Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (through May 11, 2005)
• Archive 2 (through June 10, 2005)

Note on some false impressions

The wiki entry is allowing several false impressions about Aesthetic Realism to stand as objective "fact" in this entry. Here are some glaring ones.

Whoever said the effort to promote Aesthetic Realism through the change from homosexuality "backfired?" That stands truth on its head! Many of the people who have said they changed from homosexality through the study of Aesthetic Realism, to my knowledge, still study Aesthetic Realism and have families and spouses. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation formally discontinued this single aspect of study because it was being sucked into the culture wars--with the far Right trying to use it to promote their bigoted agenda against homosexuality and the far Left furious at anything that even remotely suggested homosexuality was not biological. In such an atmosphere Aesthetic Realism's sensible, philosophic approach to the subject didn't stand a chance of being considered reasonably. And since the study of homosexuality was always secondary and never central to the philosophy itself, the Foundation wisely withdrew from the heated atmosphere on the subject that has only gotten even more heated since those days in 1990--an atmosphere which creates much heat and very little (if any) light. I remember this very well because I was part of the discussion and DISAGREED with this decision at the time. It seemed to me that so many people were still calling the Foundation to inquire about studying to change from homosexuality that it would hurt Aesthetic Realism to take this action. The intervening years however, have shown me the decision was wise. Nothing "backfired" and this sentence imputes motives to the Aesthetic Realism Foundation that simply weren't there. Eli Siegel said again and again that if a person was happy being homosexual, the matter had come to a "just conclusion" and the person had the right to remain as he or she was. He also said homosexuality was not a "sin" and that homosexual people were entitled to have their full civil rights (at a time when very few people beyond the most radical on the Left were saying this--and Eli Siegel said it with great conviction). (This approach was hated by the Right) But Eli Siegel also said that he believed if a person were to see the opposites of sameness and difference in a fuller and richer way--with a deeper welcoming of the difference of reality, including through body--there would be a natural and organic change in that person's sexual responses even if the subject of homosexuality was never discussed. (This approach was hated by the Left) And, in fact, this is what happened to the first man who changed, the late Sheldon Kranz. The Aesthetic Realism approach is hardly gay-bashing! But it is also not uncritical and unadorned condoning of homosexuality either. I have observed that much of the fury against Aesthetic Realism centers on this topic and comes from people who have political agendas one way or the other about homosexuality.

Another sentence to which I object is the one that leads off the article by stating that Aesthetic Realism was "briefly famous" for its claim that people could change from homosexuality. First of all, Aesthetic Realism was NEVER famous--briefly or otherwise. Secondly, Eli Siegel always said Aesthetic Realism was not primarily about homosexuality and he was as surprised as anyone that people changed. I am aware of the advertisements placed and paid for by men and women who changed--with the consent of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation. But to put this sentence up front as the first thing a person reads about Aesthetic Realism gives a decidedly false impression that Aesthetic Realism's "claim to fame" is the way it sees homosexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aesthetic Realism's importance is in the poetic, aesthetic and ethical way it describes reality, which includes the human self and so much more. Aesthetic Realism is metaphysics through and through.

Finally, the purpose behind the various publications of Aesthetic Realism on the subject of homosexuality is presented falsely as it now stands in this entry. It was not that some men "fell off the wagon" so a new book with completely different names had to be rushed into print. That is ludicrous! As the years passed more people changed and wanted to tell their story. New papers were written and further thought given to the subject that was not present in the earlier books. Meanwhile, at least one of the individuals in the original book was no longer living. When the original book went out of print it was only natural that the Aesthetic Realism Foundation would update the next one and give new voices their chance to speak. So much more had happened regarding the subject with so many more people. Isn't that what other publishers do? I think it is misleading (to use a charitable word)--and presents the Aesthetic Realism Foundation in an unfair light--to say that it had to "bring out another book using different names" because the "cure" didn't take the first time around. In describing the matter in this way wiki is taking sides with the enemies of Aesthetic Realism who are busy misrepresenting it every day on the internet. What kind of balance is this?

By the way, although it really doesn't matter, I no longer study Aesthetic Realism and haven't for many years. But I retain great regard for it and having lived through many of the events being described here enough to know they aren't being clearly presented, my passion at wanting to set the record straight surprises even me. I knew several of the people (a relatively small number) who are now actively attacking Aesthetic Realism. Frankly, these other demeanors of Aesthetic Realism are the people who drove me away from it years ago with their egos and constant power-grabbing that made life miserable for everybody else. If they had not been around when I was studying I would probably still be a student of Aesthetic Realism. How ironic that they are now the ones trying to destroy from without what they once tried to destroy from within. I regret that Wiki is being used to further their sad objective. It seems to me that in the current debate the side not being heard from is the one of which I am part: the large number of people who once studied Aesthetic Realism during the course of their lives, and who continue to respect it and think well of it after having moved on to other aspects of their lives.

Regarding the re-release of The H Persuasion, that assertion is attributed to Michael Bluejay and is not stated as a fact in the article. Further, you refer to others who are attacking AR. The only critic of AR that we reference is Bluejay. Can you be more specific about these other critics? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:59, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding some other points: "Famous" may be too strong a word, but whatever attention AR got seems to have been in connection to the suggestion of change for homosexuals. A couple of books and some ads in big newspapers concerned that aspect of AR. That may not have been AR's focus, but it is what brought the group attention. Maybe if we say AR was "known for" rather than "famous for" that would be more accurate. As for "backfiring", I'm confused. You seem to say that the policy of promoting homosexual change was found to be counterproductive because it "sucked" AR "into the culture wars." That would seem to fulfill the criteria of backfiring. -Willmcw 23:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

===

The paragraphs of the above author (not Willmcw) are eloquent and true. They are an eyewitness account. I must say I do not like the way Willmcw responds to this writing--it's evasive.

Now consider this: Because the statement made by Bluejay is a lie, it should be removed from the article. (There were four authors of the H Persuasion in the first edition and the same four authors in the last.)

And consider this: Because the first paragraph of the article is also untrue it should be corrected to an earlier version which was true.

And a note of caution: Let us not be fooled. A technique used by Willmcw is to ask questions and falsely "refute" or else ignore the answers--it's called "the runaround." It's purpose is to ignore the substance that one has written. I have been the recipient of a good deal of this, so I know. The writing of the above author (not Willmcw) is too honest for that kind of shabby treatment and I object.

The question ask by Willmcw, "Can you be more specific about these other critics?" is an "innocent" but calculated question requiring no answer--because he already is aware of the answer but chooses to ignore it. His use of language reveals some of that fact.

For, Michael Bluejay is no critic. He says nothing of substance in his web pages--but attacks by stating misrepresentations as if they were truths. There is a word for that, and the word isn't criticism; it's lying. --Aperey 23:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Please read the Wikipedia policy on original research. Editors may not use personal "eyewitness accounts" as a source for articles. We have to go with verifiable sources. We don't know what is a lie and what is the truth, and it is not the job of Wikipedia to be the referee. Our task is to summarize all verifiable viewpoints in an NPOV manner. That includes those of critics. The anonymous, unsigned editor above said we were relying on critics besides Bluejay, yet there is no sign of those critics in the article. Finally, please do not accuse me of acting falsely, that is a personal attack. Wikipedia:no personal attacks. Let's all act in a collegial manner. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I thank Dr. Perey, whom I knew years ago, for his remarks. The other critics are the two people named and described in great detail (along with their purpose) on the "Countering the Lies" site. From my own experience I know that description of these two individuals is very accurate--unfortunately. The wiki article is full of phrases such as "some others did not agree" and "they say" which clearly implies that more people are being quoted as critics than simply Bluejay. It almost makes it seem as if there are equal numbers of pro and anti Aesthetic Realism people, which is hardly the case. On the one side we have an educational foundation teaching a fine philosophy for many decades and on the other a small cabal of malcontents throwing mud. You would never get the lopsidedness of this situation from the wiki piece. And it is hardly clear that it is Bluejay being quoted on the re-release of "The H Persuasion." The whole paragraph reads as if wiki is speaking “factually” for itself. Bluejay's name isn't even mentioned! It also has that business about "backfired" which again, in how it is written, gives the clear impression the article is speaking, not Bluejay--and I have to tell you the idea itself is a sheer fantasy. The "backfired" does not refer to Aesthetic Realism being sucked into the culture wars. It suggests that people didn't change and so Aesthetic Realism had to back away from that assertion. Nonsense! It is a wholesale and uncritical adopting of an attack line on Aesthetic Realism that has no basis in actual fact. If we are going with "verifiable sources" and "verifiable viewpoints" these sentences shouldn't be in the article at all. They are outright opinion--and false opinion at that. The one thing they definitely are NOT is verifiable. As for the misunderstanding that Aesthetic Realism met the public chiefly with regard to homosexuality, again, this is a mistaken notion. The most visible public presentations of Aesthetic Realism were two center-spread advertisements in the New York Times during the 1970's. One was an Outline of Aesthetic Realism written by Eli Siegel. The second was headlined: "The Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel Is True." It took the form of a letter to the American people from the students and teachers of Aesthetic Realism talking about what they learned and how their lives changed in areas as diverse as anger, art, love, eating disorders, guilt and international relations. That ad also included a section on "How to Study Aesthetic Realism." It can very credibly be argued that these ads were what made for the greater attention Aesthetic Realism received at that time. And I could mention other things, including the publication of Eli Siegel's Self and World itself--which is hardly about homosexuality, and the book of Aesthetic Realism maxims, Damned Welcome, released at that time. There were also newspaper advertisements for The Opposites Company and its dramatic presentations of Eli Siegel's lectures on the drama. Again, it is misleading to present Aesthetic Realism right off the bat at the beginning of this article as primarily about homosexuality--and certainly overstating the case to say that this is the reason it became "briefly famous." I myself am not accusing you of acting falsely, but I was surprised to say the very least by your response to my posting. One would think these clear facts would encourage you to see that the slant in this article is decidedly off center.

Your reference to the number of people on each side raises an interesting point. Bluejay has said, I think, that the total number of AR students and consultants today is about 120. Does the Foundation publish a figure? Is there any verifiable source for a number? I think many readers would be interested in knowing the extent to which the philosophy has succeeded in reaching people, despite the complaints about the press coverage. JamesMLane 05:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why you aren't asking Bluejay how many people in his anti-Aesthetic Realism club? Almost all of them are anonymous. We don't know if Bluejay himself isn't ghost-writing some of these unnamed statements. Not having studied Aesthetic Realism for many years now I can't give you an exact number of current students nor do I think that is the point. Aesthetic Realism is not a membership organization. The Foundation has a faculty of well over forty or fifty persons, I believe, and a larger number of persons beyond that who are in the process of studying to become part of the faculty. Then there is the student body itself who study in the various classes, seminars, consultations and public presentations offered by the Foundation--the number evolving from semester to semester as with any eductional institution. There are also many people throughout the world and in other parts of the United States who study Aesthetic Realism in telephone consultations--from places as diverse as Italy and Israel. I believe some have statements on the Countering the Lies site--a man from Argentina and a lady from North Carolina to name two. Then there are many persons such as myself--former students who no longer have any formal connection with Aesthetic Realism but continue to feel grateful for the good and lasting effect it has had on us.

I don't think Bluejay has an anti-Aesthetic Realism club, and if he did, I'm dubious about whether its size would be a fact worth including in this article. You have to remember that the overwhelming majority of readers will never have heard of Aesthetic Realism, and they'll be curious about how widely this philosophy is held. JamesMLane 19:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

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:

• Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded in 1941 by American poet and critic Eli Siegel. It was briefly famous in the decades following the sexual revolution for its claims that its study transformed homosexuals in to heterosexuals.

Revision:

• 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. It was best-known in the 1960s and 1970s for the claims that it changed homosexuals into heterosexuals.

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? --

• In 1925 the way of seeing the world which would become Aesthetic Realism was known across America in the poem "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana." that year's winner of the Nation Poetry Prize. It was best known in 1955 and later as the point of view of the Terrain Gallery in New York City. It was best-known in the 1960s and 1970s for statement that it enabled homosexual people to be heterosexual. And in the 1990's and later, it has been best-known for its educational methodology: The Aesthetic Realism Teaching Method. --Aperey 23:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"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.

I understand your dislike for the term "ARfan". The problem is that, in these conversations about article content, we're used to addressing each other, referring to particular points by naming the author, etc. (You've referred to Bluejay, and Aperey refers to Willmcw.) You might like to create your own username. You're welcome to edit anonymously, but there are many benefits to creating one. You can keep your anonymity. I edit under my real name, but a name like "Outerlimits" is perfectly OK. As for "backfired", I agree with you that it should be removed. It can't be changed now, though, because the page is protected. The protection arose from the intensive edit warring, which, in my opinion, was caused primarily by violations of the NPOV policy. This article must report notable opinions about Aesthetic Realism, from its supporters and from its critics, but must not adopt any of them. That means we don't censor Bluejay's views. It also means we don't accept supporters' statements at face value. For example, on this point about homosexuality, the article can't say that anyone did in fact change from homosexuality. I edited that language to say that people had said that they had changed, but my edit was reverted. The reversion was improper. The point is disputed, so we report it as an attributed assertion, not a fact. JamesMLane 19:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the introduction, that looks mostly good to me. The last sentence isn't quite right though - I think AR was more famous for the claim of change than the numbers. I suggest: "For a period of time in the 1970s Aesthetic Realism was known for the claims that many men and women studying Aesthetic Realism had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality."

Regarding "backfired". That sentence as a whole seems odd but the point is to summarize what you said earlier, that it was a counterproductive effort that sucked AR into culture wars and generated ill-feeling towards AR. However I think that point may be sufficiently made in the paragraph, so it might not be a loss to delete it.

As has already been said, it is expected that Wikipedia editors will sign and date their talk page entries. Please register a username so we can call you something. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

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

TS's

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.

Willmcw's

For a period of time in the 1970s Aesthetic Realism was known for the claims that many men and women studying Aesthetic Realism had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

The difference is that is was not just the men and women who made the claims. Didn't Siegel and the ARF also write about these changes? Also, we are using the "1970s" to refer to years between 1970 and 1979, not as a possesive for the decade. Therefore it does not take an apostrophe.

For the other paragraph, I think that "unwitting" implies that ARF and Siegel didn't know what they were doing. Regarding the editing, we need to get user:Aperey to agree as well as he has been a very active editor of this article. I hope that he will participate. -Willmcw 21:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Some responses to the above

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)

TS's response

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:

By all means APerey should participate. Perhaps he has a better suggestion as to wording. I don't seem to object too strongly to Willmcw's wording above. although I'd like a better word than "claims" -- which is not a neutral word and implies suspicion about the change that I think is a bit unfair to the men and women who have prouldy and publically said they changed and to their spouses and children. I thought the word "statements" was less loaded and yet doesn't imply agreement. As to the use of the word "unwitting" -- the culture wars certainly couldn't have been anticipated in 1970! Perhaps "unintentionally" is a better word. The point is that Aesthetic Realism never wanted to be used as a vehicle of the Right to condemn homosexuals nor as a vehicle of the Left to say there should be no questioning of them at all. It struck a sensible middle ground that simply became untenable as the years passed and this issue hardened into warring camps in a way that nobody could foresee. Can you think of a brief, better way to get this idea across? TS, 15 June 2005

Starting with Aperey's comments above:

1. This is what we call "original research", which is not allowed on Wikipedia. It is not necessarily incorrect, but it is unverifiable by other editors. All the information in the encyclopedia has to be verifiable.

2. "Claimed" may be a bit POV. I'd agree to TS's suggestion of "stated"/"statement" as a more NPOV alternative.

For a period of time in the 1970s Aesthetic Realism was known for the statements that many men and women studying Aesthetic Realism had changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality.

3. It's not easy to say at this point what AR was most famous for. But the homosexuality change matter is frequently referred to. Is ther any evidence of being otherwise famous?

4. The material you've written would be original research. Some of the links may have useful info.

5. Again, this is all original research. We have no way of verifying any of it.

Also to Perey - do you have any other comments about the text, especially the intro? It'd be nice to get a version of this that we can all agree on.

To TS - "Unintentionally" may be better. However the "culture wars" were perhaps already in progress in 1970. (not a matter we have to decide on here)

Cheers, -Willmcw 23:02, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

PS Regarding #5, We should aim to have a section on the Foundation. That'd include material such as it's history, structure (class head, consultants, consultants-in-trainging, students), publications, other operations. In that context we might say that Mali is a former director and present opponent. Let's keep it short and dry. Like encyclopedias are supposed to be. ;)

Why don't we work on a scratchpad version while the page is protected - we can mark it up and make comments on the page so it expedites group editing. Talk:Aesthetic Realism/temp I'll copy the article in there and then add the proposed revisions that we've talked about so far. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:53, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I am very glad for the new input and the thoughtfulness of your approach. And thank you for asking for my comments. I do have some ideas for the intro. Question--How do we write comments on the new, scratchpad page? -- do we just type in our suggestions on the page, maybe in brackets, and give our reasons? Could you supply a sample we could learn from? -- Arnold Perey
  • Yes, that's fine - it isn't a "public" page so we can leave notes for each other - brackets are good. -Cheers, -Willmcw 17:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • The trouble with the way you've set it up is that there's no separate talk page. The option I've seen used is to create the scratch pad version of the article (or section) as a user subpage, so that it has an associated talk page. See User:JamesMLane/John Kerry Silver Star and User talk:JamesMLane/John Kerry Silver Star. That example didn't get as much action as the Aesthetic Realism article already has, and it was just for one section of an article, but the mechanism is the same. No one should be put off by the location of the scratch pad as part of one particular person's user page; it's still equally open to editing by everyone. JamesMLane 16:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like the comments (and edit suggestions) of Willmcw and consider them balanced and fair. Thanks for your willingness to try and get this right. I'm not so familiar with the scatch pad concept but will try. Forgive me any mistakes. I'm still learning.

By the way, I think having a section on the Foundation is great idea. As far as I know, there is no such explanation of the Foundation anywhere else on the internet. That plays right into the hands of opponents who have a stake in portraying it as some sort of weird, mind-controlling compound. In fact, it is a pretty standard educational facility where people come and go, take classes, etc. It has a board of directors who serve for specified terms. Like many other non-profit organizations, it has a modest full time paid staff and a larger number of volunteers who get the work done. There are semesters and semester breaks, and the people who study Aesthetic Realism live pretty normal lives. Of course, the subject taught is the philosophy conceptualized by Eli Siegel and its application to every area of life, both personal and in the arts and sciences. This reflects Eli Siegel's central thesis in his prize poem "Hot Afternoons" that through the opposites all instances of reality--however seemingly diverse and contradictory--are joined because they have an aesthetic structure in common. A table and a chair both put together hardness and softness, for instance. But they do so in a different way--the table accenting hardness while the chair, still needing a fair amount of firmness, accents more softness for obvious reasons. Indeed, the judgement about the usefulness of the table or chair a person might make when buying it has to do with how WELL it makes the opposites one--is this chair too soft for example, or too uncomfortably hard? Will the table scatch too easily because the wood is too soft? And then a person can ask: "How am I hard and soft?" Am I too inflexible one moment and too wishy-washy the next? How can this table teach me to do a better job with these opposites in me?"

Sorry--I got sidetracked onto the philosophy itself--but that is central to what goes on in the building, not secret meetings to manipulate people's lives or coax them out of their money! I used to spend $5 a class--a few hundred dollars a year--to get a pretty diverse education. Nobody ever got rich teaching Aesthetic Realism! And Eli Siegel didn't either. That simply wasn't his purpose. In more recent years the Foundation has had a fundraising drive once a year, sending out a letter recapping what has happened with Aesthetic Realism in the past year and asking for contributions. My guess is those once-yearly donations fund a major percentage of the Foundation's annual operating budget. The letter goes to students, former students, parents and family of students--anybody who has expressed an interest in the Foundation's work. Anyway, getting back to the Foundation--it offers courses in many disciplines including music, drawing, acting, anthrophology, marriage, teaching/education etc. to illustrate the Siegel Theory of Opposites. There is even a very popular (at least when I was studying) "Learning to Like the World Class" for children. The role of Ellen Reiss is class chairman. She was asked by Eli Siegel, shortly before his death, to continue teaching the professional classes he had taught to train people who wanted to teach Aesthetic Realism. Her parents studied Aesthetic Realism from the time she was born and she grew up knowing it well, even as a small child. She accepted Eli Siegel's invitation and has done this work with great dedication and love for many years now--ever since Eli Siegel's death in 1978. There is great affection and respect for her because of this, and certainly her opinion carries weight, but she is not the "leader" as Bluejay tries to paint her. The board of directors is the legal authority for the Aesthetic Realism Foundation and it alone has the responsiblilty for guiding its day to day operations and policy decisions.

Because the Foundation is located in the SoHo area of NYC, lots of street traffic wanders in on an average day to check out the Terrain Gallery art exhibit (which has works by persons who study Aesthetic Realism and many artists who don't--usually with a written commentary by the artist posted beside it describing his or her purpose and the opposites their work is centrally dealing with) located on the main level, or to purchase various Aesthetic Realism publications at the Definition Press desk--or just to inquire about what Aesthetic Realism is. (A far more better way to find out about it, I might add, than depending on Bluejay!) People at the front desk are unfailingly accomodating and always ready to answer questions. The main floor also doubles as a large auditorium for public presentations and programs. On the second floor is the consultations area where people can study Aesthetic Realism individually in a personal consultation with three consultants. The purpose of consultations is to study one's own life questions in terms of aesthetics. A consultation is not therapy, but many people (including myself) have found they do much better with the "art of living" through what they learn in consultations. Every consultation is taped and the person having it receives the tape for their study. My tapes are very special to me and I still listen to them from time to time. The cost for a consultation is, again, modest. When I studied it was about $30 bucks (it might be a bit more now)--which works out to $10 before taxes for each consultant for an hour's work! The Definition Press offices and publishing plant is located on the lower level. The third level has a moderately-sized, lovely, bookcase-lined seminar room and storage. The upper level contains the executive offices and a kitchen area for staff.

Since I've taken so long to write this, I don't have time to go to the scatchpad now. I'll revisit tomorrow and do so. TS 16 June 2005

Thanks for making those comments and for your contributions to the section on the Foundation. Our aim here is to summarize, in an NPOV manner, the verifiable information about AR.

Definition of AR

See the Psych Dictionary definition of AR. Of course our can be quite a bit longer, but it should be concise.

History

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? Who were first consultants? When was the "Victim of the Press" campaign started? What other dates and events? I've started a timeline. We can use it as an aid to memory as we compile the history, and then delete it if we don't want it in the final article

ARF

It sounds to me like "Class Chairman" is a bit like an academic dean. The Executive Director sounds like the office in charge of business affairs. And then presumably the gallery and publications are owned by and everybody reports to the foundation's board. Is that more or less right? Maybe we could get a sentence or two on the classes, and one on the consultations? (I see the Psych Dict calls AR a "therapy", and it certainly seems like the result is [or intends to be] therapeutic. It would be NPOV to include the word "therapy" somewhere in the article.) For the actual building, can we boil it down to a sentence? Something like "The ARF building in SoHo houses the gallery and bookshop (also used for large meetings), classrooms, consultation rooms, and offices."

Cheers, -Willmcw 22:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

Note from Arnold Perey

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)

Before responding to your points, can I ask everyone involved to be careful about accidentally deleting the comments of others? This is a collaboration of equals - everybody gets a chance to contribute. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding specific points:

1. That desciption of ARF's building is fine. We need to pin down the dates of founding, etc.

2. Any arguments we have based on logic and deduction are original research. A standard reference book describes AR as a "therapy". At some point in the article we need to mention that, in order to fulfill NPOV. It doesn't need to go in the intro. The section on the definition of AR looks like the right spot. We can attribute it if you think it is controversial.

3. A personal request. Could you (and every editor who hasn't done so) please read the Wikipedia policies on NPOV and original research? The way we write this article has to conform to the rules of the encyclopedia. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Aesthetic Realism/temp

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)

Introduction

I think Outerlimits should explain a little further why the last sentence of the intro. is "deceptive." I think that sentence is pretty plain, and true. --Aperey 21:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe I've explained it clearly: AR made the claims, and the sentence should say so. I've changed it so its appropriate at least once; I can't say what its current state is. - Outerlimits 22:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm fine with the changes made by Aperey here. [TS 17 June 2005]

Note--"ending alcoholism" is an idea opposed by Alchoholics Anonymous who very prudently feel alcoholism never can be called "ended." So I think that should be deleted.

It shouldn't be deleted if AR claimed it could end alcoholism, even if that claim has now been discarded. - Outerlimits 20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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]

Thus the "if". If AR still claims to "end" alcoholism, that claim should remain. - Outerlimits 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think stuttering can also be omitted here--to avoid a list of difficulties that is a bit daunting. I think just the mention of eating disorders will get the idea across.

I also suggest we save the homosexuality for later in the article, in a strict chronology. However, as you see, I've left it here in case of strenuous disagreement. Mr. Siegel always saw it as a surprising byproduct of the study of how to see the world in the best way...but never central to that study. However, the public was more interested in that change than in the explanation of beauty in art!

Yes, the public was more interested in it, and it is the thing for which AR is still' most remembered. It therefore belongs in the lead paragraph, and prominent mention thereafter. - Outerlimits 20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remembered by whom?

Anyone outside of AR who thinks about AR. - Outerlimits 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality hasn't been part of the Aesthetic Realism curriculum for fifteen years now--and it wasn't for thirty years before 1971.

and AR hasn't been in the public consciousness much since the homosexuality ad blitz. - Outerlimits 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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]

How many? Has AR released any figures? Where can the number of "students" be obtained? The number of non-homosexual "students"? The number of homosexual "students"? - Outerlimits 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Aesthetic Realism was never "widely known" as TS suggests. (The press never once reported on the change from homosexuality; the "fame" was mostly word of mouth, following the TV appearances and the few ads, and it never reached the proportion of Eli Siegel's first fame in 1925).

This is true, so I agree with the implied suggestion that "widely" should be removed from the article. [TS 17 June 2005]

My most radical suggestion is the last sentences, in which the change from homosexuality (if it must be in the 1st paragraph, which I deny) is placed with a few of the other ways Aesthetic Realism has become known. To a gay activist or a psychologist, I'm afraid it might stand out above everything else. But to the general public, it is quite submerged.

On the contrary, to the extent that a member of the general public is aware of AR, it is because he remember the "change from homosexuality" episode. - Outerlimits 20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

As it is your point of view that AR is known for other things. My "point of view" is attested to by the coast-to-coast flurry of publicity on television and in newpapers that surrounded the publication of the "change from homosexuality" ads. AR itself complained that they had never previously obtained such press coverage. And they have not done so since, either. - Outerlimits 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am commenting only on the above paragraph by "Outerlimits." It is not true. There was no press coverage--that is, nothing in the print media (for 20 years). And on TV, three interviews. One radio interview on WKCR. Four modestly-sized ads in major papers. This was all. No "blitz."

That sounds remarkably like press coverage, and remarkably like what I wrote was true, not false. - Outerlimits 02:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The flurry occurred because many people felt these results were valuable to America and there was word of mouth.

Flurry, blitz, call it what you like,it was more publicity than AR had received before, and more publicity than it has received since. - Outerlimits 02:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However, Aesthetic Realism is important because of what it is, as knowledge, ethics, literature, historical analysis, not because of a brief flurry of public notice as to homosexuality. Of couse the people who took notice 20 or 30 years ago, if still alive, would remember--and those who have tried to whip up anger about it on the internet have made it more "famous" today--but that's artificial.

There's an evident disparity between what AR would like to be known for, and what it actually is known for. That's just reality, whatever the reasons. - Outerlimits 02:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eli Siegel's way of seeing the world was even more famous in 1925 when his poem "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana" affected the nation.

Why don't you look at the importance of Aesthetic Realism to the art world? A short while ago, Chaim Koppelman of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation faculty was given a Lifetime Achievement Award by the Society of American Graphic Artists (SAGA)--a key artists' organization. "Everyone who's anyone" knows he has taught printmaking at the School of Visual Arts for decades from the Aesthetic Realism point of view. He is famed because (a) he is a sincere and accomplished artist, whose works are in the leading museum collections of America; and (b) he has taken a firm ethical stance about the value of Aesthetic Realism, a stance that leading creative people in America respect. However, even if hardly anyone knew about him, he would be an important artist and an important representative of American ethics. --Aperey 19:14, 20 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]

Again, the avoidance of stating the truth: that this "change" was believed by AR, and publicised by AR, and not merely by those individuals affected. - Outerlimits 20:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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.

And what part of that did I deny? If you will read again carefully, what I ask is that AR not seek to disavow this belief by placing it only in the mouths of those making the claims, as if AR did not believe in them. - Outerlimits 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(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!

What we need to present is that people claimed to have "changed". We do not know that what they claim is true. - Outerlimits 02:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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]

At a certain point a person's "claim" is no longer a claim but has been validated by the accumulation of facts and by history. Once, Jonas Salk "claimed" to have a vaccine for polio. In a while, there were enough facts to know it was true. The fact that many persons changed from homosexuality through the study of Aesthetic Realism is undoubted. It's decades later by now. In 1980 or so Raymond Corsini's very technical psychology text Innovative Psychotherapies accepted the fact as exactly what it is: a fact. There is no reason to go backward. It is just a reactionary POV to act like it never happened.

The current edition of Corsini's text doesn't seem to make any mention of Aesthetic Realism. Nor is it a particularly critical evaluation of therapies, but rather a list of things that purport to be therapeutic. As to the position that the ex-gays claim has been validated, that's simply not the case. We have no evidence --other than their claims--by which we may evaluate their claims. Outerlimits 22:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Not a very becoming way of arguing, but go ad hominem if you like. In this case you've got the wrong hominem. - Outerlimits 22:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please discuss the article we are editing, not the personalities of the editors. So long as we all edit in good faith, following the rules of Wikipedia (has everyone read the major ones yet?), it doesn't matter what the identities are of the editors. (Two exceptions: editors may use different accounts across Wikipedia, but they should never use more than one account in a given field at the same time. (Wikipedia:sockpuppet). Editors should not edit articles on themselves. (Wikipedia:vanity.)) -Willmcw 07:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Another request/suggestion - would editors please avoid interpolating their remarks? This page is turnning into gibberish with the conversation sliced and diced. It's very difficult to follow who is saying what to whom. Please, just add your comments in a lump sequentially with a signature and a date. If you need to do go back and comment on an old matter, add itf after the other editor's remark, not right in the middle, and add an extra indent or two to indicate that it's an afterthought. Doing so will really help other editors. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of Philosophy

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]

• Description in the "The Dictionary of Psychology"
• A philosophy and a method of therapy based on three points: (a) a person should learn to like the world; this calls for (b) the understanding of the aesthetic oneness of opposites; and (c) the greatest danger is to have contempt for the world.
• Raymond J. Corsini (2002). The Dictionary of Psychology, 24. Google Print. ISBN 1583913289 (accessed June 16, 2005). Also available in print from Psychology Press (UK).

AP replies--About the definition. Corsini has a direct quote from Eli Siegel in his earlier (1981) book Handbook of Innovation Psychotherapies (Wiley & Sons). I'm glad the definition is there in his Dictionary, but I think this is much more descriptive. I'm quoting from Chapter 2, "Aesthetic Realism,"

Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy, founded by Eli Siegel (1902-1978), who defined it in these words:

Aesthetic Realism is a way of seeing the world and oneself that says: One, the purpose of everyone is to like the world; Two, the way to like the world and the things in it is to see both as the aesthetic oneness of opposites; Three, the greatest danger for a person is to have contempt for the world and what is in it, despite their aesthetic structure. [Corsini, page 18]

• Corsini, Raymond. Handbook of Innovative Psychotherapies, John Wiley & Sons. New York: 1981 (pp. 18-31)

Note from AP: The Aesthetic Realism Foundation suggests that after reading the above definition of Aesthetic Realism, please ask questions.

One definition of contempt given by Siegel in The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known issue no. 1114 is: "Contempt is the addition to self though the lessening of something else."

PS: There is a timeline of the history of Aesthetic Realism (1945-81) in it, taking up almost 2 pages, and a short history which answers pretty nearly all of Willmcw's questions. Chaim Koppelman's book This Is the Way I See Aesthetic Realism describes the origin of Aesthetic Realism lessons in Eli Siegel's poetry classes (1938-41). Perhaps I can scan the Corsini timeline and upload the image to Wikipedia? Or type out a summaries from Koppelman, etc.? -- --Aperey 17:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Structuralism etc.

I think it's important to have a comparison of Aesthetic Realism to other philosophic approaches. Siegel wrote one, from which we could quote. There is some comparison to anthropological structuralism in my thesis which we could use as a source and it wouldn't be an "original" source in the Wiki sense. [AP, moved to "definition" by Willmcw]

Why is it important? Are Structuralism and AR often compared? Any such comparison should be a short paragraph, with a minimum of quotes. We aren't writing the article on structuralism, and unless the comparison is a major issue it should be kept down to size in keping with its importance. -Willmcw 21:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the connection to structuralism should be short. The comparison to diverse philosophies, which ought to be short, I see as very important. People have asked pretty often, How is this different from Taoism? Didn't Hegel have a dialectic? How is it different from Yin and Yang? And because Aesthetic Realism is original, that originality ought to be made clear in some way. Its scientific method needs to stand out. Otherwise it can be hard for a person to see how studying it could have the big and beautiful effect that so many people report, including the amazing way a man can see a woman more deeply and fairly, as I learned to do--and teach other men. --Aperey 21:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For some of those questions the best answers are to be found through personal study and consultation. Wikipedia is not the place for Willmcw, Aperey, or Bluejay to write what they think AR is about. Is there significant, notable scholarship on the differences between AR and Structuralism, Taoism, and Yin Yang? If there is then we should report on it. Rather than spending time on comparing it to other belief systems -what it is not- let's focus on talking about what it is. We've already got plenty on our plate without bringing in Lao-Tse. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

History

I have added some dates and information to the timeline.

The increasing awareness of the Siegel Theory of Opposites (nationally and internationally) in diverse fields of art is an important development in culture. If a separate section is devoted to changing from homosexuality, there also ought to be a separate section devoted to the arts. However, I think both can fit in the chronological format. --Aperey 20:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide some non-AR sources for the importance of the Terrain Gallery and AR in culture? I'm having trouble finding any. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Remember, when we say there's been a press boycott, we mean it. You are running up against it yourself. I will search for things that can be used. But they will do just as well in a chronological account of the history, which I feel would be the best way to go. One reason is that Aesthetic Realism is much more than the things some people have chosen blow up into main or controversial issues--in order to obscure what this philosophy really is, and how it stands for the justice to people that the greatest writers in history have longed for.

William Carlos Williams, Kenneth Rexroth, Huntington Cairns--wouldn't you consider these "non-AR sources"? I can cite others but I think Wikipedia's attitude to the three I mentioned is quite important before trying to go further.

I put a little more about an important dilemma about sources, below, on this Talk page. Cheers, --Aperey 18:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of us can speak for "Wikipedia". My personal view is that any notable sources who have commented on AR directly are probably suitable. Paeans to Siegel's poetry do not belong because this is not the article on Siegel's poetry. So If Rexroth, who reviewed one of Siegel;'s poetry books, also wrote an article about AR, then it would be appropriate. If he makes a substantial mention of AR in his review, that would also be relevant. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Change

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)

ARF

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)

Criticism

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 don't know if there's any way of chronologizing the criticism, so we may be stuck with it a special section. I must say that without even reading it, it's totally unacceptable. There is a very short seciton of criticism followed by a rebuttal section that is about four times as long. That just isn't gonna cut it. They don't have ot be exactly the same length, but they should be proportionate. -Willmcw 02:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

There appear to be two chief areas of criticisms related to AR, the homosexuality change matter and the cultishness. The criticism of the homosexuality matter should be handled in the same section that discusses it. I don't see another place to describe the cultishness, which the existing article barely mentions (and which I don't fully understand). Since the only criticism left in this section would be the cult allegation, I propose that this section be renamed something appropriate, like "Cult allegation". It doesn't need to be long, maybe a paragraph to describe the allegations and Hassan's evaluation, then a paragraph for AR to give their rebuttal. -Willmcw 10:04, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

On the topic of Homosexuality and AR

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

NLAB. I validate your sharing. Your opinion is as important as anyones. Which means: worth nothing. ;) With the exception of some noncontroversial info like the number of floors at the ARF building, we can only use info which can be verified by anyone. That generally means books, magazines, and websites. We can (and will) report that Bluejay has a site and that on it are allegations X, Y, and Z. But we are very limited in how far we can go in this article (pro or con) by the scarcity of outside, independent sources. Are you aware of any reference materials which would help us to depict your POV? Thanks, -Willmcw 08:44, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

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]

Again, I feel no big desire to engage in fruitless debates on this subject. Remember, how a person uses what he or she learns is entirely a matter of personal choice. If I learn French but don't want to speak it, that's up to me. It's the same with what a person learns from Aesthetic Realism--if you use it, it's your choice. If you don't, it's your choice. By 1980, the Corsini book Innovative Psychotherapies says, over 140 men and women said they'd changed. What some of them did later, I guess nobody knows the whole story. Some stayed to study and to learn how to teach, themselves, and I am proud to be their colleague.

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)

That's why I'm seeking out indepedent sources. Please realize that what you say goes for AR websites and publications too. That's why in Wikipedia we don't try to sort out the "Truth," we simply report all of the different POVs. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Some notes on sources and a big Catch-22

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)

Yes, let's say I was proposing a new theory -call it "cold fusion". Other editors might look over my reams of data and say, "Very nice. Now how many independent physicists have reproduced your results?" If I said, "None" then I'm sure you could guess what the response would be. It's not that they'd say I was a liar, it just that the results were unverified. What "field" is AR in? Philosophy? Which experts are relevant here? -Willmcw 03:53, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Answering some questions from Willmcw

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:

Baird and Reiss write in Corsini (p. 19), “The first Aesthetic Realism lesson was given in 1941.” This marked the beginning of Aesthetic Realism.

Meanwhile, lessons were a means of teaching the philosophy--the way of seeing the world--that Eli Siegel had earlier been developing for decades. He wrote:

Aesthetic Realism, as taught by an individual, arose from requests by people in my poetry classed who asked if they could talk to me privately. In my talks on poetry, I mentioned often that what makes a good poem is like what can make a good life. This I see as still true, for poetry is a mingling of intensity and calm, emotion and logic.

This is how Aesthetic Realism began. Siegel started to give individual lessons which he first called Aesthetic Analysis and later, in 1948, he called the philosophy on which those lessons were based, Aesthetic Realism. The reason is, the word “analylsis” seemed too narrow a term for what this philosophy really is. --Aperey 20:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is mentioning this.

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.

An attempt to bring it all together

Discussion moved off scratchpad page to here.

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) ]

The tone of this "Sidenote" is, in my opinion, unnecessarily snarky toward Michaelbluejay. It ignores the history that was alluded to by Outerlimits. Last month, the constant reversions of this article, chiefly though not exclusively between Aperey and Michaelbluejay, led to the commencement of a formal mediation. The mediator asked both of the principal combatants (for want of a better word) to refrain from editing the article until the mediation was concluded. Bluejay has honored that request. Unfortunately, the designated mediator hasn't been active on Wikipedia since just after the mediation began. The mediation is thus in a sort of limbo. JamesMLane 00:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a note on user:Michaelbluejay's page inviting him to participate again and on the mediators notifying him of that. -Willmcw 00:38, Jun 26, 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)

TS, thanks for preparing that draft. I don't think we're ready to declare victory yet. The history section is still in production. I'm going to post a comment about the "objections" section in the discussion framework above. -Willmcw 01:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

PS, in any future "pull it all together" could we please use the linked-up text? Using raw, unlinked text means that if we end up keeping a draft we'll have to do the major work of re-linking everything. Thanks, -Willmcw 02:16, Jun 24, 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]

Where is the most recent work on the article?

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?

We need to do further work on the individual sections before they are ready to merge together. I remobved the "bring it all together" draft by TS, because it was totally unlinked and was confusing to have it on the same page as the versions we're editing. It seems we've got the Into mostly done, and the Change section is far along- though the old "Objections" section, which mostly dealt with the same topic, needs to be integrated. -Willmcw 23:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Misrepresenting my opinions is an offensive sort of argumentation. I hope Aperey will give it up. Allow me to teach him how to form a oneness of what he sees as opposites: when there is no single truth that is agreed on, the truth is best represented by a fair presentation of all points of view. This is Wikipedia's NPOV policy in a nutshell. As for the history of homosexuality and AR, it clearly dates to at least as far back as 1946, Krantz's spontanous "change", and his marriage (around 1957), and includes his pseudonymous publication in 1968. As to Ted van Griethuysen's (not Tom Shield's) quote, I'll gladly quote it again, though I imagine I'll be told it's wrong again: The H Persuasion, p. xvii, paragraph 6: "Since 1965 there has been a more or less continuous effort to have some coverage of the documented changes from homosexuality through the study of Aesthetic Realism." Sorry if you don't like the quotation, Aperey, but it's an accurate quotation. - Outerlimits 03:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the exact quote. And whatever you can teach me about putting opposites together better than I do, I am glad to learn. -- I am not here to quarrel with you. If we share the desire for the truth to be known, all of it, then we have an objective in common and I am for you.

If. - Outerlimits 00:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally misrepresent your opinions.

Yet you did misrepresent them...more as a gratuitous insult than as a serious attempt at argumentation. - Outerlimits 00:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

True, I can be impulsive; but read again what you wrote. (You did write Tom Shields, and I did not find the quote in Shields' writing.)

You did not write that you found the quotation lacking in Tom Shields' ouvre, you wrote that there was "hardly any concern about homosexuality around Aesthetic Realism before 1971", which you know not to be true. - Outerlimits 00:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Aesthetic Realism did begin--in terms of concept if not in name--in the 1920s. And its central interest has always been in poetry, art, ethics, the self, and the accurate description of reality. So by 1965 the philosophy was already 40 years old. If you are correct, and I think you are, then the continuous effort of the two men who changed from homosexuality (then three men) and wives and friends too, I am sure, to get the press to listen to them took 6 years from its beginning in 1965 to succeed. Then it was 1971 and national coverage was provided by the David Susskind Show. A friend of theirs has spoken to David Susskind, who was interested.

And this strawman you've set up - that I said homosexuality was central to AR - is a position that I have never taken. Your point? - Outerlimits 00:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am for your using exact quotes--the more exact the better. What I object to is the desire to portray what happened in some sinister light which just isn't true.

And I've said that AR is sinister when? I'm all for your using exact quotes--the more exact the better. - Outerlimits 00:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A good thing happened to three men which they believed wasn't in the realm of possibility. They thought other men in their situation would like to know. I am personally thankful to them, because the way I saw women didn't make me happy--which is true of most men in the world (I've studied this history). And what I was encouraged by them to learn--including study of what a woman's inner life really is like, and not the "inner life" I made up for them, as a male chauvinist--has given me a happy marriage since 1977. I was 36 when I married Barbara Allen, a flutist and teacher of Aesthetic Realism.

This really has nothing to do with a Wikipedia article, does it? - Outerlimits 00:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So when you want to quote various sources, please do so, and do it in a way that makes you proud. I think it will be of use to you to think about the fact that you are writing about real people who have real lives, and who would like to be represented faithfully. Many are people who love Aesthetic Realism because of its accuracy in the most difficult fields of thought.

I think it will be of use to you to think about the fact that you are insulting me when you say that I don't conceptualize people I am writing about as people. I think it will be of use to you to think about the fact that you consistently speak down to those who disagree with you. I think it will be of use to you to think about the fact that you have great difficulty conceiving of a well-intentioned person who has no interest in adopting AR as a philosophy. - Outerlimits 00:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where individuals are angry at this study, including those who have malignantly misrepresented it, I have to see as, first, the result of just not knowing what Aesthetic Realism is. They heard bad things about it from questionable sources. And second, when a person does know more about Aesthetic Realism but not enough to see it in its fullness, there can be an embarrassment--why didn't I know about this before? How can it be as good as some people say it is and still be unknown? And third, when a person has begun to realize that this philosophy says new and true things of a very comprehensive kind about art, self, history, literature, there can be a discomfort with finding there's something to respect that's bigger than they're used to. Any one of these causes can make for an unjust anger.

Those are certainly some possibilities. They are certainly not an exhaustive list. The assumption that someone who insists that AR not lie about itself is somehow angry at AR is - at best - unproven, and certainly irrelevant to the writing of a Wikipedia article. - Outerlimits 00:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But if a person wants to think more deeply than let's say the usual academic course work requires, or reading a newspaper requires, and also think self-critically, and be steady about it, there will be an increasing love for this study and the anger will lose. I hope you do not regard these points as an excuse on my part but as the findings of a person who's met many people and has thought about this issue for quite some time. --Aperey 21:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I think about these points: true, they are a tad patronizing, but they have nothing to do with the writing of this article. - Outerlimits 00:41, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to the point

While this back and forth between Aperey and Outerlimits is interesting, it really has very little to do with the subject at hand.

Yes, I've pointed that out, but now you've chosen to re-personalize the dispute. - Outerlimits 30 June 2005 22:10 (UTC)

When was it ever not personalized? I haven't "re-started" anything.

After I suggested personalities be left out of it, you put them in. Conceptualize that as a continuation rather than a re-start if you wish. As to who started the personal comments: not me, and I've suggested they end as a form of argumentation. - Outerlimits 1 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

Let's get to an HONEST article about Aesthetic Realism, gentlemen!

In what way do you find the current article dishonest? - 30 June 2005 22:10 (UTC)

See entire discussion above. I think we are moving toward something far more honest now. {TS 1 July 2005]

I don't see an answer to my question above. - Outerlimits 1 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

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.

It is nonetheless the thing that brought the most public attention to AR. I know you're uncomfortable with that, but organizations don't get to "pick" what they are known for, and they don't get to rewrite history for their own comfort. As for self-interest, I rather think those who are dedicated to AR have a great deal of it, and are writing from that perspective. Look to the beam in your eye before you look to the mote of my myopia. - Outerlimits 30 June 2005 22:10 (UTC)

Well, we simply disagree about who is rewriting history--and it is history I lived. And as to being "dedicated" to Aesthetic Realism and my "self-interest", I haven't studied Aesthetic Realism in quite awhile. [TS 1 July 2005]

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.

Your opinion might seem more reasonable if you did not express such contempt for the opinions of people who disagree with you. - Outerlimits 30 June 2005 22:10 (UTC)

Yes, I admit it. When people like Bluejay tell lies (and whoppers to boot) I do have contempt for that. {TS 1 July 2005]

You seem to feel Bluejay has done more than merely disagree. I am not sure your response addresses my concern: mere disagreement with you is enough to earn your contempt. - Outerlimits 1 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

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.

Yes, I'm sure that's why you showed up at Wikipedia. - Outerlimits 30 June 2005 22:10 (UTC)

Ouch! I'm sure you've devised a number of reasons why you think I "showed up" here. But sometimes a person can be taken at his word and this is one of them.

Sometimes they can. - Outerlimits 1 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

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:

Writing in the Library Journal, Gerald D. McDonald said of Hot Afternoons, "It is one of our literature's great poems...It has wit, profundities, and 'the everlastingness of possibility.'"

And writing in Poetry magazine, Robert Beum said: "It is difficult to praise Hot Afternoons and not become extravagant...Without any taint of chauvinism or regionalism, it is the (italicized) poem of the American west."

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]

What a ridiculous statement that is. Eli Siegel is not a major poet; he's essentially irrelevant to the study of poetry. If you can't come to terms with that particular reality, it casts doubt on the rationality of your other opinions. If you think that it would be appropriate to write "Eli Siegel is one of America's great poets" as a fact in this or any other article in Wikipedia, you're simply wrong. - Outerlimits 30 June 2005 22:10 (UTC)

Well, as they say, I've had my intelligence insulted in better places than this! But for the record, I stand by what I said--and it is totally rational. I am hardly alone in my opinion of Eli Siegel's greatness (see quotes above by Robert Beum and Gerald D. McDonald to which could be added an impressive list of other such statements). As Sekdeb Rodman said in the Saturday Review after Eli Siegel's second volume of poetry "Hail, American Development" was published: "It is about time that Eli Siegel was moved up into the ranks of our greatest living artists." That was his estimate of Eli Siegel's place in American poetry and I agree with it. I also agree with August Derleth, who wrote in the Capital Times "Eli Siegel was well in advance of poetic directions in America." I also agree with Kenneth Roxroth (New York Times), John Henry Faulk (CBS), Vincent Starrett (Chicago Tribune) and Leon Pearson (NBC). You, of course, are entitled to your POV. It's a free country. But "ridiculous" to consider Eli Siegel a truly great poet?

I didn't write that, as I suspect you realize. I wrote that it is ridiculous for you to say that a person who said that Eli Siegel was not one of America's great poets was ignorant of the history of American poetry. Eli Siegel is not an important figure in the history of American poetry; knowledge of that history would confirm that he has had no important impact on literature - you seem not to be distinguishing between your evaluation of his work and his historical importance. - Outerlimits 1 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

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]

Once again: a selected list of good reviews doesn't make Siegel a major poet. And your opinion that he was great is no guarantee that the world will ever consider him a major poet. But it is a simple fact that he is not now, nor has he ever been, considered a major poet. His legacy is AR: he has left no lasting impact on literature. I do think that restricting your comments to the article will be a postive step forward. - Outerlimits 1 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

And so, quite obviously, we disagree. I'll resist the temptation to respond and move on. [TS 1 July 2005]

The difference between an editor and a "vandal"

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)

Of course, you have your opinion. But your definition of the word "vandalize" falls far outside of its use on Wikipedia. I've done nothing to vandalize, and your innate propensity to fall into ad hominem attacks is considered an abuse of logic everywhere, and an inappropriate form of argumentation on Wikipedia. As are personal attacks such as calling someone stupid and ill-willed. I have nothing to fear from administrators here: I'm not trying to suppress anyone's point of view...they will be able to see clearly who wants that, and it won't be me. Meanwhile, I am content to wait and see if you will keep your latest promise and stop sniping. - Outerlimits 1 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)

I must agree with Aperey on this one and, in fact, was thinking about the very same thing myself just last night. I respectfully request, Outerlimits, that in the future you reply to my postings FOLLOWING my own rather than dismembering mine with asides throughout that serve to give the reader a disjointed sense of what I am saying. I don't think this is a fair-minded thing to do and I haven't done that to you--not once. As to whether or not your insertions into my statements constitute "sniping" and "vandalizing" as Dr. Perey suggests, or whether calling somebody "ridiculous" is a "personal attack," or whether breaking up the train of another's argument with strategically placed comments of distain that damage its coherence, is an attempt to dilute and "suppress" that person's point of view, I will leave for the independent-minded readers here to judge for themselves. My wife has her own take on this. She said "You should see this as a backhanded compliment. He has to hack up the progressive logic of what you are saying because it makes far too much sense taken as a whole." Perhaps, but as the one being "hacked up" I would be grateful if this particular practice stopped. Can't we at least follow some very basic ethical ground rules as we clearly hold differing points of view? [TS 2 July 2005]

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)

New additions to the Time Line

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)

A note on fame: In 1925 Eli Siegel was one of the two most famous literary figures in America. The other was H.L. Mencken. It was Siegel's poem "Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana" that made for that fame--and the Aesthetic Realism way of seeing the world and people which was in that poem. The rididulous misrepresentation that is STILL in the first paragraph is STILL as fake as it was weeks ago when the article was frozen in its present form. Why prevent changing it when it needs changing? --Aperey 17:41, 11 July 2005 (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]

One thing that'd really help is if every active participant registered a username (hint, hint). It's much harder to communicate with unregistered users. Registering also allows for greater anonymity. -Willmcw 21:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Aperey's comment: what proof do we have of anyone's fame 80 years ago? -Willmcw 21:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "moving forward". I'd hoped that the other active editor, user:michaelbluejay, would return to participate. Since that hasn't happened the next best thing will be to try to integrate relevant material from his draft at Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Version from michaelbluejay. I think that the main thing that is keeping us from moving forward is a commitment to work together from all of the editors involved, regardless of point of view. Personal attacks on other editors are not indicative of a collaborative spirit. Can we all agree to respect each other and each other's contributions? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:16, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

As to Will's question about Eli Siegel's fame in 1925: Documents still exist from the 1920s, including newspapers and magazines, showing this fame. And some people remember hearing of it. Oral history projects rely on memories and cross-checking them. There should be no trouble here as long as there is some real trust, which I hope has been earned.

As to Will's comment on personal attacks. I think I've been the recipient of as many bitter comments, as many unpleasant gibes as anyone in the fray. Even my attempts at reconciliation were repulsed lately. Not too promising, I agree. But I'm willing to put that aside and start from a beginning point in which I will assume that all the editors have good will unless they show otherwise. Hopefully, --Aperey 20:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

For an assertion like "most famous" we need sources. Doing a private survey of newspapers and magazines of 1925 would count as original research. What we need is someone, who is or was in position to know, who has written about Siegel's popularity. If you can find a verifiable source for it then it'd be a great addition to the Siegel article, and possibly this one too. Regarding personal attacks it doesn't matter what other people do, let's each be responsible for our own behavior. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:27, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

unprotecting

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)

Thanks for your help. -Willmcw 20:19, July 12, 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)

Thank you

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 idea of "changing" homosexuality went against a growing trend to consider homosexuality neither pathological, nor amenable to change.

The essence of what he wrote would be, instead, something like this:

The idea of changing homosexuality as a philosophic issue went against two growing trends: (1) The conservative trend to consider homosexuality pathological or a sickness (which Aesthetic Realism did not) and (2) the liberal trend to consider homosexuality biological and not amenable to change (which Aesthetic Realism also disagreed with).

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?

Thanks for asking.

1, 2, 3 - no problem. The "AR" is shorthand during writing.

4 - I am concerned that this explanation heads towards the POV that AR was just a victim of changing times or that it was a participant without responsibility for any repercussions. The publicity about change obviously had an effect on the cultural debate over homosexuality, particularly in the 1970s. I think we need to go in the opposite direction and better indicate how AR's actions altered the debate. For the time being, maybe we can just leave it as is.

5 AR is obviously more than a philosophy. The Terrain Gallery, the ARF, the publishing office, the classes, the certified consultants - that's a lot more than Sartre or Plato had. AR is an institution as well as a philosophy. No single term summarizes the nature of the institution. Regarding the word "claim" I agree that it seems to pre-judge the matter. I think we can swap in "describe" and be more NPOV without needing to change the other text. If there are specific reasons to doubt the descriptions then those issues can be raised in the "Change" section. I hate to say this but the phrase "widely known not only for its explanation of art, poetry, and education" appears to be wishful thinking. Outside of New York City, AR doesn't seem to have been widely known for anything between 1925 and 1975. Siegel may have been the second most famous poet in America at one time, but fifty years later AR made itself known for its offer of change, not for its aesthetic criticism. If there are examples of AR students going on national TV to talk about art and poetry then I would be convinced otherwise.

6. Other parts of the article that still need work: The Change issue seems mature and fairly settled. We still need to work on the description of the philosophy. Let's try to keep it short. There is a lot of material on the alleged cult behavior in Michaelbluejay's draft that I haven't had a chance to review. Reasonably sourced items there should be folded into this article. The timeline needs some work too, wikilinking entries, etc. Some of the items seem to be a bit tangential. (i.e. dissertations of consultants).

Cheers, -Willmcw 21:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[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:

I added “Eli Siegel’s 1924 poem” just before the quote in “Aesthetic Realism and Poetry” because, as it previously existed, the poem “Hot Afternoons” came out of nowhere and the reader had no idea why it was there or who wrote it (even though this is explained in the next section).

In the paragraph beginning “From 1971-1990” I changed the word “the earlier” before the Jonathan Black interview to “an earlier” since this is the first time we are hearing about it.

I added “a critic of Aesthetic Realism” before the name of Michael Bluejay in the second paragraph of the Victim of the Press section, since, again, his name comes in abruptly and we have no idea who this is even though he is identified later. I have a further suggestion about this section and the next which I will mention below.

I removed the word “the” in the sentence reading in part: “contend that the Aesthetic Realism’s claim of a press boycott” so that it properly reads “contend that Aesthetic Realism’s claim of a press boycott.”

I made a small addition in the paragraph beginning “A faculty of 46 approved consultants,” adding the words: for those who wish to study how Aesthetic Realism principles relate to their own individual lives.” The purpose here is to make clear that not everybody who studies Aesthetic Realism does so by having consultations and nor is this required. As the sentence read previously that was not clear.

These are the only changes I made. However, I do have comments and suggestions.

First, I think that after the sentence reading: “At this time there were twelve teachers of Aesthetic Realism; three of them were concerned full-time with homosexuality.” There should be this additional sentence: “By 1973 the number of persons teaching Aesthetic Realism had expanded to 36, of which six taught on the subject of homosexuality.” My reasoning is that it needs to be made clear in this article that Aesthetic Realism is a wide study and is not now, nor was it ever, primarily concerned with the matter of homosexuality which, as the Foundation so correctly states, “is not central to the study of Aesthetic Realism.” The number of teaching trios (consultants teach in trios of three) and the range of their subjects make this very clear.

The four men who appeared on the 1971 David Susskind Show were Sheldon Kranz, Ted Van Griethuysen, Tom Shields and Roy Harris. I see nothing wrong with inserting their names, though I’m not sure they are really needed.

The sentence in the change from homosexuality section: “The Aesthetic Realism Foundation claimed that the press ‘were trying to make more of themselves by making less of Aesthetic Realism’” is just plain wrong and needs to be omitted. The Aesthetic Realism Foundation spoke about the press having an attitude of superiority and contempt (which is a making less of the outside world) as its general approach to news gathering. The way this sentence is put makes the Aesthetic Realism Foundation seem paranoid and crazy—which it definitely is not. Today you would find wide acceptance of the proposition that the press is superior and contemptuous. If this sentence stays, please quote the source. You will never find one to back this sentence up!

About the hidden section on structuralism. I find it rather informative in placing Aesthetic Realism philosophically although a bit too intricate. I suggest including this section with only the first two paragraphs and the last paragraph. That omits a lot of the overly technical stuff and gets in the basic ideas.

Here is my suggestion about the Bluejay material in the Victim of the Press section and the section titled “allegations of cult behavior.”

I find having a completely separate section marked “allegations of cult behavior” gives far too much weight and influence to a few individuals with an axe to grind against Aesthetic Realism—and most especially to Michael Bluejay. It gives them and their sour apples charges a prominence that doesn’t exist in real life. I suggest taking the existing paragraph under “allegations of cult behavior” and moving it to the beginning of the previous paragraph under “victim of the press,” so that the new paragraph would read as follows:

“One of the more persistent critics of Aesthetic Realism is Michael Bluejay of Austin, Texas, whose connection with Aesthetic Realism is that his mother once studied Aesthetic Realism when he was an infant. He has devised his own web site stating that his purpose is to show that Aesthetic Realism is really a cult. He lists as one factor for his objection to it that its proponents consider it the most important teaching, ever…” and then have the paragraph continue from there as it now exists. This would incorporate the information and enable the section heading “allegations of cult behavior” to be dropped.

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:

“Aesthetic Realism treats homosexuality as a philosophic issue. It does not view homosexuality as a “sin” or as a “disease” to be cured. Rather, it sees homosexuality as arising from a way of seeing the world itself and, particularly, from a largely unconscious way of seeing sameness and difference come to very early by a person. Eli Siegel stated that the only reason a man should change from homosexuality was because he himself wanted to change and saw such a change as being better for his own life. While believing that homosexuality can be criticized on a philosophic and aesthetic basis, Aesthetic Realism has always been against all forms of discrimination against gays. It supports full civil rights for homosexual persons. Eli Siegel himself stated that if a person is happy being homosexual “the matter has come to a just conclusion.”

However, in the gay rights movement that began to blossom in the 1980’s and gained increasing strength in the decades that followed, the position taken by Aesthetic Realism concerning homosexuality generated intense opposition from gay rights advocates (for its position that homosexuality was not biological and could, in fact, change) while also being appropriated by far right religious movements in opposition to gay rights (who used it to support their desire to discriminate against homosexual persons because they could be different if they wanted to be). In neither instance was there a desire for a calm and reasoned philosophic discussion on the Aesthetic Realism approach to the subject. Not wishing to have its way of seeing homosexuality distorted by either the Left or the Right for their own purposes and political objectives, the Aesthetic Realism Foundation responded in 1990 by discontinuing its teaching about the subject which, it said, “was not central to the study of Aesthetic Realism itself.” 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 reiterated its position that it is for full civil rights for everybody, including homosexual persons.

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]

A) It'd really help if you'd register a regular name so that you have a user page that we can leave messages on and so that your edits will be listed under your username.

B) I responded to APerey above.

C) I left a 6th point, explaining what we need to do further on this article.

D) MichaelBlueJay's POV is one of the POVs that we have to include in this article. Within limits, it is also appropriate to "characterize the critic", but we should focus on his criticism, not on him.

E) Right now the "cult" allegations are nonexistent in the article. Using the material from his draft we should improve the section to include all of the notable allegations of cultic behavior. So far as I know those are Bluejay and Hassan.

F) The article now focuses on the history of AR's change efforts. The proposed text is part way expands on the background philosophy. However even it still isn't clear on how AR views on the cause of homosexuality (contempt for the opposite sex, etc.) and the method it uses to effect change (study of Siegel's writing, reflection on the AR philosophy, and talk therapy with consultants, etc.). Whatever, we should make sure that we've covered those two basic issues. What are the specific sources that we can use for this material? There is obviously room for improvement but this section seems to be pretty good overall.

G) The new teaching on Racism needs a mention.

Cheers, -Willmcw 23:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on TS's suggestions

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)

Stop these dirty tricks right now

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:

One of the more persistent critics, Michael Bluejay of Austin, Texas, whose connection with Aesthetic Realism is that his mother, [name], once studied Aesthetic Realism when he was an infant, has devised his own web site stating that his purpose is to show that Aesthetic Realism is really a cult.

*[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)

Our prime obligation is service to the reader. For that reason, we couldn't honor a request from, say, Karl Rove that he not be mentioned in articles about the criminal exposure of Valerie Plame's identity. In this instance, however, I don't see that the name of Michael Bluejay's mother adds anything to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article, so there's no reason to include it. JamesMLane 17:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Response from Arnold Perey to Michael Bluejay's endowing him with "crimes"

"One does have the right to self-defense."

---14th Century Polynesian Chief

Michael Bluejay writes this about me:

"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:

'One of the more persistent critics, Michael Bluejay of Austin, Texas, whose connection with Aesthetic Realism is that his mother, [name], once studied Aesthetic Realism when he was an infant, has devised his own web site stating that his purpose is to show that Aesthetic Realism is really a cult.'"

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.

And Michael Bluejay writes, in part:

"(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... etc."

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.)

And Michael Bluejay writes:

"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)."

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.

And Mr. Bluejay continues:

"(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....and I regularly attended the AR study group my mother started in Texas...etc."

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)

• Further, in response to Mr. James M. Lane's definitive statement that it's unnecessary to have Mr. Bluejay's mother's name in the article (that's OK with me), I will add that there is quite a bit more in this article, written by "Outerlimits," that is unncessary and adds nothing to the reader's perception.

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)

I assume that Aperey's question to me about "crimes" is rhetorical. The Disclaimers link at the top of the page leads the reader to the information that Wikipedia is not a source of professional advice. If you just want to improve your understanding of the law of defamation, my answer is that use of the word "crimes" to allege a violation of a criminal statute would be actionable, but that use of the word "crimes" in a broader sense to express an opinion of disapproval would be constitutionally protected. Now, returning from that interesting excursion, I agree with Willmcw's comment below that we should focus on the writing of the article. JamesMLane 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

TS, the author of the innocent enough line, takes full responsibility and comments on Bluejay's displeasure

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]

Apology about getting the author wrong

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)

This is all very interesting, but can we please get back to writing our encyclopedia? In Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Version from michaelbluejay a fuller version of the cultic allegations was included. The sourced material from there would be suitable for addition to the current version. Can we get a couple of solid paragraphs, plus rebuttal? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Since the current version has a short listing of the allegations from the Michael Bluejay site, I added an equally short paragraph summarizing the rebuttal on the Countering the Lies site. Of course, if a more substantial segment of the Bluejay charges is included in the article, it would only be right to include a larger section with rebuttal as well. I am also glad to say that I respect Mr. Bluejay for his public apology to Aperey and for not keeping a back and forth of mean-spirited charges going--a desire I share. 15:45 [TS 15 July 2005]

It would be unwise to delete the references to me by Mr. Bluejay. I just learned that he quotes that inaccurate sentence which begins "one of the more persistent critics..." in his home web pages and has the reader believe it's in a Wikipedia article, which it isn't. (It's on the talk page as a suggestion.) He uses this sentence as evidence that "AR supporters" are "taking it to a whole new level" and "adding things that are outright untrue." So it is good to have a record that the inaccuracy of this sentence was, in fact, caught by an "AR supporter" and is not in the Wikipedia article at all. I do wish the lying would stop, but do not at this time expect it to. -- --Aperey 17:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism on the subject of racism

I wanted to comment on Wilmcw's earlier statement that we should have something in the article about Aesthetic Realism's "current emphasis" on racism. I couldn't figure out where he got the idea that Aesthteic Realism has only recently been talking about racism--as if, because homosexuality didn't pan out another topic was picked out of thin air--until I read the Michael Bluejay version of Aesthetic Realism on his talk page and behold--there it was! Just to set the record straight, racial prejudice has been a recurring concern of Aesthetic Realism from its very beginning. One of Eli Siegel's earliest works, "The Equality of Man," written 1922-1923 when he was only 20, concerned itself with this subject. In that work, he wrote:

"I say it is wrong to say that anyone's mind is inferior, until it has been completely seen that it has been given all the nourishment, care and training that it needs or could get. And we cannot say that one mind is, in the full sense of the word, better than another until both have been given conditions equally fitting to bring out their powers. Now this is a plain fact: Whatever the reason, no attempt has been made to bring out all the powers of mind that are in each man at birth, by giving it conditions that would fit it best. Worded differently, men have not had an equal chance to be as actively powerful as they might be. And if they had been given an equal chance to use all the powers they had at birth, they would be equal." ("The Equality of Man" reprinted in "The Modern Quarterly Beginnings of Aesthetic Realism" published by Definition Press, New York, 1997)

Therefore, by all means we should discuss in this article how Aesthetic Realism sees racism. But this is hardly the latest fad it is pushing at the moment. Racism has been a decades long study by students of Aesthetic Realism and throughout the years the subject has continually been discussed in weekly issues of "The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known." [TS 16 July 2005]

All the more reason to include it. I haven't seen any mention of it, except for the book. That would be a suitable addition to the section on the philosophy. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:16, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Talk page ettiquette

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)

Also see, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - Willmcw 21:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to the writing of the article

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 believe all of these topics are valid for sections of the article. I have been working on a brief paragraph about racism which I will soon post here on the talk page for everyone's review and further suggestions. Perhaps those making the suggestions above can do the same for poetry, the social sciences and art. I think we can get to very brief two or three sentence summaries on each that would strengthen the article considerably. Certainly, if we are writing a current article on Aesthetic Realism these sections should have even greater prominence than the one on homosexuality, which has not been part of the Aesthetic Realism curriculum for over 15 years now and belongs to the history of Aesthetic Realism rather than its present.

I also moved all the material about The H Persuasion together in the article instead of repeating the same information twice, made one sentence about the press and Aesthetic Realism a little clearer and put one short summary paragraph in the hidden section on structuralism at the beginning of the section on Aesthetic Realism Scholarship. Along the way I fixed three or four typos. I hope these small edits are acceptable to everyone. I think they add to the clarity. [TS 20 July 2005]

Why are we starting out with a new set of bullet points? Are we finished with the previous ones? Also, last time I checked, there is a section about AR and poetry. I would suggest that we need a short section on the philosophy of AR, not several sections about its views on all the social sciences. Finally, thanks to TS (how come you haven't registered yet?) for cleaning up the "change" section. I removed the third link to "Countrering the Lies," we usually just link once to each extrenal domain. -Willmcw 15:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism and Poetry

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,

Quiet and green was the grass of the field,

The sky was whole in brightness,

And O, a bird was flying, high, there in the sky,

So gently, so carelessly and fairly…

And from that bird on that hot afternoon we go everywhere: Aristotle in ancient Greece; medieval Europe; Native America....

Afternoons have to do with the whole world;

And the beauty of mind, feeling knowingly the world!

The world of girls’ beautiful faces, bodies and clothes, quiet afternoons,

graceful birds, great words, tearful music....

--Aperey 20:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

We already have an article on the poem, so there is no need to have an extensive quote in this article. Siegel's explanation seems more than adequate. -Willmcw 22:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to--??? --Aperey 22:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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. That seems to cover it pretty well. -Willmcw 22:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I see. Still the lines of the poem without comment seem to stop short of that relation Siegel writes of and which the poem is about. So I added a short sentence to clarify.

As per Willmcw's thought--A short section on the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism

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 a bit long, but if that's the whole thing then that's ok. -Willmcw 22:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK I inserted it into the article after the short section on poetry. --Aperey 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)