Talk:Aesthetic Realism: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:48, 4 May 2005

Latest revision as of 14:24, 15 March 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

1730 MST 13 Apr 2005 - added npov notice

{{controversial}}

---

{{Notice|

This last paragraph seems to be rather...one-sided, to say the least.

'''This article is currently undergoing a major revision. Please help edit the new version on the draft page.'''

*[[Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts]], "Philosophy" and "Poetry" sections

"These have worked to disparage this new education with pejoratives much like those directed against abolitionists by slave-owning Southerners. Their motive, in the 19th century, was to have their egos uninterfered with so they could continue to own other human beings for profit. And those who have attacked Aesthetic Realism bear a resemblance to Cato the Censor (in ancient Rome) who was known for his desire to stifle what is kind, gracious, and pleasing. And the controversy here is like that between Darwin and his detractors--that is, between new knowledge about the nature of the world and man's place in it, and the ego's desire to abolish whatever it cannot be superior to."

*[[Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts2]], "History" section

*[[Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts3]], Rewrite

In essence, this compares all of those who speak against Aesthetic Realism - without distinction as to their stated reasons - to such people as Cato the Censor, slave-owners, and such. Now, I fully admit to knowing nothing about Aesthetic Realism. But this article certainly didn't help, because upon reading the end, I must discount anything said about it - the article is biased.

*[[Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts4]], "Aesthetic Realism and Homosexuality" section

}}

I call on anyone with some knowledge of the field to edit this page to a fairer treatment of the subject.

{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|1=

__NOEDITSECTION__

{{WikiProject Smithsonian Institution|importance=Low|SIART=yes|SIART-importance=}}

==I do have knowledge of this subject and will edit the page==

{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}

{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|aesthetics=yes}}

In 1973 my Columbia University doctoral dissertation for the Department of Anthropology was based on Aesthetic Realism. It was an anyalysis of the structure and culture of a New Guinea community where I conducted field research. Margaret Mead was my thesis advisor. And it was clear then, and is clear now, that this philosophy presents a valuable and true explanation of the place of aesthetics in the human mind. It does take study to know what Aesthetic Realism is, and why "speaking against" it (without any real knowledge of it by the way) is as ridiculous as speaking against the Salk vaccine, or poetry, or the French language, or the theory that the earth is round and not flat.

{{WikiProject Visual arts }}

}}

I am the person who wrote the entry on Aesthetic Realism. And if one looks at the history, for example, of Keats or Pasteur, or Walter Reed--or nearly any other important innovator--the people who "spoke against them" to put it mildly, are looked on now as very, very foolish and as very destructive and mean. Each, had he got his way, would have destroyed something beneficial to humanity. It was not unusual by the way for such a person to get the press on his or her side and gain the appearance of legitimacy for a while. Louis Pasteur's biographer S.J. Holmes writes there were "rabid newspaper attacks" and "insulting anonymous letters" against him (p. 132, Louis Pasteur). These should not be dignified by calling them "the other side" of the Louis Pasteur story, because they were obviously attacks based on fury at his new discoveries and not based on truth. I have seen such attacks, motivated by the same ill-will, on the internet. One has only to read them with some care to see what their motivation is.

{{Annual readership}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive index|mask=Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=no|indexhere=<indexhere>|template=<template ___location>}}

I realize that the tone of my last paragraph of the entry on Aesthetic Realism can seem intense, and perhaps I should have tempered that. Meanwhile, one should realize what is at stake. I will edit it myself. However, I do state that the article is OBJECTIVE. I am ready to answer any and all questions of fact.

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

We should remember that the Wikipedia entry on the facts about the Holocaust doesn't dignify ill-motivated individuals who are saying it didn't happen. They don't have an entry of equal size or links to their websites because they are plainly wrong and also rather fascistic. -- Arnold Perey, PhD

|maxarchivesize = 250K

|counter = 14

__NOEDITSECTION__

|minthreadsleft = 0

== The Aesthetic Realists keep censoring this topic ==

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(14d)

I keep trying to give the other side of Aesthetic Realism, but the Aesthetic Realists keep censoring this (and other) Wikipedia topics. This is typical of cults: They do everything they can to keep you from hearing the other side.

|archive = Talk:Aesthetic Realism/Archive %(counter)d

}}

You were spot on to notice how they deal with their critics. Critical of AR? Well then, you're just like some evil misguided historical figure.

Here's the link again (at least until they attack and remove it again) <michaelbluejay.com/x> "Aesthetic Realism is a cult".

__NOEDITSECTION__

== Note ==

The individual who keeps inserting the link to michael blujay's website is obviously the owner of the web site (he has the same writing style) and is promoting himself and his largely anonymous sources. As another writer points out, his or her only interest in Wikipedia is to insert his "cult" message. I submit that fictitious cybersmears do not constitute "the other side" of the facts about Aesthetic Realism any more than the folks who deny that the Holocaust existed constitute "the other side" of the facts about the Holocaust. A.P.

==yes, of course it's michael bluejay==

If you honestly want to equate this to the holocaust, take a look at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Revisionists_and_deniers wikipedia article on the holocaust's section about holocaust deniers]. Not equal time, no, but they get their piece, as it were. And they aren't made out to be heretics.

He specifically mentions wikipedia on his website.

==Let's look at the facts--how are Holocaust Revisionists <em>really</em> written of in Wikipedia?==

Although Holocaust revisionists are not described as "heretics," these are the exact words used in Wikipedia: "Holocaust denial, aka Holocaust revisionism, is most commonly associated with neo-Nazis or anti-Semites, and has become popular among the Palestinian national movement and many Islamic fundamentalists." And there is the further note: "The public advocacy of theories denying the Holocaust is a crime in some European countries (including France, Poland and Germany)." -- In other words, the truth about some things is too important to lie about. [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Revisionists_and_deniers wikipedia article on the holocaust's section about holocaust deniers].

== proponents vs. detractors ==

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

== Re: proponents vs. detractors ==

Thanks for the suggestion--I did add a section on structuralism. I also added new info about Levi-Strauss in the Wikipedia article on [[structuralism]] (I have lectured on him, so, if needed, could add more information with the full scholarly paraphernalia that is not there yet.)

As to reiterating in Wikipedia some of the junk that has been uttered online about Aesthetic Realism, I don't see the need. In terms of quantity, I think more than half is anonymous anyway and by that fact alone isn't credible. The rest is what is called circular sourcing: you say something and I quote you, then you quote me, and we both look like authorities without having a stitch of truth between us. It is easy enough for the reader to access this junk by Googling and also to read the refutations in <www.counteringthelies.com> "Friends of Aesthetic Realism--Countering the Lies". Why smear a deceased philosopher who dedicated his life to beauty--who, as Keats wrote about himself, "loved the principle of beauty in all things" and was always kind?[[User:Arnold_Perey|Arnold_Perey]] | [[User talk:Arnold_Perey|Talk ]] 19:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Yes, of course I added the AR is a Cult link ==

__NOEDITSECTION__

Of course I added the AR is a Cult link back in, because the cultists keep removing it. They'd prefer no one ever got to see another side to this story. As it stands now the Wikipedia article is just cheerleading for the cult, written by the cultists, but I don't have time to get into a war with Arnold Perey et. al on Wikipedia.

What Perey et. al fail to acknowledge is that AR is not just a philosophy created by Eli Siegel, it's *the organization that promotes its study*, and that I'm not criticizing Siegel's philosophy, I'm criticizing *the mind-control practices of the group that promotes it*. It would be nice if Dr. Perey could understand that distinction.

Oh, actually, I guess I do criticize the philosophy itself, inasmuch as AR has explained homosexuality as a mental problem.

Finally, the 'Countering the Lies' section "What AR's critics don't want you to see" is laughable, as I've linked directly and repeatedly to Countering the Lies from Day 1.

Anyway, since nobody really cares about the Aesthetic Realism entry besides the cult members and some former members like me, and since I don't have the time to wage a defense on Wikipedia, this article will continue to just be cheerleading for the cult.

==A cult? No, of course not.==

The Aesthetic Realism Foundation is a school. It is no more a cult than Princeton is, and that's the way history will see it. No amount of misquoting (as above) or plain lying can change the facts. They are what they are.

==NPOV tag==

The article is absurdly one-sided. The criticism of AR is dismissed in a subordinate clause in one sentence, and immediately "answered" (albeit with a non sequitur -- Williams's assessment of Siegel's poetry). By contrast, the favorable material is emphasized, with duplicative links. Claims made by AR are stated as facts, rather than being noted as the philosophy's opinions. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 05:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let us be exact. James M Lane's desire to know is very limited, and so his claim of bias is in reality biased itself. He never states which idea or ideas of Aesthetic Realism he thinks is only "opinion" and not fact. If he did, there would be some way of knowing if he was correct or not. But apparently he did not want this to happen. One is forced to conclude that his accusation of bias has no foundation.

Similarly, without mentioning any "criticism" of Aesthetic Realism he regards as valid, he simply says that any person who speaks against it (even if that person is deliberately lying, I might add) is giving it "criticism"! Again his objection does not have a foundation.

I did not notice any violation of neutrality posted when Levi-Strauss or Structuralism are praised. Why should Aesthetic Realism be treated differently? To treat it differently is itself a violation of NPOV.

I can say definitely, the truth about Aesthetic Realism is described in this article, a good deal of it by myself, but there is much more documentation.

I might add too that so-called "critics" in the Bluejay.com website invariably praise Aesthetic Realism. There are no credible critics of it at all. What they savage is the persons who study and teach it. And, frankly, in a discussion of what a philosophy is, that savaging is completely out of place and is a violation of NPOV.

Consider In fact, the truth would not be served by giving a so-called "balanced" (or tit-for-tat report) of Holocaust and Holocaust deniers. Or if something is good--say the polio vaccine has saved lives and many children who would have been crippled are whole because of it--you are not giving an absurdly one-sided account by saying so. And a person who feels children should be allowed to be crippled by this disease is not a "critic" of those who are favorable to the vaccine.

:You have correctly stated my view that someone who speaks against AR is giving a criticism, even if the statement is a deliberate falsehood. The normal Wikipedia policy in such instances is: (1) report notable opinions (those made by someone with relevant credentials, or endorsed by some other prominent spokesperson, or held by a significant number of people); and (2) report facts relevant to the assessment of the criticisms. In other words, we don't try to identify and screen out the dishonest criticisms. Some people don't like that policy, but if you want to change it, it would have to be done on a general basis, not article-by-article.

:I think our reporting of the Holocaust and of Holocaust deniers should indeed be "balanced". That doesn't necessarily mean equal space for each, though. As for your other example, if you look at the [[polio vaccine]] article, you'll find the criticisms of the Salk and Sabin vaccines. If there were a notable (non-crackpot) opinion against any vaccination at all, then, yes, it should be included. For example, if an AIDS vaccine were to be developed, I wouldn't be surprised if some fundamentalists objected to it on the grounds that it would encourage sexual immorality. My personal opinion is that condemning people to suffer or die from a preventable disease would be monstrous. Nevertheless, if (say) Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell came out against vaccination, then, yes, I think that fact should be reported in the Wikipedia article on the AIDS vaccine. If the articles on Structuralism or Levi-Strauss violate this principle by not reporting notable criticisms, then those articles should be edited accordingly. (Speaking of Structuralism, this AR article might be more comprehensible if the comparisons to Structuralism were collected under a separate heading or subheading.)

:I think Bluejay has said that AR currently has about 120 adherents. Some objective information (number of adherents, annual revenues of the Foundation, etc.) would help this article by giving the reader a fuller picture of AR today. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 22:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)