Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between November 26 and December 7 2005

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

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (through May 11, 2005)
• Archive 2 (through June 10, 2005)
• Archive 3 (through July 21, 2005)
• Archive 4 (through August 21, 2005)
• Archive 5 (through September 17, 2005)
• Archive 6 (through October 22, 2005)
• Archive 7 (through November 24, 2005):

Re: The "overhaul"

Without any discussion, Michael Bluejay completely revised the opening paragraphs. This is not in keeping with any policy that safeguards accuracy in Wikipedia. It was much too fast--not a word of discussion from Michaelbluejay. Is this a contest or an encyclopedia? Should knowledge and accuracy be respected as our goal, or something careless and propagandistic?

If you read the Wikipedia entries on other philosophic approaches, you will see a great deal of respectfully written content. Some of the other editors in this article would call it "cheerleading" or something of the sort--quite wrongly. And I think Aesthetic Realism deserves the same carefulness.

Oh yes--who are the noted people in culture who have said Aesthetic Realism stimulated their creativity and originality? I point to Chaim Koppelman, and the many prizes he won as an artist because of his study of Aesthetic Realism. He is a nationally-known figure with works in many noted museum collections. Dorothy Koppelman, likewise. William Carlos Williams too, in the lecture he attended with Eli Siegel, was encouraged by Mr. Siegel to value an early work of his that was authentic poetry, Kora in Hell,--a work he had put aside--and Williams had it published afterward. As to people in the Timeline, or in the References, you could read the paper by the accomplished computer scientist, Mary Nishikawa, in which she describes how learning from Aesthetic Realism about the opposites in aesthetics enhanced her scientific inventiveness. There is also Nat Herz, a noted photographer and editor. Also consider Huntington Cairns of the National Gallery in Washington, D.C. --samivel 00:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any specific criticisms of the Michaelbluejay edit. What is wrong with it, aside from a lack of recent discussion on this page? -Willmcw 01:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Of those you mention, only William Carlos Williams is actually famous, though the more educated may recognize Huntington Cairns from his publications. Where did Williams state "Aesthetic Realism stimulated my creativity and originality"? Williams' writing career was mostly over before he'd ever heard of Eli Siegel. (I'm assuming his response to Siegel's poetry—the one always quoted in every AR history—occurred before rather than after his stroke in 1951?) It's rather a different claim than "Eli Siegel suggested I finish my poem".

As for Michael Bluejay's recent editorial intervention, it was quite a remarkable improvement in flow and language while preserving all the useful content. What about it prompts you to insult him by calling it "woefully inadequate"? - Outerlimits 01:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Samivel, you make changes without discussing them, then complain (falsely) that others make changes that haven't been discussed. You accuse others of using multiple screen names, then set up multiple screennames for yourself. You complain about being insulted while you call other people liars and things like "the three faces of fraud". And while you're calling people liars you put things in the article which you know are factually untrue (such as that the ACLU says that cult allegations are unscientific and that it opposes the anti-cult movement in general). Geez, have you never heard of the term "projection"?

The intro I reverted to was in the article before and was discussed by the editors at that time, though you didn't participate. You neutered that intro over time but I hadn't added it back before now because I was taking a hands-off approach to the article, and because I was waiting to see if we could make some progress with mediation. But faced with your eagerness to censor anything you don't like, your unwillingness to admit the obvious (e.g., Eli Siegel's suicide), and your repeatedly calling me a liar, I've returned to edit the article again. And given all those things I don't particularly care to explain or defend my edits to you. I know you'd *like* me to document my edits so that you can respond by calling me a liar again, but too bad, it's not going to happen. You've exhausted my tolerance. If you'd been a little more reasonable we all might have worked together, but by acting like an extremist you've completely alienated me and probably some of the other editors. You brought this on yourself, and it's a little late to complain about it. At your age you should know by now that there are consequences to your actions. All your supposed advanced learning with The One True Knowledge of Aesthetic Realism apparently hasn't taught you that simple fact. Michael Bluejay 14:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It is completely disingenuous to mention William Carlos Williams as a supporter of AR without mentioning that he later distanced himself from ES. Talk about "propagandistic"! As for the treatment afforded other philosophies on Wikipedia, I suggest Samivel read the article on Scientology. Marinero 05:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Unless Williams commented on the Aesthetic Realism Foundation I don't see his place in this article, except as a passing reference as a one-time supporter of Siegel's. His comments, good bad or indifferent, seem to have been about Siegel's poetry, not Siegel's philosophy. This article covers the latter. Let's focus on our topic. If you have a source about Williams and Siegel's falling out that should go on the Siegel page. -Willmcw 08:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Prediction: Samivel will claim that Williams' support of Siegel's poetry is tacit support of Aesthetic Realism. Michael Bluejay 13:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I will take up these many assertions point by point

I don't mind taking up these many assertions point by point. There is much that is false and/or distorted in them. Their purpose is to serve an agenda, not truth or factuality.

The introduction written by Mr. Bluejay and discussed by Outerlimits et al without any input from me was inadequate by any strict academic standards. I'll say some of the reasons now and take it up point by point. (Yes, I wasn't here four days during which this intro got through without my looking at it.)

One reason the two paragraphs of introduction by Michael Bluejay are inadequate is because the entire second paragraph, arguably a full half of the intro, presents reasons that mambers of the anti-cult movement want to call Aesthetic Realism a cult. While it gives a few words to their opponents, the number of words Mr. Bluejay gives his own point of view (dodging the opposition) is unfair.

The next reason is because what the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism is, is given short shrift. And, the few words alloted to explaining an important and rather comprehensive philosophy, do not do it justice. In fact, they superficialize it to the point of unrecognizability. Would a reader know much about what Aesthetic Realism is when he or she has read the introduction? The answer is no. It is not Mr. Bluejay's purpose to convey this information and it is his purpose to prevent others from conveying it. That is not fair.

And the third reason is that the Aesthetic Realism findings as to homosexuality, which belong to the social sciences, are presented here in a pejorative light. That is not fair.

The fourth reason is that this introduction, as written by Mr. Bluejay, and applauded by his associates, does not tell what is in the article. Poetry is left out. The scholarship of Aesthetic Realism as to music, the visual arts, anthropology, are left out. All these and more are in the article. In leaving them out of the introduction Mr. Bluejay and his associates mislead the reader. The purpose of an introduction is to inform not mislead.

It would be quite easy to note some of the subjects that study of Aesthetic Realism includes: one can study poetry at the Aesthetic Realism Foundation, anthropology, music, the nature of marriage. However, Mr. Bluejay et al have the agenda to try to convince people that Aesthetic Realism is a cult, and cults do not have intellectual content.

When I received my doctorate at Columbia University for a dissertation based on the Aesthetic Realism method, it was not a cultist who received the approbation of numerous professors. They saw that Aesthetic Realism is scientific method, based on fundamental philosophic principles. This is what Michaelbluejay's introduction seeks to obscure. And certainly not only with regard to me--it tries to obscure the intellectual work of many others. And the first person it tries to obscure the cultural importance of is Eli Siegel. Cults don't have intellectual content that is scientifically and logically based.

I see the attempt to tar Aesthetic Realism with the label of "cult" as terrifically laughable. Meanwhile it is also vandalism at its grossest.

It is clear from the way Mr. Bluejay et al write that there is much anger at how Aesthetic Realism came to explain homosexuality, and anger at the men and women who changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality through their study of this explanation. This anger has caused many ugly and untrue assertions on the parts of Mr. Outerlimits, Mr. Marinero, and Mr. Bluejay, including this "cult accusation" (which is baseless). Naturally I cannot help thinking that the continual pressure on Wikipedia to present Aesthetic Realism as a cult (which it isn't) and the continual pressure to "discredit" the change from homosexuality (which can't be descredited because it's true) are connected.

One of these days I should like to see in Wikipedia a discussion of Eli Siegel's relation to Aristotle. How they both saw ontology and art--what Eli Siegel added to the perception of these major branches of philosophy. These are of interest in a large and rather beautiful way.

This is all I have to say at the moment. I have given, in general terms, my objections to the Bluejay introduction--which is quite bad. Next I will take up every sentence in it point by point for your refutation if you like.

Meanwhile I see it as necessary to revert to an earlier and fairer intro.--[User:Samivel|samivel]] 22:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

At great personal risk [ ;-) ] I attempted a compromise introduction which may satisfy both parties--that is, some of it will be equally repugnant to both; some will be equally acceptable to both. It is online right now. (Of course it can be reverted very easily.) Meanwhile, here is the text:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. It teaches that everyone’s “greatest, deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.” It also teaches that contempt—“the addition to self through the lessening of something else”—is the cause of a person’s being unjust and consequently disliking oneself. Such subjects as poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage are taught by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation faculty in New York City. People who have studied Aesthetic Realism, including artists, scientists, and teachers, say it encourages exactness, kindness, and creativity.

One aspect of Aesthetic Realism was, in the past, study "to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality." Critics claim that while many of Siegel's ideas have merit, the group of Aesthetic Realism students is a cult, having common cult characteristics such as fanatical devotion to the founder/leader, belief that they have the one true answer to universal happiness if only people would listen, paranoid feeling of persecution, and extreme intolerance of criticism. [1] Aesthetic Realism students and others counter that “there is a great deal of lying in the world at the present time; yet these are as deep-dyed falsehoods as we have seen anywhere.” [2]--samivel 23:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Samivel, put up or shut up. I defy you to name just ONE "lie" that I have told. It is obvious that you are merely repeating the AR party line on its critics and I know you will continue to do so, no matter how many times we protest that we are not lying when we express an opinion that we honestly hold. This is a concept that any ten year-old can understand, but apparently completely eludes you. Why? Because you have been told what to think by Ellen Reiss and you always do and think as you're told. And that's precisely the kind of thing that sets AR apart from philosophies such as Existentialism and places it more with groups like Scientology. You don't see students of Sartre or Kant attacking the personal integrity of those who disagree with them; you DO see Scientologists and Moonies engaging in that behavior. The truly funny thing is, you really don't realize how much ammunition you give our side just by your behavior in this discussion. Marinero 19:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"Put up or shut up?" What are you talking about? As to attacking anyone's personal integrity, I am merely doing my best to stick to the facts. According to the English dictionary, a person who tells lies is a liar. Any Existentialist would agree with that. I imagine that since some Existentialists were socialists they were attacked just as viciously as you and your "friends" are attacking Aesthetic Realism. And I reckon they defended themselves in just as spirited a manner. (The facts on that can be checked if you are interested). Kant, on the other hand, was more pastoral and there likely were no such attacks, and no such defense. So when you make your comparisions so confidently try to stick to the facts. So, in response to your request for "ONE" lie I will quote from the lie you just posted above: "You have been told what to think by Ellen Reiss and you always do and think as you're told." Really? And when did this begin? So here is one lie you have told and it's very fresh. In the Grimm's tales, there are ill motivated people who make a wish and it is granted to their chagrin, just as yours just was. --samivel 22:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I should point out to Marinero that in Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies at least a dozen lies are documented and refuted. These are lies told by Adam Mali, Michael Bluejay, and some anonymous individuals on Bluejay's web pages. Some repeated in various forms again and again in what is called circular sourcing. If you are one (or more) of the anonymous writers in Michael Bluejay's web pages, then these are your lies too. And you are a liar. Proving that a person has produced damaging lies about you is not an attack on his or her personal integrity--it is legitimate self defense.

But let us be clear: One of the greatest tricks of the Bluejay associates (or the "Terrible Four") is to, essentially, throw a stone at a person and then cry because that person has hit him back. "I've been attacked," they weep, "and so I have a right to throw more and more stones at the person that hurt me." This is what is going on now in Wikipedia. Let us be clear about who has been hurt and who has done the injury. --samivel 22:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

New comments

The previous Talk page was 79 kilobytes long and was archived, as per Wikipedia policy. Suggest we begin with the following revision of the introduction, which meets some of the objections I raised as to improper proportions and some too-sketchy descriptions in the earlier one:

Aesthetic Realism is the philosophy founded by the American poet and critic Eli Siegel in 1941. It teaches that everyone’s “greatest, deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.” It also teaches that contempt—“the addition to self through the lessening of something else”—is the cause of a person’s being unjust and consequently disliking oneself. Such subjects as poetry, anthropology, art, music, and marriage are taught by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation faculty in New York City. People who have studied Aesthetic Realism, including artists, scientists, and teachers, say it encourages exactness, kindness, and creativity.

One aspect of Aesthetic Realism was, in the past, study "to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality." Critics claim that while many of Siegel's ideas have merit, the group of Aesthetic Realism students is a cult, having common cult characteristics such as fanatical devotion to the founder/leader, belief that they have the one true answer to universal happiness if only people would listen, paranoid feeling of persecution, and extreme intolerance of criticism. [1] Aesthetic Realism students and others counter that “there is a great deal of lying in the world at the present time; yet these are as deep-dyed falsehoods as we have seen anywhere.” [2]--samivel 23:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

As I keep saying, don't expect me (or anyone) to engage when you keep calling me a liar. ("I should point out to Marinero that in Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies at least a dozen lies are documented and refuted. These are lies told by Adam Mali, Michael Bluejay, and some anonymous individuals on Bluejay's web pages. Some repeated in various forms again and again in what is called circular sourcing. If you are one (or more) of the anonymous writers in Michael Bluejay's web pages, then these are your lies too. And you are a liar.") Your "Liar, liar!" defense was already tiresome a long time ago. I also have no idea whom you think is buying it. Michael Bluejay 23:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Samivel, just get this straight: as long as I'm around, you are NOT going to get your way with this article. You might as well get used to it, because that's how it's going to be. And the more you call me a liar, the more determined I am to make sure that WHAT I SEE AS THE TRUTH about your pathetic little CULT is known. I'm not even going to try to understand your diatribe about Sartre and Kant. The point I was making has absolutely nothing to do with the content of either philosophy, merely with the attitude of their adherents toward those who criticize them. The "facts" I was sticking to is that you are not behaving like a "student" of a "philosophy" when you attack me, but like a member of a cult. In fact, you're acting exactly like a Scientologist. As for your "example" of one of my "lies," it's obvious that you will never admit to understanding the difference between an honest opinion and a lie. That is the real lie here. Unfortunately for you, I was in your little cult for a good many years, so I speak from my own personal experience. Take, for instance, this issue of "regret" about how one has "met" AR. You have expressed that "regret" on this forum. Anybody who is not familiar with AR would think that you just woke up one day with that thought in your head. That's because you failed to mention that you were TOLD you felt this regret by whoever taught you AR, possibly Siegel himself. Furthermore, you were told this not once, but THOUSANDS of times, just as I was. You were praised when you expressed this "regret" and you were criticized when you did not. You attend classes, at which this subject is discussed ad infinitum. You have written many papers on the subject as assignments for these classes. The men who were studying to change from homosexuality when AR pulled the rug out from under them were told they could remain students if they wrote a paper stating in convincing terms how they were "unfair to Eli Siegel and AR." Nobody is ever asked IF they feel this "regret"; they (and by "they," I mean everybody who has ever studied AR) are TOLD that they do. So, when you ask "Really? And when did this begin?" in response to my supposed "lie" that you've been told what to think, there's your answer. Marinero 00:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Edited Intro

I removed the following sentences from the intro: "Aesthetic Realism students counter that their detractors are liars who are simply trying to make themselves feel important: “There is a great deal of lying in the world at the present time; yet these are as deep-dyed falsehoods as we have seen anywhere....Why is he doing this? Feeling himself to be a failure in his own life, [he] seeks the triumph of making himself important by looking down upon others.” [1]" There is no reason for this statement; it is merely an attempt by Aperey to "soften" the impact of the preceding lines. Furthermore, it seeks to equate the honestly held opinions of certain persons with "lies." It is therefore incorrect. Finally, it should be obvious that students of AR don't agree with the cult allegations. Let the allegations stand without chains. Marinero 00:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Marinero, I agree that it's kind of ridiculous to have a debate in the intro. Standard practice would be a description of the subject and then identification of criticism -- with the details (criticism & defense) left for later in the article. You see point and counterpoint in articles, but you don't see point, counterpoint, argument with THAT, etc. But I'm still willing to compromise and have the rebuttal to the criticism in the intro, and as worded I don't think it greatly cheapens the article.

Would it change your mind to know that I was the one who inserted that rebuttal, not Arnold Perey? Perey doesn't even like my version. Finally, I'm afraid I have to disagree that it should go because "it's incorrect", in that it equates honestly-held opinions with lies. I mean, I agree emphatically that Perey has demonstrated conclusively that he doesn't understand the difference, but it's a *fact* that _the AR people call their detractors liars_. That's a correct statement, and as such I see it as accurate for inclusion. I'd certainly object to the article *stating* that AR's critics are liars, but it certainly seems fair game to say that AR students *believe* their critics to be liars. Michael Bluejay 01:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I know that's your intro up there now but Aperey used the same sentences in his version, so I thought you had left it in as a compromise. Are you saying you actually think it's good for those lines to be included? If so, why? I would point to the intro to the article on Scientology as a model. In the first paragraph, it says something of what Scientology is, followed by a paragraph on cult allegations. Neither paragraph is watered down with arguments from the other side (although we're really comparing apples to oranges: the philosophy itself vs. cult behavior, as you well know and Aperey pretends not to understand). I see your point about the meaning of the sentences, but I would take it one step further: they SAY they believe their detractors are liars. Marinero 09:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Good points. We should summarize the ARF view without judging it and then summarize the views of others without judging those either. We should make it very clear when we are refering to AR as a philosophy, and when we are referring to Siegel's following/ARF as an organization or study and therapy group. Let's avoid dealing with the nature of Siegel's death here because it has little bearing on this topic. It's important for the biography of course. While the ARF may to call its detractors "liars" and vice versa, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to make negative personal remarks about each other. -Willmcw 11:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's definitely my intro; the only part that was Perey's was the extension of the quote: "There is a great deal of lying in the world at the present time;" (At the present time? Like this is a new development?) I agree it's not very encyclopaedic to have a rebuttal right there in the intro, but it's definitely not the worst thing to have in the article either. I wouldn't object to leaving the rebuttal in as a compromise to Perey, which is why I wrote it (at least my original version) in the first place, a long time ago. Perey originally had some poorly-worded rebuttal, so I had reworded it to try to make it more objective. Of course, the other issue is that an objective description of their rebuttal can't help but demonstrate the very cult-like behavior that I'm alleging. I wonder if Perey realizes this? With that in mind, I'm happy to let Perey make the call as to whether their rebuttal stays in (though I know I can't promise that the other editors will agree). Of course I'm sure he'll prefer a third option -- to have it in but to word it poorly, which I won't support. BTW, I think that "they counter that their detractors are liars" and "they say their dettractors are liars" are the same thing. "Counter" is just another, more specific flavor of "say", I think. Michael Bluejay 12:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

“There is a great deal of lying in the world at the present time; yet these are as deep-dyed falsehoods as we have seen anywhere." Yeah that's classic AR-speak; I bet Ellen Reiss came up with that line and sent her minions forth to spread the gospel. BTW Michael, I was only replying to your statement "AR students *believe* their critics to be liars..." and pointing out that they say they believe, because I don't believe they believe that:) Actually, I believe that many who are lower on the totem pole have been brainwashed to believe that, but those in charge know what's really going on. And I certainly believe that if Aperey was smart enough to get a Ph.D., he's smart enough to understand the difference between a liar and a person who states a sincerely-held opinion. However, were he to admit that, he'd be deviating from the Reiss-mandated party line. Marinero 20:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

At this point I can only add briefly to the above. I do not insist on the quote from "Countering the Lies" in fact. I do think that the quite lame "they say their detractors are liars" -- which is not my writing -- is not adequate to the long list of "cult" characterisics that it follows: ", having common cult characteristics such as fanatical devotion to the founder/leader, belief that they have the one true answer to universal happiness if only people would listen, paranoid feeling of persecution, and extreme intolerance of criticism. [1]" -- AND there is a link to the website of the person who wrote the sentence. That combination is not right.

As to the matter of "a sincerely-held opinion" -- A sincerely held opinion, whether right or wrong, is supported by statements that are at least plausible, statements that one can reasonably think are true. If the statements that supposedly support the opinion are shown to be untrue, or their source is very doubtful, and one says anyway "I believe this, it's my opinion" such an opinion cannot be taken seriously. In "Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies" there are factual refutations of all the relevant statements supporting the "cult" matter. And, as I write elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of scholarly and legal minds today say there are no "cults." Even to say Aesthetic Realism is among them is frivolous--much less to give that "opinion" prominence.

The three point summary by Mr. Bluejay of the basis of Aesthetic Realism is not up to what the philosophy actually says. It is too summary, and even if some other editors say it is smoothly written, it's not accurate. I gather that in the writing of Wikipedia articles, persons who are actually authoritative are listened to. This oughtn't to be an exception. So I am putting the three statements in a more accurate form. --(Samivel)

"And, as I write elsewhere, the overwhelming majority of scholarly and legal minds today say there are no 'cults.'"

Where the hell do you get this B.S.? Show me that the overwhelming majority of scholarly and legal minds *have even weighed in* on cults, much less denied that they exist. This is so ridiculous, whom exactly do you think you're convincing by writing it?

"In 'Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies' there are factual refutations of all the relevant statements supporting the 'cult' matter."

No, there aren't. Saying it's so doesn't make it true. There's the same kind of ridiculously-presented, poorly-supported vague, wishy-washy screeds that you present here, but nothing approaching a "factual refutation". I went to the state finals in debate, I know what a refutation looks like. In fact, your ridiculous attempt to explain how someone can be a liar by saying something they truly believe is a good example of how a "factual refutation" is nothing of the sort. And by the way, I'll point out again that you and the other AR devotees are alone on the planet in saying that I'm a liar.

"I do think that the quite lame "they say their detractors are liars" -- which is not my writing -- is not adequate to the long list of "cult" characterisics that it follows..."

That's why I followed it with a LONG quote from your side, a fact you conveniently ignore. I gave my position five lines and yours nearly seven. Yeah, that's really unfair.

"AND there is a link to the website of the person who wrote the sentence. That combination is not right."

Of course I link to that site, it's the most comprehensive work that supports that position. What on earth would you expect me to link to instead? (Let me guess: You prefer NO link to anything that's critical of AR, right?) How many times have you linked to your own sites, by the way? You also conveniently fail to mention that I also link to your Countering the Lies site. Yeah, that's really unfair, huh?

"I gather that in the writing of Wikipedia articles, persons who are actually authoritative are listened to."

Perey, if you keep repeating that nonsense then I'll start humoring you even less and be even less careful to preserve the meaning of your edits. You keep digging your own hole here, but go ahead, have a ball.

Finally, your rewritten intro is in AR-speak, not normal English. That's why it's insufficient, and that's why I reverted it. Michael Bluejay 22:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell me, samivel, just who gets to decide whether a statement is "plausible"? You? And who are you to decide for everybody that my own life experiences are a "very doubtful" source? I have given you ample opportunity to directly address certain questions, and you have refused to do so each and every time, yet you expect to be taken seriously when you pass judgment on what I have to say? You haven't "shown" anything I've said to be untrue. I have been to your pathetic "Lies" website and I have seen families ruined by AR, but not a shred of proof that what I'm saying is untrue. You may think that acting haughty and holier-than-thou and spouting a bunch of meaningless hot air and shouting "liar, liar, liar!" constitutes proof, but you're only preaching to the converted. As to your ridiculous (and un backed-up, as always) assertion that "the overwhelming majority of scholarly and legal minds today say there are no 'cults'," I can only say that your despair is showing. You know, I used to think that you AR people were at least honest. But now I see that you will stoop as low as you have to, going as far as to pretend that you have such great respect for the prevailing wisdom of the day, when AR literature is rife with condemnation of those very same scholarly minds for their failure to worship at the altar of Eli Siegel. Now there's as deep dyed falsehood as I've seen anywhere. Marinero 22:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This article needs to be edited by an authority.

Ladies and gentlemen, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a platform for cybersmears. It is not a vehicle for revenge. It is a scholarly resource.

The four editors who comprise a group--usernames Michaelbluejay, CDTheime, Outerlimits, and Marinero--lack the knowledge to write a straightforward encyclopedia article about Aesthetic Realism.

They also lack the desire to be fair to the subject. Each has an agenda of his or her own, to attack this philosophy and put aside the facts about it.

Michaelbluejay, for example, has deleted accurate writing (some of it was mine and some was TS's) and produced an inaccurate and highly editorialized "introduction" of his own. If he claims that he has in some way studied Aesthetic Realism, let us be clear--he failed the course. Aesthetic Realism is a philosophy that teaches good will and ethics, neither of which this writing of Michaelbluejay can pretend to have.

Should a scholarly article about secular humanism, for example, be trusted to a conservative churchman who has shown hate of it and little desire to understand its basis? I think not.

Should an article on Judaism be written by a sympathizer of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Again, I think not.

Can an authoritative article on cultural anthropology be written by a person who has not studied it and shown incompetence as to understanding it? Of course not.

Should an article on Aesthetic Realism be written by a person who does not understand its principles and has ill will for it? Again, of course not.

I think my publications on the subject of Aesthetic Realism show that I do write authoritatively and objectively about it and satisfy the scholarly criteria of my peers. And I do care for it.

Therefore I have substituted a serious account of what Aesthetic Realism is, an account worthy of a reference work. The horrendous accusations--and inaccurate descriptions--Michaelbluejay has written have no place in an encyclopedia. --Arnold Perey, PhD --samivel 18:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You are scholar and would like the article to be scholarly. You are also very close to the subject and have a strong point of view, which should be respected, but other points of view from outside the AR community, including critics of AR, should also be respected. Your rewrite removes critical POV from the intro and rather mutes it. A couple of people have reverted your rewrite, and I'm not really surprised they did. Jonathunder 20:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Samivel's behavior here has not been particularly scholarly. The screed above denouncing the knowledge and ethics of editors here is undeserving of that appellation. As to his current introduction, it inappropriately removes any indication of controversy from the introduction. Perhaps he is too close to the subject matter to be objective; in any case, such an introduction is unacceptable. - Outerlimits 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with letting Aperey explain the philosophy of AR, as long as he doesn't get carried away with AR-speak. I have not attempted much in the way of edits concerning the philosophy itself. If Aperey were truly concerned with being fair, he would readily admit this. But ARists are only concerned with being "fair" (read: worship) to ES and AR. However, if someone else disagrees with certain aspects of the philosophy, they certainly have a right to express that in the article. This is, after all, Wikipedia, where such a thing is actually encouraged, much to Samivel's dismay. If Samivel isn't happy with the rules of Wikipedia, let him find another site where he can write his very own article. It is abundantly clear that Samivel/Perey believes that those things he likes are holy and beyond criticism, and that he and likeminded individuals should be the only ones allowed to opine about them. So, should we allow the Scientology article to be written exclusively by Scientologists? How about an article on Nazism? Let's turn it over to the Nazis, shall we? As long as this is a free and democratic site, I'll be damned if I'm going to keep quiet about my experiences with this group. Marinero 03:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that the Wiki article on Liberalism doesn't take seriously that some people have called it a cult:

As an example of an article that in a straightforward and scholarly way gives information and doesn't dally with sleaze, I submit this introduction to the article on Liberalism in Wikipedia:

Liberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This article discusses liberalism as a major political ideology, not the usage of the term in specific countries. For entries about varieties of liberalism and liberal parties around the world, see the entry Liberalism worldwide.

Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize individual liberty through rights under law. Liberalism seeks a society characterized by free action within a defined framework. This framework is generally seen to include a pluralistic liberal democratic system of government, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, and economic competition. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the divine right of kings, hereditary status, and established religion. The fundamental principles of liberalism include human rights, especially the right to life, liberty, and property; equal rights for all citizens under the law; government with the consent of the governed as determined by open and fair elections; and transparency in government.

---

It happens that there are a couple of websites that say Liberalism is a cult. But they aren't taken seriously and shouldn't be. They are entirely secondary to serious information. Here are three:

The Cult of Modern Liberalism

http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=websterb&date=040312

Why Is Liberalism a Cult?

http://www.codewolf.com/story/article_1012825.html

Why Is Liberalism a Cult?

http://www.seekfind.net/Amazing_Facts/Note/New_Age_Liberalism.html

---

samivel 21:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)