Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 8

message: The previous Talk page was 79 kilobytes long and was archived, as per Wikipedia policy. Suggest we begin with the following revision of the introduction, which meets some of the objections I raised as to improper proportions and some too-sketchy descriptions in the earlier one:
::Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. It teaches that everyone’s “greatest, deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.” It also teaches that contempt—“the addition to self through the lessening of something else”—is the cause of a person’s being unjust and consequently disliking oneself. Such subjects as poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage are taught by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation faculty in New York City. People who have studied Aesthetic Realism, including artists, scientists, and teachers, say it encourages exactness, kindness, and creativity.
::One aspect of Aesthetic Realism was, in the past, study "to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality." Critics claim that while many of Siegel's ideas have merit, the group of Aesthetic Realism students is a cult, having common cult characteristics such as fanatical devotion to the founder/leader, belief that they have the one true answer to universal happiness if only people would listen, paranoid feeling of persecution, and extreme intolerance of criticism. [1] Aesthetic Realism students and others counter that “there is a great deal of lying in the world at the present time; yet these are as deep-dyed falsehoods as we have seen anywhere.” [2]--samivel 23:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Samivel, just get this straight: as long as I'm around, you are NOT going to get your way with this article.  You might as well get used to it, because that's how it's going to be.  And the more you call me a liar, the more determined I am to make sure that WHAT I SEE AS THE TRUTH about your pathetic little CULT is known.  I'm not even going to try to understand your diatribe about Sartre and Kant.  The point I was making has absolutely nothing to do with the content of either philosophy, merely with the attitude of their adherents toward those who criticize them.  The "facts" I was sticking to is that you are not behaving like a "student" of a "philosophy" when you attack me, but like a member of a cult.  In fact, you're acting exactly like a Scientologist.  As for your "example" of one of my "lies," it's obvious that you will never admit to understanding the difference between an honest opinion and a lie.  That is the real lie here.  Unfortunately for you, I was in your little cult for a good many years, so I speak from my own personal experience.  Take, for instance, this issue of "regret" about how one has "met" AR.  You have expressed that "regret" on this forum.  Anybody who is not familiar with AR would think that you just woke up one day with that thought in your head.  That's because you failed to mention that you were TOLD you felt this regret by whoever taught you AR, possibly Siegel himself.  Furthermore, you were told this not once, but THOUSANDS of times, just as I was.  You were praised when you expressed this "regret" and you were criticized when you did not. You attend classes, at which this subject is discussed ad infinitum.  You have written many papers on the subject as assignments for these classes.  The men who were studying to change from homosexuality when AR pulled the rug out from under them were told they could remain students if they wrote a paper stating in convincing terms how they were "unfair to Eli Siegel and AR."  Nobody is ever asked IF they feel this "regret"; they (and by "they," I mean everybody who has ever studied AR) are TOLD that they do.  So, when you ask "Really? And when did this begin?" in response to my supposed "lie" that you've been told what to think, there's your answer. Marinero 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: To Marinero: Aesthetic Realism is not a cult, no matter how you define "cult." And by the way since 1987 a bigger and bigger majority of scholars and legal minds find there are no "cults." Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy which has been dealt with unjustly because it is new thought of a rather large kind, and it happens to be critical. It is critical on a scientific and ethical basis, however. This has, certainly, angered people--as well as being a source of hope and gratitude. As I said, the ethical carefulness and the intellectual scope of Aesthetic Realism angered me; and I regret it. This anger was endemic, and I would guess from how you write that you had it. And when one has been angered one may retaliate. And in retaliating one may exaggerate, one may intensify a poorly-perceived event, or in an outright manner tell a "whopper." At any rate one's thoughts are rarely exact. I think it is a good thing to regret an injustice; I recommend it to anyone; it's the beginning of being fair. Perhaps you feel I hurt you some time in the past (you are talking about events 15 years ago I think). I may have done so. If that is the case, I regret that too. I don't want to be unjust. I am sure I have made mistakes and my judgement is not always the best. Still I think you can see these events with a more comprehensive view of the circumstances and with more good will. I believe that you are using some particulars to work up a case that is not justified. I suggest you look at that. By that I mean it is wrong to call these injustices--real or perceived--(and some of them were on the part of people who no longer study Aesthetic Realism) as evidence of some "cult" situation. That I must deny. --AP --samivel 20:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New comments

message: Ladies and gentlemen, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a platform for cybersmears. It is not a vehicle for revenge. It is a scholarly resource.
The four editors who comprise a group--usernames Michaelbluejay, CDTheime, Outerlimits, and Marinero--lack the knowledge to write a straightforward encyclopedia article about Aesthetic Realism. 
They also lack the desire to be fair to the subject. Each has an agenda of his or her own, to attack this philosophy and put aside the facts about it.
Michaelbluejay, for example, has deleted accurate writing (some of it was mine and some was TS's) and produced an inaccurate and highly editorialized "introduction" of his own. If he claims that he has in some way studied Aesthetic Realism, let us be clear--he failed the course. Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy that teaches good will and ethics, neither of which this writing of Michaelbluejay can pretend to have.
Should a scholarly article about secular humanism, for example, be trusted to a conservative churchman who has shown hate of it and little desire to understand its basis? I think not.
Should an article on Judaism be written by a sympathizer of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Again, I think not.
Can an authoritative article on cultural anthropology be written by a person who has not studied it and shown incompetence as to understanding it? Of course not.
Should an article on Aesthetic Realism be written by a person who does not understand its principles and has ill will for it? Again, of course not.
I think my publications on the subject of Aesthetic Realism show that I do write authoritatively and objectively about it and satisfy the scholarly criteria of my peers. And I do care for it. 
Therefore I have substituted a serious account of what Aesthetic Realism is, an account worthy of a reference work. The horrendous accusations--and inaccurate descriptions--Michaelbluejay has written have no place in an encyclopedia. --Arnold Perey, PhD --samivel 18:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are scholar and would like the article to be scholarly. You are also very close to the subject and have a strong point of view, which should be respected, but other points of view from outside the AR community, including critics of AR, should also be respected. Your rewrite removes critical POV from the intro and rather mutes it. A couple of people have reverted your rewrite, and I'm not really surprised they did. Jonathunder 20:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Samivel's behavior here has not been particularly scholarly. The screed above denouncing the knowledge and ethics of editors here is undeserving of that appellation.  As to his current introduction, it inappropriately removes any indication of controversy from the introduction. Perhaps he is too close to the subject matter to be objective; in any case, such an introduction is unacceptable. - Outerlimits 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem with letting Aperey explain the philosophy of AR, as long as he doesn't get carried away with AR-speak. I have not attempted much in the way of edits concerning the philosophy itself. If Aperey were truly concerned with being fair, he would readily admit this.  But ARists are only concerned with being "fair" (read: worship) to ES and AR.  However, if someone else disagrees with certain aspects of the philosophy, they certainly have a right to express that in the article.  This is, after all, Wikipedia, where such a thing is actually encouraged, much to Samivel's dismay.  If Samivel isn't happy with the rules of Wikipedia, let him find another site where he can write his very own article.  It is abundantly clear that Samivel/Perey believes that those things he likes are holy and beyond criticism, and that he and likeminded individuals should be the only ones allowed to opine about them.  So, should we allow the Scientology article to be written exclusively by Scientologists?  How about an article on Nazism?  Let's turn it over to the Nazis, shall we?  As long as this is a free and democratic site, I'll be damned if I'm going to keep quiet about my experiences with this group.  Marinero 03:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be edited by an authority. 

message: As an example of an article that in a straightforward and scholarly way gives information and doesn't dally with sleaze, I submit this introduction to the article on Liberalism in Wikipedia:
::Liberalism
::From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
 
::This article discusses liberalism as a major political ideology, not the usage of the term in specific countries. For entries about varieties of liberalism and liberal parties around the world, see the entry Liberalism worldwide. 
::Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize individual liberty through rights under law. Liberalism seeks a society characterized by free action within a defined framework. This framework is generally seen to include a pluralistic liberal democratic system of government, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, and economic competition. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the divine right of kings, hereditary status, and established religion. The fundamental principles of liberalism include human rights, especially the right to life, liberty, and property; equal rights for all citizens under the law; government with the consent of the governed as determined by open and fair elections; and transparency in government.
----
It happens that there are a couple of websites that say Liberalism is a cult. But they aren't taken seriously and shouldn't be. They are entirely secondary to serious information. Here are three:
:The Cult of Modern Liberalism
:http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=websterb&date=040312
:Why Is Liberalism a Cult?
:http://www.codewolf.com/story/article_1012825.html
:Why Is Liberalism a Cult?
:http://www.seekfind.net/Amazing_Facts/Note/New_Age_Liberalism.html
----samivel 21:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note that the Wiki article on Liberalism doesn't take seriously that some people have called it a cult: