study of Aesthetic Realism with gratitude and fondness--and know it is anything but a cult no matter how slick the Bluejay virtual reality machine operating these days on the internet might be. And, frankly, we are legion! I think as more and more former students become aware of these outrageous attacks we will step forward and develop into a potent force. And please note that when former students speak out they all have names--unlike that anonymous crew of character assassins being given far too much currency by the Bluejay rantings. So thanks to Hank D'Amico, Mara Bennici, Mark Lale, Jerry Amello and all the rest of you for trying to set the record straight! I want to tell you how moved I am by your statements! Maybe I'll soon gather up my courage and write one for myself.
As to the matter at hand--I hope the editing I did to the article is preserved somewhere. It was mostly a bringing together of what is already here, but in my research I found a couple of important quotes about Hot Afternoons that I don't believe have been unearthed yet, and I added them to the article. I'm hoping they weren't lost when my revisions were understandably taken down. But just in case they were, here they are:
I think these quotes give some true idea of how Hot Afternoons affected America when it first appeared and how Aesthetic Realism developed as the logical outgrowth of the way of seeing that was in that poem. How anybody could say that Eli Siegel is not one of America's great poets is beyond me! A person would simply have to be ignorant about the history of American poetry. [TS 28 June 2005]
Hardly. We can debate, of course, this matter of what a "major" poet is. Popularity and fame are not the same thing as greatness. You do seem to equate the two in your comment. By no means was John Keats considered a "major" poet in his day. But he was great nevertheless and in time what keen poetic critics of the day were saying about Keats' poetry came to be the generally held opinion. Yet even if that never happened, Keats was still GREAT! Two plus two equals four even if the whole world is saying it doesn't! Meanwhile, you will notice that I have been very factual and rather modest in the editing suggestions I have made for wikipedia on this subject, and essentially have offered quotes from established authorities in the field for possible inclusion in the article at the discretion of the editor. I did not suggest the sentence: "Eli Siegel is one of America's great poets" for the article (although I consider it a true statement). I suggested the quotes by Beum and McDonald. I don't want to be drawn into a back and forth here aka Aperey, so I'll let you demolish my logic in withering response and just leave it at that. If you want the last word, be my guest. I will "personalize" no more, however tempted. To paraphrase Hamlet: "The article is the thing!" [TS 1 July 2005]
It is an easy matter to snipe at a person's writing by inserting a snide remark after every few sentences, as Outermits has done. However, both ignorance and ill will disqualify a person--make him a vandal not an editor--and Outerlimits has both. I point this out now because it's important for wiki administrators to see this long-standing motive to vandalize. Meanwhile I too don't intend to respond to further sniping. -- Aperey 1 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)
Without taking sides about the content or tone of comments, I would like to say that it would be easier for other editors trying to follow the conversation if everyone could try to aggregate their comments into stand-alone paragraphs rather than interpolating them among previous comments. Thanks - Willmcw July 2, 2005 20:04 (UTC)
I added some new material to the time line.
Along the way I fixed some punctuation here and there. -- Aperey 6 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
I do agree it is well past time to have something much closer to the truth about Aesthetic Realism on the article page. How do we get moving on this? What more needs to be done? [TS 11 July 2005]
This article has been protected a month now due to the one anon user who wasn't discussing things. As there appears to be reasonable discussion on resolving the disputes, I think its now time to see if they've grown up or gone away. If the protection is needed again leave a note at WP:AN/I, WP:RFPP or my talk page. Thryduulf 16:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I've put together text from the temp page and pasted it into the main article. There are some areas where we are still working, primarily the homosexual change mattre and the cult allegations. The timeline is now in its own article, timeline of Aesthetic Realism. I hope that going forward we can all work together rather than overriding each other's edits as happened previously. Thanks, - Willmcw 20:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I am glad to see the article at last unprotected. And thank you Willmcw and TS for the yeoman work in bringing together so many strands into a real article. It IS a real article. This was a huge job, and having watched you undergo the difficulties in achieving it, I'm most grateful!
I hope it will not seem unfair if, for the sake of improving it here and there, I suggest that a few changes be made. (Nothing we haven't touched on before though.)
1. The first is the title of the poem. This I'll just change because no one could object. Instead of And so, Hot Summer begins, we'll have "And so, 'Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana' begins," ....
2. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation was founded in 1973. I'll just fix that. Understandable small typo in the midst of so much information. (Terrain Gallery was in 1955)
2a. To make a complete sentence, I changed the following in the first paragraph: According to Aesthetic Realism, "encourage people to see the world all through their lives in the best way they can" to the following, 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" -- hope this is OK. Someone else might think of a better way to makde the sentence complete.
3. I also think AR should be replaced with Aesthetic Realism, which is the proper usage as I have observed it for 30 years.
Does anyone object?
4. Next, if I remember what TS wrote, the following sentence does not reflect his actual observation:
The essence of what he wrote would be, instead, something like this:
Does anyone disagree with this change? I remember those days and think this description is what actually happened.
5. As we have discussed, the last sentence in the first paragraph really does not state things accurately. I think it's there by mistake as we really did settle it, or so I thought. I think there is enough detail in the Timeline to show that it needs revision. Here is the sentence: "In the 1970s and 1980s Aesthetic Realism was widely known for publicizing its claim that men and women studying it had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality."
Why don't we just use the sentence suggested by TS, or some slight modification of it?
[Notations from TS]
I am glad this article has been changed, although I agree it needs some further work.
First, I made a few minor changes for clarity that I doubt anybody will disagree with. I will mention them here just in case:
These are the only changes I made. However, I do have comments and suggestions.
Finally, I wade into what seems to be the most contentious issue about this article: the matter of homosexuality and the Aesthetic Realism Foundation’s discontinuance of teaching about it.
Somehow, this article needs to be clear that Aesthetic Realism (1) doesn’t see homosexuality as “pathological” or as a “sickness” (2) that it doesn’t agree that homosexuality is a matter of biology and isn’t amenable to change, (3) that it believes the only reason a homosexual person should change is if he himself wants to do so and feels such change will give him a better and richer relation to the world and (4) that homosexual persons should have their full civil rights and not be discriminated against in any way. I don’t think the present language does this entirely. Here is my attempt:
Finally, I would be happy to make suggestions about a fuller description of the philosophy itself. Perhaps Willmcw could pose a few questions he’d like answered so I know where to begin. [TS 13 July 2005]
For the record, I think the writing of TS on the subject of homosexuality has balance and is well informed. I think his emendations to the material that is in place now should be used in the article. What he writes really fits the facts as I remember them.
Considering the article again, I feel the section on "Aesthetic Realism and Poetry" is not clear. Perhaps it's been cut too much. We don't know why a way of seeing the world based on poetry does what Aesthetic Realism says it does. I can make some suggestions to clarify it.
I also suggest that an article by Dorothy Koppelman and Carrie Wilson (Directors of the Terrain Gallery)--which was presented at the World Conference referred to in the "Aesthetic Realism Scholarship" section--be substituted for the paper by Marcia Rackow and myself. It's a survey of how the Siegel Theory of Opposites has been used to explain beauty in the art of different periods, styles, and media--and the relation of art to individual's lives. Titled "Aesthetic Realism Shows How Art Answers the Questions of Your Life" the URL is: http://www.terraingallery.org/koppelman-wilson-art.pdf. -- Aperey 19:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't have time to keep up with all the nonsense over here but I'm going to dedicate myself to one of Perey's crimes in particular:
*[My dear Mr. Bluejay, what makes you think I wrote this? I did not write this. Please see below for my further comments. -- Arnold Perey -- -- Aperey 21:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
(1) Perey knows damn well that my mother doesn't wish to be named because I explain so in detail on my site (the one that he and the other AR people have gone over with a fine-tooth comb to try to debunk with their CounteringTheLies.com). This is a cheap shot so typical of AR people's tactics. They put my mom's name on their website for the same reason -- after they noticed in the bio on my personal page that I didn't mention my mother's name because she's private and doesn't want to be named. I asked them to take it down but not only did that request fall on deaf ears, they're now looking for other places to out her against her wishes.
(2) For someone who claims that I'm a liar Perey sure plays fast and loose with the truth. It's not true that my mother ONCE studied. She studied continuously almost out of the crib through her thirties, when I was a TEENAGER (not an infant).
(3) My relation to AR is NOT just that my mother studied -- and nor that my father studied, nor that my mother's two sisters studied, as did their parents, including my grandmother (one of the ones who "changed" from homosexuality), and not even that I had lessons with Eli Siegel. It's ALSO that I had private consultations at the AR headquarters, I attended numerous AR workshops and classes there, I participated in one of those pathetic protests at the NY Times building for their supposed conspiracy to not report favorably about AR, and I regularly attended the AR study group my mother started in Texas.
In summary, stop outing my mother and stop lying about me. Michaelbluejay 15:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
By the way, Mr. James M Lane, is the statement that a non-criminal person has committed "crimes" a smear? Would you consider it actionable?
Again, I ask: Mr. Bluejay, what makes you think I wrote this? I did not write this. Whoever did, could have known the facts better. As you may know, I knew you when you were a toddler a few years old, not an infant--when, together with your mother, you had a lesson with Eli Siegel which you quote from on your web site. And so, first of all, I would never say that your mother "once studied Aesthetic Realism when he was an infant." I do not know who wrote these sentences. And second, I would not flatter you by calling you "one of the more persistent critics." As I wrote in these pages, I do not see you as a "critic" at all--no more than a person who hates Michealangelo can be considered a critic of the Pieta. Someone ANGRY WITH BEAUTY did, by the way, break the nose off the Virgin with a hammer.
So please remove your accusations, which are wild and untrue.
I will say this: Your aunt, Alice Bernstein (who is your mother's sister) believes she has a right to name persons who have spoken cheaply about Aesthetic Realism. It's part of the historical record. That includes your mother who, she has pointed out, may have encouraged your present attitude. Mrs. Bernstein's right to free expression was not interfered with by anyone when she wanted to write rather fully on the internet in "Countering the Lies". I did a search, and she's the only one who wrote about your mother in "Countering the Lies". So when you say "They put my mom's name on their website..." you leave out a few relevant facts (which are part of the whole story). Meanwhile, have you ever tried to curb the spleen of your own writing?--even so far as to stick to the truth? Perhaps if you take your lies off the internet, and keep them off, Mrs. Bernstein will reconsider whether it's necessary anymore to name names.
(I may mention that Alice Bernstein's mother--your grandmother--May Musicant, you also smeared brutally online, including in a song whose title is something like "My Grandmother Was a Lesbian." I cared for May Musicant, she and your grandfather Jack had a good effect on my life with their honesty, warmth and good humor.)
As I said, the passage you are referring to is not my writing. You have a right to correct it, but not to abuse me. (1)Meanwhile, this is the third version of your story. (2)Your mother, if she did indeed continue to study Aesthetic Realism, did so from quite a distance--in Texas. Apparently she WANTED to. She certainly wasn't pressured into it. In fact, I didn't even know about it. The obvious conclusion anyone would draw from all this, is that you have no reason to call Aesthetic Realism a cult--something that can only be studied if you live below 14th Street in New York City and are "watched" constantly by other cultists. This is what Adam Mali says it is, a person to whom you link on your website and praise extravagantly as more eloquent than yourself. (Why don't you criticize what he says? You know it's untrue!) And this is what the Baltimore Jewish Times says, which you have linked to as evidence, and it is something you know from personal experience to be completely false. For if you studied Aesthetic Realism together with your mother, as far away as Texas, without any other students such as myself even knowing it, you lived a complete contradiction to what you write on michaelbluejay.com/x. -- (3)Would you care to comment? For an intelligent person you are riddled with inconsistencies. If I have to, I will analyse them in a complete deconstruction of your website, which I don't mind saying is despicable.
So you were trapped in a cult while being hundreds of miles away from it, and it was your mother who was the "Leader" in Texas? I am ashamed of you. By the way, your contact with the Aesthetic Realism Foundation as a teenager was only one visit, right?] -- Aperey 21:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I don't mind mentioning Mr. Bluejay's mother's name as part of the history of Aesthetic Realism, where it really may be relevant, but I wouldn't go out of my way to do so. And I don't take kindly to threats. Mr. Bluejay did issue one in particular via email some months ago. It was taken seriously, but not as a deterrent to free and accurate expression. -- Aperey 21:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
To begin with, I was the person who wrote the sentence above that included the name of Michael Bluejay’s mother, not Aperey. So your anger is misdirected. Since I haven’t studied Aesthetic Realism in quite a few years I was not privy to the back and forth between Mr. Bluejay and the Aesthetic Realism Foundation concerning the use of his mother’s name. If he desires her name not to be mentioned that is fine by me. I meant no disrespect. My sentence was innocent enough and quite factual. Michael Bluejay’s connection to Aesthetic Realism is that his mother ONCE studied it—even if it was from the cradle into her 30’s. (Though people in the cradle are, I think, a bit too young to study Aesthetic Realism.) As to the "infant" matter, it is quite true I should have said "adolescent." Nevertheless, the point is the same and equally true.
A few further observations on the heated comments above. First, if my uncle is a priest that doesn’t make me a Catholic. Similarly, no matter how many relatives of Michael Bluejay study (or studied) Aesthetic Realism that doesn’t make him a student of it. Having one consultation on a visit to New York City, or going to a single demonstration for fairness to Aesthetic Realism with one of his relatives, or the fact that some private discussion group about Aesthetic Realism was hosted by his mother in the living room of their Texas home (where he grew up far away from Aesthetic Realism) does NOT make one a student of Aesthetic Realism. To think that it does trivializes the very meaning of the word. I studied Aesthetic Realism for decades and I knew everyone who studied it in those years. Michael Bluejay wasn’t one of them.
I did, however, have the privilege of knowing his grandparents and I think the way he trashes them on his web site (along with, I might add, many other people he specifically NAMES), is reprehensible. I am quite sure the persons he defames and calls “cultists” would not wish their names to be used by him. I hope he will accord them the same respect he demands for his mother—from whom, by the way, I am quite sure he inherited his antipathy to Aesthetic Realism. Mr. Bluejay seems to have two sets of ground rules—one for him and his mother and another for the rest of the world. His mother seems to be holy ground while everybody else is merely ground to trend upon. Meanwhile, I haven’t seen anything nasty at all said about his mother—and certainly nothing that could be construed even in the remotest way to be “dirty tricks.” [TS 14 July 2005]
I publicly apologize about mistakenly ascribing the paragraph about me and my mother to A(rnold) Perey when it was not his doing. I would edit the reference to him out of my post above, but I'm not sure whether that constitutes historical revisionism. If a Wikipedian with more experience knows that this is acceptable then I'll take it out, or they can take it out themselves if they prefer.
As to the rest of the allegations by Aperey and TS, they're too ridiculous to deserve comment. However my offer to debate my claims (and the counterclaims) publicly is still good, and I will gladly take another trip to NYC for this purpose once any of the AR people decide they're not afraid to engage me publcly and face to face. Michaelbluejay 05:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Would editors please stop cutting into each other's comments, re-editing past remarks, and discussing issues that are not relevant to this article? Please see wikipedia:talk page and wikipedia:wikiquette. Editing past comments and adding comments into the middle of other's comments makes it impossible for future editors to make proper sense of the discussion. And issues that don't help us write the article belong in another forum. Thanks, - Willmcw 20:58, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
1. Yes, it is odd that "The article now focuses on the history of AR's change efforts" when this subject is not primary in the philosophy.
2. Why not a section on how Aesthetic Realism sees poetry? Poetry is the origin of the philosophy itself. As a person who participated in its writing, myself, the present section "Aesthetic Realism and Poetry" is too telegraphic and is unclear. Needs improvement.
3. Why not a section on how Aesthetic Realism sees the social sciences?--Mr. Siegel once said that if he had to choose one category from the Library of Congress catalog in which Aesthetic Realism belongs it would be the social sciences.
4. How about a section on how Aesthetic Realism sees art? The philosophy was far better known in the arts than anywhere else for the years ca. 1950-1970. -- 66.114.86.135 21:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that we expand, slightly, the existing section so that it is clearer. At this point the reader will not know why the lines from "Hot Afternoons" are quoted, or why poetry has anything to do with seeing the world fairly. So I suggest the following--and will follow through on Willmcw's suggestion about other additions as best I can:--
Aesthetic Realism states that the world and all that is in it can be seen poetically. Whatever we may meet--whether fortunate or unfortunate--we can be proud of how we see it. Siegel exemplifies this in his poetry, including “The World of the Unwashed Dish,” which concerns how we may view undesirable happenings; “This Summer Morning Mariana Has,” in which we see how a morning and its details belong to a feeling, feminine being; and “Ballade Concerning Our Mistake and Knowledge of It,” which puts self-criticism in graceful and strict ballade form. In each poem, things, a person, events, are seen in large perspective. Siegel explains: “Poetry, like life, states that the very self of a thing is its relations, its having-to-do with other things. Whatever is in the world, whatever person, has meaning because it has to do with the whole universe: immeasurable and crowded reality.”
And so, Eli Siegel's 1924 poem "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana" begins,
And from that bird on that hot afternoon we go everywhere: Aristotle in ancient Greece; medieval Europe; Native America....
-- Aperey 20:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
This is an attempt to put, in a few paragraphs, essential ideas of Eli Siegel.
Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy
Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality, or the world, has a structure that is beautiful—like the structure of a successful poem or painting. Since reality, which can be defined as “everything that begins where your fingertips end,” is made in a beautiful way it can be liked honestly.
For beauty, explains Siegel, “is the oneness of the permanent opposites in reality.” The permanent opposites include order and freedom, energy and repose, many and one. A good poem, for instance, is both logical and passionate at once. Logic is order, passion accentuates freedom. So a good poem represents the structure of the world: freedom and order made one. Freedom at one with order is what we see in an electron, the solar system, a tree whose leaves are shaking in a summer breeze.
The reasoning is similar for other opposites. Take many and one. Walt Whitman explained (1855 preface to Leaves of Grass) that a good poem arises the way an organic form arises: it is one thing with many details that serve one another. American philosophers like Emerson wrote of reality as one while it has many manifestations. Siegel pointed out that since a beautiful poem is one and many, and reality is one and many, isn't this evidence too that reality is beautiful and can be liked the way we like a good poem?
Aesthetic Realism explains it is every person's "greatest, deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis." But there is another desire opposing this--the hope to have contempt for the world and the things in it, for that makes one feel more important.
One’s attitude to the world governs how one feels about the things in it—the way we see a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone. If we seek self-esteem through contempt—"the addition to self through lessening something else"—we diminish our good opinion of ourselves, lessen the capacity of our own minds to perceive and feel in the fullest manner, and are unjust to people. That is why in everything one does, Aesthetic Realism says, he or she has the ethical obligation to give full value to things and people as the one means of liking oneself. This obligation is the same as mental health, accurate seeing, and personal joy. -- Aperey 21:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)