Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 1

message: I removed the last two paragraphs, keeping the Williams reference in.  I did this for two reasons.  First, the paragraph began by calling attention to critics of AR -- but provided no examples.  When we can summarize and cite critiques of AR, then we should put that information in.  Second, the comparisons to Keats and Pasteur, as well as the claim that people "should" take AR seriously, is just editorializing.  The rest of the article is informative, although I think it could go into greater detail (and an explanation of how AR is related to/different from structuralism).  But I urge contributors to this article to familiarize themselves with our key policies, especially Wikipedia: No original research, Wikipedia: Verifiability, Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  17:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  proponents vs. detractors 

message: Thanks for the suggestion--I did add a section on structuralism. I also added new info about Levi-Strauss in the Wikipedia article on structuralism (I have lectured on him, so, if needed, could add more information with the full scholarly paraphernalia that is not there yet.)
As to reiterating in Wikipedia some of the junk that has been uttered online about Aesthetic Realism, I don't see the need. In terms of quantity, I think more than half is anonymous anyway and by that fact alone isn't credible. The rest is what is called circular sourcing: you say something and I quote you, then you quote me, and we both look like authorities without having a stitch of truth between us. It is easy enough for the reader to access this junk by Googling and also to read the refutations in <www.counteringthelies.com> "Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies".  Why smear a deceased philosopher who dedicated his life to beauty--who, as Keats wrote about himself, "loved the principle of beauty in all things" and was always kind?Arnold_Perey  |  Talk  19:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: proponents vs. detractors 

message: We have no verification of the assertion that the people whose names appeared in the newspaper ad actually did "change" from homosexuality because of studying AR.  What we know is that they said they had.  Of course, strictly speaking, we don't even know that.  Some of the names might have been included without those persons' knowledge or consent.  Still, in the absence of any evidence that names were misused in that fashion, I think we can reasonably state that the people listed did in fact make this claim.  The claim itself is quite an improbable one, however, so we should not simply assert that it's true just because some AR adherents made the claim in the course of trying to publicize and win favor for AR.
Even with the reversion of this paragraph to its NPOV state, the rest of the article is still biased.  Other claims of AR are accepted as fact.  Criticism isn't fairly presented.  Therefore, I'm restoring the NPOV tag.
It's too bad that Wikipedia discourages self-reference.  The pattern of editing of this article would merit reporting as another example of cultlike behavior. JamesMLane 18:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexuality and NPOV

message: The obvious bias of James M Lane can be seen in his use of the shorthand which is throughout the Bluejay website "AR adherants," his attribution of unsavory motives to these "AR adherants" without his having any knowledge of their motives, and his general name-calling--writing "another example of cultlike behavior" when it is obvious to me that I am trying to set the story straight and get the truth in to it despite his efforts to present a twisted version with absolutely no reliable documentation. How can this be allowed?. His writing is absolutely POV.
:My recollection is that the people we're talking about are formally referred to as either "students" or "consultants".  I didn't want to write "students and consultants" each time if I could find a shorter alternative.  I thought that "adherents" was a neutral one-word term (as opposed to something like "followers", which to my mind suggested a cult).  To my mind, it didn't imply uncritical acceptance.  A weaker term like "supporters" could apply to people who were less directly involved, but who praised one aspect of the philosophy.  As for your question, "How can this be allowed?" -- you can file an RfC if you want.  You and Bluejay both have strong opinions, obviously.  Start an RfC to get reactions from people who, like me, aren't so directly involved.  Ask what they think of a statement like "This interpretation, it has been pointed out, has not been confirmed by the facts...." as a dismissal of a negative view; or show them the material from Bluejay that you excised and ask them if they think it belongs in the article along with the favorable stuff.  Ask them about the specific example I changed most recently and discussed here -- whether we should state, as a fact, that some homosexuals changed their sexual orientation because of AR, and whether we should state this as a fact based solely on unsubstantiated, unverified, self-serving assertions by persons trying to improve the image of AR.  If other people respond, you'll see what's "allowed" and whose writing is "absolutely POV".
:In practice, the problem is that the RfC would get few or no responses.  Few people would care.  I'm at the point where I don't care.  Except for keeping the NPOV tag on, I don't expect to try to edit the text anymore.  You have your little playpen.  Enjoy.  The irony, of course, is that the AR puff-piece you insist on writing is less likely to interest a reader in AR, because anyone with half a brain who comes to this article will quickly recognize it as a puff-piece and will pass over it, while a fair article might have piqued their interest. (See the first comment on this talk page.) JamesMLane 05:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Obvious bias of James M Lane

message: I had to laugh when I saw the comment "No reason given for removal of paragraph."  Only an Aesthetic Realist could fail to see the obvious bias that's readily apparent to any other disinterested third party.
Looks like someone added a bunch more cheerleading to the article, plus the continued assertion that my family discontinued its study of AR when I was five.  That's not true, the study lasted well into my teens, no matter how many times the AR people vandalize the article to say otherwise. Michaelbluejay 02:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting the page back to pre-vandalized version 

message: 1. First, as to Margaret Mead. Yes, the aesthetic method (see "The Aesthetic Method in Self-Conflict" in Eli Siegel's Self and World) is scientific. The principles of Aesthetic Realism are scientific. It was in the defense of my doctoral dissertation, before a panel of Columbia professors, that Margaret Mead pointed out that I had proven the principles of Aesthetic Realism (which are the basis of that dissertation) to be true in that thesis. This thesis was a description of a newly-contacted community in New Guinea and it also presented the Aesthetic Realism methodology for understanding the human self and culture as such. For example, I wrote about the cross-cultural understanding of beauty in art, using the Siegel Theory of Opposites in relation to aesthetics. Margaret Mead told the panel that if I had proved it, the committee had to accept the thesis. They saw that I had, and they did. This is the background for my statement that Margaret Mead defended Aesthetic Realism as scientific method. I was there. So I wrote about it in the entry, as an eyewitness. My thesis is easily available, you can see the principles in it--some of it is online: http://www.perey-anthropology.net. 
I'll restore the sentence. If you remove it, we'll have to discuss it again.
2. The principles of Aesthetic Realism are the results of Eli Siegel's scientific observations and philosophic logic over a period of decades. Each principle can (and has been) substantiated through the procedure of forming an hypothesis, testing it, and validating it. Eli Siegel was exceedingly careful, of course, to prove any general statement before it was presented as a principle (which is a scientific law). 
I asked Eli Siegel critical questions myself in the classes it was my pleasure to have attended, to which he gave full and important answers. He loved questions. No person would have studied Aesthetic Realism if it were not true, because it has none of the academic panoply, was dealt with unfairly by the press, and never flattered a person.  I know that Mr. Siegel proved each and every principle with a scrupulosity that any scientist worthy of the name would respect. As a social scientist myself I had a responsibility to see clearly whether Aesthetic Realism was true, and I saw that Mr. Siegel dealt fairly, exactly, logically, with the most subtle and difficult matters of study--questions concerning what beauty is, questions concerning how a person was against themselves or for themselves. It is true that one has to have studied pretty thoroughly to know this, but remember this is a short article. 
So I do ask--whoever you are who wrote the above (about the principles) contact me. Further elucidation can be provided. 
--Aperey 20:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Margaret Mead and the method of Aesthetic Realism

message: Regarding your assertion (whoever the hell you are) that I'm lying by saying that my family studied until I was a teenager, how the hell would you know?  Did you live in my house unbeknowst to me?
As for this: "But he also says on his website that persons studying Aesthetic Realism are required to 'live within walking distance' of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation--evidence that it is a 'cult.'"
Show me where I say that.  Who's lying now? Michaelbluejay 09:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bluejay's family studied until he was a teenager

message: AR supporters keep attacking this article, most recently by excising any mention that Eli Siegel killed himself, or that the group is best known for its long campaign to help people change from homosexuality.  I know that previously I'd said that that I wouldn't try to fight their obfuscation here any more, but screw it, I'm tired of them hypocritically calling me a liar while simultaneously trying to censor the truth.  They can delete mention of Siegel's suicide (and commit other vandalism) as many times as they want, I'll continue to add it back. Michaelbluejay 20:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultists keep attacking this article 

message: Hey, AR cultists, have you failed to notice that every single independent Wikipedian who has dealt with this article has edited YOUR cheerleading and that NO ONE has supported your censorship of salient details, such as the fact that Eli Siegel killed himself?  Stop saying that my fighting your censorship constitutes vandalism.  By excising criticism you don't agree with and littering the article with NPOV remarks, you're the real vandals -- obvious to everyone.  If you disagree, appeal to the Wikipedia community and see if they back you on your efforts to censor and to insert NPOV cheerleading. Michaelbluejay 00:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are the real vandals?