Talk:Aesthetic Realism/drafts

Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy (2/7, 2/17, 2/20)

2-7-10 Comments and corrections

• "A good poem, for instance, is both logical and passionate at once."

Innocent or obvious as it may seem, this statement reflects an aesthetic interpretation about what makes poems "good".

Change to: A good poem, the philosophy teaches, is both logical and passionate at once.

• "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."

What we see may be what you see or what you think most people see, but aesthetic judgments can't be assumed common or even intersubjective, at least not in Wikipedia.

Change to: So a good poem, or any successful work of art or music, represents truly the structure of the world according to Aesthetic Realism. Freedom at one with order can be seen in an electron, the solar system, or a tree.

• "Aesthetic Realism proposes that one’s attitude to the world governs how we see everything: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone."

Again, the use of first person plural, while common to philosophy writing, seems out of place here. After all, the very heart of an encyclopedia is third-person accounting (NPOV, neutral, as in no one's point of view, even "ours").

Change to: Aesthetic Realism proposes that one's attitude to the world governs how one sees everything: a friend, a spouse, a love, a book, food, people of another skin tone.

• "When we seek self-esteem through contempt, 'the addition to self through lessening something else', we have to be unjust to people and things. [15] Out of contempt, instead of building up our self-approval we end up disliking ourselves. [16] And in doing so, we lessen the capacity of our own minds to perceive and feel in the fullest manner."

I know you might be speaking through the philosohpy rather than just stating these as fact, but I still think the tone is out of place; it comes off like a lecture, like Wikipedia believes it.

Change to: When a person seeks self-esteem through contempt, "the addition to self through lessening something else," he or she has been unjust to people and things . [15] Contempt, the philosophy maintains, may seem a triumph, but always results in self-dislike [16] and mental distress.

Incorporating these changes, the first heading now reads:

Draft: 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 Siegel defined as “everything that begins where your fingertips end", is made in a beautiful way, it "can be liked honestly". [41] [42] [43]

Siegel explains that beauty is the unity, or making one, of reality's opposites: "In reality opposites are one; art shows this." [44] [45] A good poem, the philosophy teaches, is both logical and passionate at once (these are opposites). [46] Logic is order, passion accentuates freedom. So a good poem, or any successful work of art or music, represents truly the structure of the world according to Aesthetic Realism. Freedom at one with order can be seen in an electron, the solar system, or a tree. [47]

The reasoning is similar for other opposites. Siegel asked that since a beautiful poem is one and many, and reality is one and many, [48] isn't this evidence too that reality is beautiful and can be liked the way we like a good poem?

A primary teaching of Aesthetic Realism is that it is every person's "greatest, deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis." But Aesthetic Realism recognizes another competing desire—the desire to have contempt for the world and what is in it, in order to make oneself feel more important. [49] [50] [51]

Since its beginnings in the 1940s Aesthetic Realism has said three things must change in order for the world to be better: 1) the contempt for “human beings placed differently from ourselves" in terms of race, economic status, nationality--which is the underlying cause of racism and makes war attractive; 2) the ill will on which unjust management of land, industry, and commodities is based; and 3) the feeling that “the world’s failure or the failure of a person enhances one’s own life.” Until good will, not contempt, is the chief thing present in economics and in the thoughts of people, “civilization has yet to begin.” [52]

Aesthetic Realism proposes that one’s attitude to the world governs how we see everything: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone. [53] [54] When a person seeks self-esteem through contempt, "the addition to self through lessening something else," he or she has been unjust to people and things . [15] Contempt, the philosophy maintains, may seem a triumph, but always results in self-dislike and mental distress.[56] And in doing so, one lessens the capacity of mind to perceive and feel in the fullest manner.

Aesthetic Realism holds that in the extreme, this contempt makes for insanity. [57] [58] That is why in everything one does, Aesthetic Realism argues, he or she has the ethical obligation to give full value to things and people as the means of liking oneself. To honor that obligation is seen as the same condition as accuracy, mental well-being, and joy.[59] [60] [61]

LoreMariano (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the direction you've taken it. I'm thinking that the logical order of paragraphs would be 2,3,1,4,6,7,8....5 (moving the current first paragraph to the 3rd position and the current fifth paragraph to the end). My thinking is to go from general theory then to self then to society; abstract to concrete; small to large. You introduce the idea of the world being beautiful in the 1st, but define AR's conception of beauty in the 2nd and 3rd. So I would put the 1st after them. Also, the 5th paragraph seems like it would be best last, since it focuses not on the self but on the broader social implications and goals of the philosophy. What do you think? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

2-8-10 Draft

I like your suggestion to place paragraph 5 at the end! It does seem wider to end with the "broader social implications and goals of the philosophy."

Regarding your other suggested change, the reason I started with the paragraph describing the basis of Aesthetic Realism is because it explains the name "Aesthetic Realism." I tried to make that clearer here and combined the two sentences. Is this an improvement or did I create a run-on sentence?

LoreMariano (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism: the Philosophy

The name "Aesthetic Realism" is based on the idea that reality, or the world, has a structure that is beautiful and since reality, which Siegel defined as “everything that begins where your fingertips end", is made in a beautiful way, it "can be liked honestly". [41] [42] [43]

Siegel explains that beauty is the unity, or making one, of reality's opposites: "In reality opposites are one; art shows this." [44] [45] A good poem, the philosophy teaches, is both logical and passionate at once (these are opposites). [46] Logic is order, passion accentuates freedom. So a good poem, or any successful work of art or music, represents truly the structure of the world according to Aesthetic Realism. Freedom at one with order can be seen in an electron, the solar system, or a tree. [47]

The reasoning is similar for other opposites. Siegel asked that since a beautiful poem is one and many, and reality is one and many, [48] isn't this evidence too that reality is beautiful and can be liked the way we like a good poem?

A primary teaching of Aesthetic Realism is that it is every person's "greatest, deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis." But Aesthetic Realism recognizes another competing desire—the desire to have contempt for the world and what is in it, in order to make oneself feel more important. [49] [50] [51]

Aesthetic Realism proposes that one’s attitude to the world governs how we see everything: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone. [53] [54] When a person seeks self-esteem through contempt, "the addition to self through lessening something else," he or she has been unjust to people and things . [15] Contempt, the philosophy maintains, may seem a triumph, but always results in self-dislike [1] and mental distress.[56] And in doing so, one lessens the capacity of mind to perceive and feel in the fullest manner.

Aesthetic Realism holds that in the extreme, this contempt makes for insanity. [57] [58] That is why in everything one does, Aesthetic Realism argues, he or she has the ethical obligation to give full value to things and people as the means of liking oneself. To honor that obligation is seen as the same condition as accuracy, mental well-being, and joy.[59] [60] [61]

Since its beginnings in the 1940s Aesthetic Realism has said three things must change in order for the world to be better: 1) the contempt for “human beings placed differently from ourselves" in terms of race, economic status, nationality--which is the underlying cause of racism and makes war attractive; 2) the ill will on which unjust management of land, industry, and commodities is based; and 3) the feeling that “the world’s failure or the failure of a person enhances one’s own life.” Until good will, not contempt, is the chief thing present in economics and in the thoughts of people, “civilization has yet to begin.” [52]

I like this, but suggest that the following change in the first sentence make it clearer. I'm getting a little confused with reference numbers, so I'm using the numbers on the second Sources page listed at the top of this page:

First known as Aesthetic Analysis, the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality, or the world, has a structure that is aesthetic, and therefore can be honestly liked.[2]

The sentence that follows this expresses Siegel's definition of aesthetics. There are already many quotes in this article and this one does not seem essential to clarify dogma. In fact, it might be taken to imply that reality does not include self.

Trouver (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

71's version

Lore, I tried rewriting your draft so the ideas followed more sequentially. The tone also reflects a slightly more analytical approach. Let me know what you think, if there are aspects you prefer or would want to incorporate

Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy

The name "Aesthetic Realism" is based on the idea that reality, the physical world, has a structure which is beautiful. Siegel's identified beauty as the unity, or "making one", of opposites. He took his inspiration from a critical theory of art: a good poem, in Siegel's interpretation, was both logical and passionate at once.[46] Logic embodies order while passion accentuates freedom. Siegel extrapolated that any successful work of art or music, combines some essential duality.

In the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism Siegel developed this notion, applying his insight about art to all of reality.[44][45][41][42][43] He envisioned the world sharing the quality of construction characteristic to good poems; it too, is made up of opposites. In Siegel's eyes freedom at one with order could be seen in an electron, a tree, or the solar system.[47] Siegel asked, "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?"[48]

This idea led to Siegel's primary belief, that the world "can be liked honestly". Further, a core teaching of Aesthetic Realism is that it is every person's deepest desire to like the world on such "accurate" basis.

But Siegel recognized another competing desire which drives humans away from such an appreciation—the desire to have contempt for the world and what is in it, in order to make oneself feel more important. [49] [50] [51] Siegel argued that when a person seeks self-esteem through contempt--"the addition to self through lessening something else"--he or she is unjust to people and things. [15] Contempt, the philosophy maintains, may seem like a triumph, but ultimately results in self-dislike[1] and mental distress,[56] and in doing so lessens the capacity of one's mind to perceive and feel in the fullest manner. Siegel held that, in the extreme, the habit of contempt makes for insanity.[57][58]

Aesthetic Realism attests that one’s attitude to the world governs how all of life's components are seen: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone. [53] [54] Accordingly, Aesthetic Realism argues, individuals have an an ethical obligation to give full value to things and people, both as a means of liking them but also as the means of liking oneself. To honor that obligation is seen as the same condition as fairness, mental well-being, and joy.[59][60] [61]

Proponents of Siegel's philosophy of Aesthetic Realism identify the same contempt which individuals feel towards individuals as the underlying cause of broader social problems. From the perspective of Aesthetic Realism, societal evils like racism and war, are attractive because the contempt for “human beings placed differently from ourselves" in terms of race, economic status, or nationality makes a society feel superior as well. Aesthetic Realists see that same contempt motivating the capitalist system of land management, labor, and industry. For Siegel and his followers humanity cannot overcome its biggest problems until people let go of the feeling that “the world’s failure or the failure of a[nother] person enhances one’s own life.” For them, until good will rather than contempt is at the center of economics and in thoughts of people, “civilization has yet to begin.”[52]

71.224.206.164 (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting really confused. Where can I now find the list of references that go with this text? I need to see both together. I want to make sure that we're not making statements which could be interpreted as original research but that the statements do reflect the sourced references. Can you tell me where to print them out so that I can look at them side-by-side with the text? Sorry if this is a dumb question. LoreMariano (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not dumb at all. The numbers are the same as in your draft, I didn't renumber them. I did shuffle a few pieces, but the references should have 'generally' stayed with their content. So, whatever the numbers mean for your own latest version (2-8-2010) they are the ones I used. I am also not as concerned about original research, mainly because if I changed your text it was only to re-arrange and paraphrase rather than invent any new interpretations. But... eventually, the numbers will have to match and I'm happy to go through and source it properly if you think it's a draft worth keeping--meanwhile,I'm interested in your thoughts on the presentation of ideas, the tone, and the overall coherence. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the overall coherence of what you did is quite good and I like the tone. I like the flow of ideas. I tried to streamline it a little and make the opening even simpler. Aesthetic Realism would say that "reality" includes both the physical world AND the world of ideas but since this gets a little complicated to explain, I suggest the opening state simply that Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality is aesthetic.

In general, I tried to "fine tune" it, but tomorrow I need to look carefully at the references. If you have questions about anything, please ask.

Thank you again for your continued thought. LoreMariano (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

2-10-10 Slightly Revised IP 71 Version

Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy

Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality has an aesthetic structure, like that of art. Eli Siegel identified beauty as the making one, or unity, of opposites. In his critical theory of art a good poem is both logical and passionate at once.[46] Logic embodies order while passion accentuates freedom. Siegel's studies led him to conclude that any successful work of art or music combines essential dualities. In the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism, Siegel developed this notion, documenting how art and science reveal the aesthetic nature of reality[44][45][41][42][43] He envisioned the world sharing the quality of construction characteristic to good poems; it too, is composed of opposites. In Siegel's eyes, freedom at one with order could be seen in an electron, a tree, or the solar system.[47] Siegel also asked, "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?"[48]

This idea led to Siegel's primary belief, that the world "can be liked honestly". Further, a core teaching of Aesthetic Realism is that it is every person's deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.

But Siegel recognized another competing desire which drives humans away from such an appreciation—the desire to have contempt for the world and what is in it, in order to make oneself feel more important. [49] [50] [51] Siegel argued that when a person seeks self-esteem through contempt--"the addition to self through lessening something else"--he or she is unjust to people and things. [15] Contempt, the philosophy maintains, may seem like a triumph, but ultimately results in self-dislike[1] and mental distress,[56] and in doing so lessens the capacity of one's mind to perceive and feel in the fullest manner. Siegel held that, in the extreme, contempt causes insanity.[57][58]

Aesthetic Realism attests that one’s attitude to the world governs how all of life's components are seen: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone. [53] [54] Accordingly, Aesthetic Realism argues, individuals have an an ethical obligation to give full value to things and people: being fair to the ouside world is the means of liking oneself.[59][60] [61]

Proponents of the philosophy identify contempt as the underlying cause of broader social problems. From their perspective, societal evils like racism and war, arise from contempt for “human beings placed differently from ourselves" in terms of race, economic status, or nationality. Aesthetic Realists see that same contempt behind the profit system of land management, labor, and industry. For them, humanity cannot overcome its biggest problems until people let go of the feeling that “the world’s failure or the failure of a[nother] person enhances one’s own life.” Siegel stated that until good will rather than contempt is at the center of economics and in the thoughts of people, “civilization has yet to begin.”[52]

LoreMariano (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lore, I like that the draft was generally similar...hopefully it's close to ready for clean-up and maybe even transfer to the main page. Though I don't understand all of the syntactical changes, they are overwhelmingly minor. I do have three questions/points of contention.

• The phrase "reality has a structure which is aesthetic". I don't know what to do with this one, because the terminology which AR employs differs from conventional usage in philosophy and my general reading. As I've encountered the term, aesthetic is merely a value-neutral category containing the "looks" of things. Yet when you use it, it seems to connote something specific. For me, to say that something has an aesthetic structure is like saying that my paycheck is countable. I think it's important to be clear about AR's stance on the construction/appearance of reality, but I don't want the particulars to be implied.
• The phrase "ethical obligation". I don't want to get into a philosophical discussion; I just don't see the connection between liking oneself and ethical obligations. Usually ethical obligations are not concerned with utilitarian ends but rather on guidelines to behavior. It comes of as a little contradictory as it is currently written, as if people had an "ethical obligation" to be happy.
• Transition to the 'broader social' paragraph. I was trying to highlight an analogy between the contempt individuals have for individuals and the contempt societies have for societies, but you pared down the language to your original. Did you find the comparison inapt?

p.s. Now, instead of using bold to announce a new draft, use three equals (=) on each side. That way the drafts will enter into the page's table of contents and be easily navigated to from the top of the page.

71.224.206.164 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re "reality has a structure which is aesthetic" -- a person could think "What the heck does that mean?" Maybe we should just go back to the wording of an earlier version: "Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality, or the world, has a structure that is beautiful." Then it naturally follows...."Eli Siegel defined beauty as...." I agree that it is very important to be clear about Aestheitc Realism's explanation of the construction/apearance of reality, and the particulars shouldn't be implied.

Regarding the phrase "ethical obligation". Aesthetic Realism says that the one way to like yourself is by being fair to the outside world. So, yes, how you see the world and your opinion of yourself are inextricably related...I think you're right in concluding that in order to be fair to something, one has to enjoy giving justice, so you could say there is an ethical obligation to be happy.

re: the transition to the "broader social" paragraph. I understand what you were trying to do in making an analogy between the contempt individuals have for individuals and the contempt societies have for societies. It's not that I find the analogy inapt, it just isn't Aesthetic Realism! We don't have any sources that in any way back that up...

One thing I'm not entirely satisfied with is the sentence on the profit system. Let me work on that a little more tomorrow. I also have the corrected sources. I'm not entirely comfortable with the phraseology "For him," "For them," or "Aesthetic Realists believe..." because it sounds very....subjective? I'm not sure we should assume what people believe. I like the approach of "Aesthetic Realism states" or, I think you used the word "attests," or something more in that field ("Aesthetic Realism teaches")...

I am very aware that we are under time pressure to move this along and I think we are close to finalizing this section. When we get the text finalized, I'll double-check the sources.

--Comments excerpted from Lore's notes 71.224.206.164 (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we're close to consensus on the above issues: Revert on the beauty wording. Discard the societal contempt analogy. Rework the capitalism section. Fix sources. I am close to settled, otherwise, but would still like to clear up the ethics paragraph...

I think I understand the connection between the idea of giving full value to things and an ethical obligation (it makes sense even in general ethics terms not to devalue something else for your own gain). I would like to disentangle that point from the direct connection currently conveyed between a full-valuing as an ethical obligation and full-valuing a means to be happy. I see how they both link back to the same idea, but I'm uncomfortable without explaining the link. Could we say something like:

Accordingly, Aesthetic Realism argues, individuals have an an ethical obligation to give full value to things and people, not to devalue them in order to make oneself seem more important. This is considered being "being fair" to the outside world, and Aesthetic Realism states that it is not only an ethical obligation but the only true means of liking oneself.[59][60][61]

I think that's more to my liking since it addresses both issues without directly conflating them.

71.224.206.164 (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

2-10-10, Revised per Feedback

Revised as requested. In addition, very minor edits to the new proposed text on "ethical obligation" (I agree ideas discussed should not be conflated). If you agree, I think this is ready to go to the Talk page. I need only to include one more citation (as noted within text, last paragraph) and verify that the sources which are used here are correct/will be correct when pasted in on the talk page.

LoreMariano (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy

Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality, or the world, has a structure that is beautiful. Eli Siegel identified beauty as the making one, or unity, of opposites.[44][45]

In his critical theory of art, a good poem is both logical and passionate at once.[46] Logic embodies order while passion accentuates freedom. Siegel's studies led him to conclude that any successful work of art or music combines essential dualities. In the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism, Siegel developed this notion, documenting how art and science reveal this aesthetic quality of reality[41][42][43][44][45] He envisioned the world sharing the quality of construction characteristic to good poems; it too, is composed of opposites. In Siegel's eyes, freedom at one with order could be seen in an electron, a tree, or the solar system.[47] Siegel also asked, "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?"[48]

This idea led to Siegel's primary belief, that the world "can be liked honestly". Further, a core teaching of Aesthetic Realism is that it is "every person's deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis."{cite}

But Siegel recognized another competing desire which drives humans away from such an appreciation—the desire to have contempt for the world and what is in it, in order to make oneself feel more important. [49] [50] [51] Siegel argued that when a person seeks self-esteem through contempt--"the addition to self through lessening something else"--he or she is unjust to people and things. [49] Contempt, the philosophy maintains, may seem like a triumph, but ultimately results in self-dislike[1] and mental distress,[56] and in doing so, lessens the capacity of one's mind to perceive and feel in the fullest manner. Siegel held that, in the extreme, contempt causes insanity.[57][58]

Aesthetic Realism attests that one’s attitude to the world governs how all of life's components are seen: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone. [53] [54] Accordingly, Aesthetic Realism argues, individuals have an ethical obligation to give full value to things and people, not devalue them in order to make oneself seem more important. Aesthetic Realism states that being fair to the world and people is not only an ethical obligation, but the one true means of liking oneself.[59][60][61]

Proponents of the philosophy identify contempt as the underlying cause of broader social problems. From their perspective, societal evils like racism and war, arise from contempt for “human beings placed differently from ourselves" in terms of race, economic status, or nationality. Aesthetic Realism sees that same contempt behind the profit motive in economics. Siegel disparaged what he saw as a system in which many people are used to enrich the few. He encouraged his students to ask, "What does a person deserve by being alive?” as a way to rethink that relationship. The philosophy asserts that humanity cannot overcome its biggest problems until people cease to feel “the world’s failure or the failure of a[nother] person enhances one’s own life.” Siegel stated that until good will rather than contempt is at the center of economics and in the thoughts of people, “civilization has yet to begin.”[52]

LoreMariano (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

increasingly minor suggestions below (note: I already incorporated them directly into the draft. see page history/prev to see a 'diff' comparing the changes)

• "aesthetic" nature of reality, slipped in again in the second paragraph; suggestion: "this aesthetic quality"
• every person's deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis, is a bit long on italics for my taste. I'd prefer we just use a direct quotation. suggestion: "every person's deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis" and then add a citation
• "the hope to be fair to the world". something's mildly off here. the ethical obligation is not "the hope" but the actual "being fair". suggestion: just say 'being fair'
• "where many people are used as a means of enriching very few without asking, “What does a person deserve by being alive?”. must present siegel/ar's view of capitalism as belonging to him, not inherently belonging to capitalism. suggestion: "Siegel disparaged what he saw as a system in which many people are used to enrich the few. He encouraged his students to ask, "What does a person deserve by being alive?” as a way to rethink that relationship."

Further Refinements

Some of your paraphrases significantly change the meaning.

---

Your Comment: *"aesthetic" nature of reality, slipped in again in the second paragraph; suggestion: "this aesthetic quality"

My Comment: Again, the meaning as it is used here stands for beauty, artistry. The term "aesthetic" has always had two meanings. The English word derives from the Greek, aisthetes (keen) which refers to sensation. In this sense the word simply refers to feeling, sensitivity (neutral). The second meaning of the word stands for beauty, artistry. It is not correct to exclude either meaning. Generally, people who work in technical fields prefer the first meaning, and those in the arts prefer the second, but it would not be correct to insist on either one at the expense of the other. In Aesthetic Realism, the term always has the second meaning, which does connotate a value judgment (i.e., your paycheck is valid).

Would you object to using the term aesthetic structure? If a definition of aesthetic structure or aesthetic nature is needed we can put it in a footnote. One of Eli Siegel's last works is titled "The Aesthetic Nature of the World," in which this concept is described with many historical references and references in the fields of contemporary art and science.

71's comments indented below yours... We might have to table this issue and just go on to other topics. I'll respond to the argument you made, but I don't see resolving it now as necessary. Basically, I disagree that even artists use aesthetic without a modifier. The obvious example is the common phrase, "aesthetically pleasing"; also consider, "she has a 'great' aesthetic"; or "i 'love' the aesthetic" of her work". But in describing an object of art, I maintain that aesthetic is a category. To reference the 'aesthetic structure' of reality is not improper per se, but I worry that it employs Siegel's perspective as if it were fact. So, I still prefer "the/this aesthetic quality". I don't think I need to rehash the point that, even if Siegel is absolutely correct, our job as writers is to report from afar, and as such, if we want to use his personal interpretation, then it should be distinct from the objective, 3rd-person narrative voice of the encyclopedia. I'll repeat, because it's getting lost in these discussions, that I have no desire to change Siegel's words or meaning; I only want them to be suitably designated as his--even if--they happen to describe reality as well.

I can write more about this, but for now I agree that our job is to present the Aesthetic Realism of Eli Siegel, and he described the nature or structure of the world as aesthetic. He didn't say reality has an aesthetic "quality". We can easily source "aesthetic nature" or "aesthetic structure". We cannot source "aesthetic quality". LoreMariano (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Again (though I said I was ok for now), as long as we present it as his phrase, i.e. "What Siegel described as the aesthetic structure/aesthetic nature..."

---

Your Comment: *every person's deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis, is a bit long on italics for my taste. I'd prefer we just use a direct quotation. suggestion: "every person's deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis" and then add a citation.

My Comment: Yes, okay. It is a direct quote.

great

:)

---

Your Comment: *"the hope to be fair to the world". something's mildly off here. the ethical obligation is not "the hope" but the actual "being fair". suggestion: just say 'being fair'

My Comment: Aesthetic Realism sees the hope or purpose of a person as the important thing. "Being fair" is, like being an artist, a big thing to achieve and it's the intention that is key. If you don't like the word "hope," then "aim" or "objective" or "purpose" of being fair is also acceptable.

Is it also true that the hope of being fair is the means to happiness rather than the being fair? I don't have a dog in this fight, I just want it to reflect the philosophy and be easily interpreted by the reader. On a non-editing philosophical point, isn't this kind of like saying that "it's the thought that counts" as opposed to the deed, or is the thought the deed, so to speak?

It's saying that it's the intention that counts as opposed to the complete success of the intent. You may not be able to fair to a thing but you can have the hope to be fair as your intention. The next question is, what does it mean to be fair? LoreMariano (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Your Comment: *"where many people are used as a means of enriching very few without asking, “What does a person deserve by being alive?” must present Siegel/Aesthetic Realism's view of capitalism as belonging to him, not inherently belonging to capitalism. "Siegel disparaged what he saw as a system in which many people are used to enrich the few. He encouraged his students to ask, "What does a person deserve by being alive?” as a way to rethink that relationship."

My Comment: I object to the word "disparage"--Mr. Siegel saw it as immoral. In fact, I object to this the most. Let's take out the 2 sentences "Siegel disparaged what he saw as a system in which many people are used to enrich the few. He encouraged his students to ask, "What does a person deserve by being alive?” and replace it with: "He stated that for centuries ill will has been the predominant purpose in humanity's economic activities. The philosophy asserts that humanity cannot overcome its biggest problems until people cease to feel ...etc."

Yeah, just a linguistic stumble. Disparage doesn't have the same connotation of being a bad word to me (as long as it's used proscriptively rather than as slander). So I didn't mean to disparage anything by suggesting Siegel "disparaged" capitalism. Easily rephrased to say: "Siegel cautioned against..." or something like that. Not to quibble, but what's the difference between stating that ill will manifested through capitalism has been the biggest obstacle to humanity and disparaging capitalism. Is it just the negativity part, because it rings of "contempt"?

Yeah, so I think these points are all suitably minor, and I have no problem presenting the draft as it is. I'll keep the objections on a short-list and maybe we'll get to them later. Whenever you're ready to finish the citations, you or I can post it to the talk page. 71.224.204.226 (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I do have a problem presenting the draft as it is. I will repaste it with corrections below. Disparage has the meaning of speaking of something in a disrespectful way; that's not what we're trying to say. I think replacing the two sentences fixes it.

I meant as it is meaning with your changes, or the ones we'd discussed.

LoreMariano (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

PS As to your question about maintaining the block, it doesn't matter to me as long as everyone is on the same page regarding not starting a editing war on the article while we're working on drafts.

Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy

Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality, or the world, has a structure that is beautiful. Eli Siegel identified beauty as the making one, or unity, of opposites.[44][45]

In his critical theory of art, a good poem is both logical and passionate at once.[46] Logic embodies order while passion accentuates freedom. Siegel's studies led him to conclude that any successful work of art or music combines essential dualities. In the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism, Siegel developed this notion, documenting how art and science reveal the aesthetic nature of reality.[41][42][43][44][45] He envisioned the world sharing the quality of construction characteristic to good poems; it too, is composed of opposites. In Siegel's eyes, freedom at one with order could be seen in an electron, a tree, or the solar system.[47] Siegel also asked, "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?"[48]

This idea led to Siegel's primary belief, that the world "can be liked honestly". Further, a core teaching of Aesthetic Realism is that it is every person's deepest desire is to like the world on an honest or accurate basis.[add cite]

But Siegel recognized another competing desire which drives humans away from such an appreciation—the desire to have contempt for the world and what is in it, in order to make oneself feel more important.[49][50][51] Siegel argued that when a person seeks self-esteem through contempt--"the addition to self through lessening something else"--he or she is unjust to people and things.[49] Contempt, the philosophy maintains, may seem like a triumph, but ultimately results in self-dislike[1] and mental distress,[56] and in doing so, lessens the capacity of one's mind to perceive and feel in the fullest manner. Siegel held that, in the extreme, contempt causes insanity.[57][58]

Aesthetic Realism attests that one’s attitude to the world governs how all of life's components are seen: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone.[53][54] Accordingly, Aesthetic Realism argues, individuals have an ethical obligation to give full value to things and people, not devalue them in order to make oneself seem more important. Aesthetic Realism states that the hope to be fair to the world and people is not only an ethical obligation, but the one true means of liking oneself.[59][60][61]

Proponents of the philosophy identify contempt as the underlying cause of broader social problems. From their perspective, societal evils like racism and war, arise from contempt for “human beings placed differently from ourselves" in terms of race, economic status, or nationality. He stated that for centuries ill will has been the predominant purpose in humanity's economic activities. The philosophy asserts that humanity cannot overcome its biggest problems until people cease to feel that “the world’s failure or the failure of a[nother] person enhances one’s own life.” Siegel stated that until good will rather than contempt is at the center of economics and in the thoughts of people, “civilization has yet to begin.”[52]

LoreMariano (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

71's lingering to-consider list (generally minor)

It seem like while we are resolving most of the small issues, some phrasings are being added which increase the pov of the writing. I still think we can move this to the talk page for outside opinions and possible new sources/material.

• "Siegel developed this notion, documenting how art and science reveal the aesthetic nature of reality" (edit for npov; does "documenting" suggest proof, where is the evidence for science's role, is "the aesthetic nature" presuming a pov)
• every person's deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis (add quotation marks)
• "identified" or "defined" beauty (check for npov; does "identified" imply a judgment about reality)
• the hope to be fair (clarify phrasing; prefer 'attempt' or 'intention' rather than 'hope')
• check/add full citations

71.224.206.164 (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

IP 71, I tried to cover all your points.

Aesthetic Realism: The Philosophy

Aesthetic Realism is based on the idea that reality, or the world, has a structure that is beautiful. Eli Siegel defined beauty as the making one, or unity, of opposites.[44][45]

In his critical theory of art, a good poem is both logical and passionate at once.[46] Logic embodies order while passion accentuates freedom. Siegel's studies led him to conclude that any successful work of art or music combines essential dualities. In the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism, Siegel developed this concept, writing that the arts and sciences all give evidence that reality has an aesthetic nature[41][42][43][44][45] He envisioned the world sharing the quality of construction characteristic to good poems; it too, is composed of opposites. In Siegel's eyes, freedom at one with order could be seen in an electron, a tree, or the solar system.[47] Siegel also asked, "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?"[48]

This idea led to Siegel's primary belief, that the world "can be liked honestly". Further, a core teaching of Aesthetic Realism is that it is "every person's deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis." [1]

But Siegel recognized another competing desire which drives humans away from such an appreciation—the desire to have contempt for the world and what is in it, in order to make oneself feel more important.[49][50][51] Siegel argued that when a person seeks self-esteem through contempt--"the addition to self through lessening something else"--he or she is unjust to people and things.[49] Contempt, the philosophy maintains, may seem like a triumph, but ultimately results in self-dislike[1] and mental distress,[56] and in doing so, lessens the capacity of one's mind to perceive and feel in the fullest manner. Siegel held that, in the extreme, contempt causes insanity.[57][58]

Aesthetic Realism attests that one’s attitude to the world governs how all of life's components are seen: a friend, a spouse, a lover, a book, food, people of another skin tone.[53][54] Accordingly, Aesthetic Realism argues, individuals have an ethical obligation to give full value to things and people, not devalue them in order to make oneself seem more important. Aesthetic Realism states that conscious intention to be fair to the world and people is not only an ethical obligation, but the means of liking oneself.[59][60][61]

The philosophy identifies contempt as the underlying cause of broader social problems: societal evils like racism and war arise from contempt for “human beings placed differently from ourselves" in terms of race, economic status, or nationality. Siegel stated that for centuries ill will has been the predominant purpose in humanity's economic activities. The philosophy asserts that humanity cannot overcome its biggest problems until people cease to feel that “the world’s failure or the failure of a[nother] person enhances one’s own life.” Siegel stated that until good will rather than contempt is at the center of economics and in the thoughts of people, “civilization has yet to begin.”[52]

IP 71 Points:

Point 1: "Siegel developed this notion, documenting how art and science reveal the aesthetic nature of reality" (edit for npov; does "documenting" suggest proof, where is the evidence for science's role, is "the aesthetic nature" presuming a pov)

Change to: “In the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism, Siegel developed this concept, writing that the arts and sciences all give evidence that reality has an aesthetic nature.”

Point 2: every person's deepest desire to like the world on an honest or accurate basis (add quotation marks)

Done.

Point 3.: "identified" or "defined" beauty (check for npov; does "identified" imply a judgment about reality)

Change to: I agree “defined” is better. It does not presuppose that the definition is intersubjective.

Point 4. "the hope to be fair (clarify phrasing; prefer 'attempt' or 'intention' rather than 'hope')"

Change to: "the conscious intention to be fair...." On reflection, “the one true means of liking oneself,” sounds a little too strenuous and insistent. Change to: “the means of liking oneself.”

Addtional Change: “Proponents of the philosophy identify contempt…” – There isn’t anything about proponents in the source we are paraphrasing. I think it is correct to write, “The philosophy identifies contempt….” We are not in a position to infer proponents' subjective states.

IP 71 - Do you want to post on the Talk page? Thanks for sticking with it. LoreMariano (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I not only approve of but prefer every one of those changes completely. I don't think there's a single thing in the article I still have a qualm about, and even that list was of keep-for-later order of magnitude (so, small). I think, if you're ok with the citations, that we can post it to the talk page today (tomorrow). 71.224.206.164 (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

One more thing I changed, per your approach. ("From their perspective" in the last paragraph to either: from its perspective/in the philosophy/the philosophy teaches, etc.) You can pick whichever one you prefer, but I think the general change is consistent with prior edits. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I combined sentences with a colon. Does that work? LoreMariano (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a little long with the quotation, and a hair declarative, but I think it is ok. I'm actually more interested in adding 'as well' after social problems, just for transition. When do you think we can post it to talk? 71.224.206.164 (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's do it! I think it's probably better that you post it since you're acting as the neutral mediator. I'll recheck the references very closely when it gets moved. Can you please note under the post heading the dates for when we started and finished editing this section on the drafts page (Start: February 7 Finished: February 17); and eventually we'll add the date we place it in the article. As soon as it's placed in the article, I'll post the drafts here for the next two sections (poetry and history). And yes, I agree, adding "as well" after "social problems" is a good transition. Thank you! LoreMariano (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Poetry (2/21, 3/19, 3/24)

Lore, I thought we could throw down a few guidelines for this section, taking what we did from the last section and what we can figure out about this one, to make the editing process more efficient.

• Keep the balance of objective attribution/direct quotation
• Keep the level of explanation, to inform an unfamiliar reader
• Keep the size, using quotes as illustration/demonstration but not just for accumulating proof

Content-wise, I think the poetry section will be important for two key reasons

• To deepen the link between the art and the philosophy
• To introduce one phase/aspect of Siegel's reception by the public

I don't think we need to necessarily do the second part, as we could save it to a more general section about the reception received by the philosophy (broken down by genre: in art, education, photography, etc.) But if we are going to address the reception of Siegel's poetry, I think we need to establish both the praise that it did receive as well as the praise that it didn't, but that which ARists believed it deserved. Specifically, I don't see any critical sources about the poetry gathered by Trouver, et al. on the talk page; and while I know it's the 'other side's' job to find the criticism, I think just for editing purposes we need to include both. For one, it's npov, but even more basically, it's a little incoherent to discuss how a thing was not received as well as it should have been but then only provide examples of praise. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think these guidelines are good. I don't think the "Preferences" section is necessary and there needs to be a bit more explanation of the link between Poetry and Aesthetic Realism. The overall length in the end, though, should be about the same. Trouver and Keravnos have done a lot of work sourcing the Poetry and History sections so they can take the lead editing. LoreMariano (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)"

Poetry and Aesthetic Realism (2/21)

Eli Siegel stated that ideas central to the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism were implicitly present in “Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana,” the poem that brought national fame to Siegel in 1925, when it was selected, from four thousand anonymously submitted poems, as the winner of ‘‘The Nation’s’’ esteemed poetry prize. The magazine’s editors described it as “the most passionate and interesting poem which came in—a poem recording through magnificent rhythms a profound and important and beautiful vision of the earth on which afternoons and men have always existed.”

“Hot Afternoons” was controversial; the poem’s innovative technique tended to polarize commentators, with much of the criticism taking the form of raucous parody. “In Hot Afternoons,” Siegel later explained, “I tried to take many things that are thought of usually as being far apart and foreign and to show, in a beautiful way, that they aren’t so separate and that they do have a great deal to do with one another.” A key concept of Aesthetic Realism, “that the very self of a thing is its relations, its having-to-do-with other things,” arises from this.

Siegel defined poetry as “the oneness of the permanent opposites in reality as seen by an individual.” He maintained that music distinguishes true poetry, whatever the language, period or style; the music of a poem shows the poet has honestly perceived opposites as one, and sincerely united personal feelings with the impersonal structure of the world.“Poetry,” he explained, “arises out of a like of the world so intense and wide that of itself, it is musical.”

The study of poetry has always been an important aspect of the study of Aesthetic Realism, and the way poetry is related to a person’s feelings, thoughts, and the situations of everyday life, is unique to this philosophy. --LoreMariano (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

71's comments

:Whoever's working on this, let me know if you'd prefer I edit the text directly, or list proposed changes below first. Or I can copy the draft and edit it myself in a separate section. So far, my comments are mainly just about grammar and phrasing, not content, which looks pretty solid. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, because of the references, i'm going to just list issues below:

P1 * "ideas were implicitly present". Whose judgment does this reflect? To say something is present is to state a fact, but if it was only implicitly so, then it's also an interpretation of sorts. I'm aware that Siegel himself probably identified the underlying ideas in the poem, but if so, we should give him attribution. Or, if the cited reference is to an editor, we should use a phrase which suggests that process of an outsider's recognition, rather than an insider's knowledge. This is just standard neutral point of view for any artistic or literary interpretation.

P2

• Can we add a little detail to what specific qualities the parodies of Hot Afternoon were mocking? The fact that it was "unorthodox", I assume, but in what ways was it seen to be so (e.g. tone, changes of perspective, infatuation with nature, common objects, too positive, etc.) I have no idea, since I haven't read the poem or criticism myself; I'm just curious what people didn't like about it.

* minor: "the magazine's editors" not just "the editors"

• I'd like to add a stanza from the poem. If it was so important and it's style/aesthetic so suggestive of the philosophy, let's quote a part of it.

* Less importantly, we could also add a snippet of parody. I think that would be verging on being off-topic, but I wouldn't mind seeing a very small example either.

• Can we, in addition to quoting Siegel on relations, paraphrase or describe the concept (i.e. the importance of relationships, or the idea that a thing is defined by everything around it) and then use the quote as an example of Siegel's phrasing.

P3

• There's no transition between the idea of relation and the idea of opposites. I don't know if Siegel explains one, but from a writing point of view it would be helpful to move to the next idea with either a logical or at least a structural connector (logical: The idea of relations tied into Siegel's theory of opposites, also at work in the poem; structural: Another aspect of the philosophy at work in the poem was Siegel's theory of opposites)

• The phrase "music of poetry" seems like jargon, and I mean that in the best way, as a term with great meaning to those who know what it means. Realistically, I don't think an average reader knows what to think about the term, so we should explain it and quote a reference if helpful. What did Siegel/critics mean by "music" in poetry; was it a sense of rhythm, of synergy between elements, of elation, etc. Music can mean so many things, I just want it to be more explicit.

• Perhaps the last point would be helped by putting the current last sentence (so intense and wide that of itself, it is...) first, since that makes the connection between relations and music. Then we could work on writing the connection between music and opposites.

P4 * It's a particularly bold claim to say that something is unique. I don't want to deny anyone's uniqueness, but that claim is almost unprovable, since it suggests that no one else ever saw it the same way. I don't raise the point for debate but rather to suggest that we simply emphasize how central the role of poetry is to AR, rather than using superlatives like "unique" (i.e. John loved hot dogs immensely rather than John loved hot dogs more than anyone else in the world). At the least, if we want to mention the claim of uniqueness, we would have to give attribution; for example, "students/adherents/disciples/practicioners of Aesthetic Realism believe the philosophy is unique in its emphasis on the importance of poetry".

• The last paragraph is a little short. Can we expand it by either focusing a bit more on how poetry is seen as reflective of/connected to/insightful about life? Or we could be specific about how people studying AR use poems for education/inspiration, etc.

Misc

• There's a seemingly common phrase I've come across that I think would be worth incorporating: "the world, art, and self, explain eachother: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites"... Maybe we could use it in the last/second-to-last paragraph as a way to flesh out the connections.

Generally * It reads well, and the references are excellent. I'd like to see a little more of the actual flavor of his poetry.

• I'd also like to try and explain why Siegel thought a union of opposites in poetry is what made [successful] poetry successful (there were, presumably, and I think ARists have explicitly argued, different theories about what made poems work before Siegel's). In other words, where did he get his theory from??? Was it observation of the world around him, did he induct the logic from poetry that worked, was it influenced at all by past philosophers of either aesthetics or metaphysics. Obviously, we'd need references to address this, but I find the philosophy a little isolated, as if it popped up out of nowhere from just a fantastic poem. If that is how Siegel described it, then fine, but if there are any hints as to the roots, the etiology of the whole thing, it'd be useful.

• You clearly established that the poem was mocked. You didn't mention that ARists view this as a form of contempt (i.e. the sclerotic mind quote from WCW). Do you want to address the conception/reaction of ARists to the poem's reception.

* Otherwise, I think it works well, and could easily be on the mainpage in a few days. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Trouver's Response

To IP71: I look forward to answering your questions, but my commitments today take me beyond Wikipedia. Some of the points you raise can be easily resolved while others are large. I will begin taking up each of your points this evening, and also attempt to correct some of the formatting problems in this entry and, particularly, the footnotes. Thank you for your comments.Trouver (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC):

OK, I just spent an hour answering all your questions and then lost it when I tried to save it, so I'm just going to put all the answers here and not copy your questions:

1) Perhaps I was mistaken in my belief that the citation from Contemporary Authors makes it clear that Eli Siegel said this. See change above and addition of the citation from Vincent Starrett in the Chicago Sunday Tribune (July 28, 1957, Part 4, Page 4) who said: “It is a longish poem, at once serious and jocose; an essay, according to Siegel, in Aesthetic Realism; and Aesthetic Realism, he says, is “about [how] the having-to-do-withness or relation of people, is they, is themselves.”

P. 2: parodies. I am not for dealing further with parodies on the grounds that, as you say yourself, it “verges on being off-topic.” I could say much about this, but it would be “original research.” “Hot Afternoons” was innovative in several ways. To put it most succinctly: (1) it was a long poem, 99 lines, (2) it was free-verse, which in 1925 was still new to many Americans, and not entirely accepted as “poetry” (3) perhaps the largest objection to the poem was that it included more things in space and time than people were accustomed to, and some found it too “jumpy” or jazzy for their tastes. Others loved it. Today’s culture is enthralled with the idea of time travel, and jets (and the internet) have made distant parts of the world and foreign cultures familiar to most people, but some Americans, in 1925, objected to the way the poem went from a graceful bird flying over a quiet green field in Montana on a hot afternoon to Indians shouting in battle, to “Monks in cool, black monasteries, thinking of God, studying Virgil” to “Singapore, Alabama, Brazil” to Westminster Abbey, Cape Cod, the Rocky Mountains, and the elegant salons of Paris, etc. The poem goes back and forth in time and space; people of distant lands and times are presented with vividness and depth. The big thing is the way it praised the world—a world that includes war and love, beauty and illness, both the ugliness and grandeur of humanity. It praised the world in an innovative way, as the music of Beethoven did—and that, too, was controversial at first, and as the poetry of John Keats did (also condemned by "authorities" when it first appeared). Secondary sources simply state that the poem was controversial and move on, as I think this entry should. I think detailing of objections to the poem is off-topic.

If you want to add: the magazine’s editors, fine. See above.

As to your comments on how Aesthetic Realism sees relation, and the transition between this idea and opposites—this is very important. It isn’t exactly as you put it, that “a thing is defined by everything around it.” “Hot Afternoons,” Mr. Siegel said, was the artistic expression of an earlier essay called “The Scientific Criticism,” in which he speaks of the need to see what one thing has in common with every other thing. He had, at this early time in his life, a passionate conviction that there was something that every instance of reality had in common with every other instance or thing in reality. It was not until years later that he set down exactly what all things have in common, and that is the statement you like and want to quote, which is the basis of Aesthetic Realism: “The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites.”

If you can assist me in clarifying this issue without adding extensively to this section (because it is already longer than the existing section) I would be most grateful.

The matter of music in poetry is huge. It is not “jargon” because music is something even a child can grasp as a concept. Having taught poetry to children—including those of different lands, whose first language was not English—I’ve seen that they all understand quickly eagerly that there is such a thing as music in words, just as they understand that there is such a thing as beauty. That is different from being able to say exactly what beauty is. As a matter of fact, I began to study Aesthetic Realism in order to find out exactly what music in poetry is. This is something I wanted to know from the time my 11th grade English teacher mentioned that certain lines of Shakespeare were musical. As a musician, I wanted to know—as you say, explicitly—what music in poetry is. Aristotle, Horace, and Longinus, Philip Sidney, Alexander Pope, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Matthew Arnold and others say important things about music in poetry. Having read all of the above, I quoted the clearest statement I know on the subject: Eli Siegel’s definition, that poetry is “the oneness of the permanent opposites in reality as seen by an individual.”

Well, there is much documentation on this subject, essays written by Eli Siegel, published in poetry magazines and The Right of Aesthetic Realism to Be Known. There is much written by Ellen Reiss, and others who have studied Aesthetic Realism, including myself, but again, I’ve been told that writing by anyone with any affiliation to Aesthetic Realism will be considered primary source material, and the entry already has a lot of this.

I don’t agree that putting the last sentence first would make things clearer, because the definition is the clearest and simplest on the subject. How music comes from “like of the world” I think should follow the definition. How music in poetry is the oneness of opposites is detailed by Eli Siegel and others in the sources mentioned above. Poetry shows that pain and grief, even anger, can be musical, expressed with a form that makes the world look better, more sensible to people.

You object to the word unique. How about the word central? I'll try to come up with something better.

The literary critic who comes closest to saying it is opposites that make for beauty in poetry is Samuel Taylor Coleridge (see Chapter XIV of his Biographis Literaria, and the Preface to the Lyrical Ballads). I think, however, that it would be disproportionate to single out any one critic or philosopher or poet as influencing Mr. Siegel. I can do a little research on those who influenced him most.

As to other theories of art that influenced Mr. Siegel: he knew them all, from the classics to his contemporaries, not only in the field of poetry, but as to painting, music, sculpture, architecture, dance, acting, literally all the arts, plus philosophy—he lectured extensively on Hegel and Kant and other philosophers, as well as all the religions, plus history and the scientific fields: sociology, anthropology, psychiatry.

As to contempt in the reaction to “Hot Afternoons”—I wouldn’t put it that way, and again, we don’t have any sources documenting this.

I do agree that the last paragraph is short and I’m thinking about how to fix this, incorporating your suggestions. I will try to answer this soon. I also agree there should be more poetry and will make a suggestion about this.

IN CONCLUSION: Thanks for your comment. I think we're progressing. I will try to incorporate your suggestions soon.Trouver (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I have updated my list with strike-throughs. I do like the word central in place of unique. The opening sentence is now well supported by the citation, and I like the attribution. I agree we don't need to include an example of the parody, but I'd like to incorporate some of the description of Hot Afternoon's style (as well as an excerpt). We'll have to work through the other issues individually; I don't see it being too difficult. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To IP 71: After some reflection, I am beginning to think you have a point about the matter of music in poetry. Although I am partial to the subject, it is complex, and might seem to the general reader a distraction from the large point of this section, which is the relation of poetry to this philosophy. Just wanted to let you know that I am thinking about this, and hope to make a suggestion soon.Trouver (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Trouver, glad you're considering it. I think it can be difficult to conceive of how something you believe and understand deeply could actually confuse a lay reader. Since Wikipedia is not a how-to guide (see WP:Nothowto), these pages can't teach or praise ideas, just describe them as clearly and accessibly as possible. Lucid prose is an ideal. Compelling prose is not. That's just the nature of this great beast, and while I appreciate the personal study which brought you to this article, it can be a constant effort to translate that through the Wikipedia filter of neutrality. Good luck! I don't always find it easy myself. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

P.s. If you'd like, you can indent your posts, so that they appear underneath but slightly to the right of the person you're responding to. The way to do this is to use a full colon (:) at the beginning of the line. Each (:) indents one unit more, so depending on how many people are involved, you can track who is responding to whom. Since, it's basically just a few editors here, it shouldn't matter, but it might be helpful to know on other pages. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how's this? I'm close to posting my revision, but, as you have undoubtedly observed, when it comes to Wikipedia formatting I'm not the sharpest pencil in the drawer. So how do I do this: do I make changes above, and let people use History to compare? If I enter everything below, won't it mess up the citations/footnotes? Thanks for your help.Trouver (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're learning quickly. Don't worry about formatting, etc; plenty of people on the site will give you a hand with any questions you have. I'd prefer if we posted substantial changes in a new section, so that it's easy to compare previous versions without having to go into the history. Here's how: At the top of the page, click "New Section", then post the draft in full. Format it however you like, and I'll clean up any minor issues. If it's helpful, I might also consolidate our 'to-do list', which includes past comments of mine and yours about specific issues. If I do, I'll make sure to preserve all of the text and keep who-said-what clear. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Meant to have this done, but I've got a family, and they come first--something came up--so I'll do this tomorrow morning. By the way, if I want to use in paragraph 3 a citation that I used for something else in paragraph 1: how do I do that?Trouver (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And when the indents just get ridiculous, start over on the left again... No problem, no rush. Wikipedia's not going anywhere... Well, the simple answer is just copy it. There's a better answer (something along the lines of ibid). You can either just copy it, or we'll figure it out after you post it. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. A word about neutrality: there simply are no "bad" reviews (since the function of criticism is the see the true value of something, praise is critical, too). I cannot find anything bad said about Siegel's two books of poetry: all reviewers gave the highest praise. So I tried to be "neutral" by quoting just a tiny amount and giving, instead, as you say, the "flavor" of the poetry. At any rate, I look forward to your comments, and I'm still researching other thinkers/writers who were the greatest influence on Siegel, but I'm trying to rein this section in as it keeps expanding.Trouver (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the ultimate function of criticism may be towards improvement (or true recognition), but I still think we can identify reviews which seek that end through praise as well as through criticism. I wasn't looking for "bad" reviews, just ones that were critical of the form/style/content of the poem. If they don't exist, fine. NPOV doesn't require we make up two sides to every story, I simply thought that ARists had mentioned the poem "wasn't well-received" by people who weren't ready to appreciate it, or something along those lines. I've started editing your new draft (2/25) in comments below it (bottom of the page). 71.224.206.164 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I just updated the 2-25 Poetry listing to include the Notes. Sorry I forgot to sign in so it's updated by an IP address. LoreMariano (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You probably don't care, but you might want to be careful about signing in as an ip address, since now the history of the page will permanently link your account to that IP, and then potentially your account to a geographic area. Some people are more privacy conscious than others, but accidental i.p. posts which then get replaced with a user-name are a classic way that anonymous wikipedia users have been outed. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm so used to being signed in automatically...this wasn't my machine or one I use very often. Thanks, this is good to know. LoreMariano (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the facts: When the poem "Hot Afternoons" won the award there was controversy, but there was absolutely no controversy with the two books of poetry that appeared: they were both highly praised by critics.Trouver (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's clear. The controversy was aroused after the award and subsequent publicity. I'm going to move discussion to below the new draft. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Poetry and Aesthetic Realism (2/25)

Eli Siegel stated that ideas central to the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism were implicitly present in “Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana,” the poem that brought him national fame in 1925, when it was selected from four thousand anonymously submitted poems as the winner of The Nation’s esteemed poetry prize. The magazine’s editors described it as “the most passionate and interesting poem which came in—a poem recording through magnificent rhythms a profound and important and beautiful vision of the earth on which afternoons and men have always existed.” These are two lines near the end of the poem:

Hot afternoons are real; afternoons are; places, things, thoughts, feelings are; poetry is;

The world is waiting to be known; Earth, what it has in it! The past is in it;...

“Hot Afternoons” was controversial; the innovative technique of this long, free-verse poem tended to polarize commentators, with much of the criticism taking the form of parody. “In Hot Afternoons,” Siegel later explained, “I tried to take many things that are thought of usually as being far apart and foreign and to show, in a beautiful way, that they aren’t so separate and that they do have a great deal to do with one another.” His search for what all things have in common, or what connects all branches of knowledge, led him to the philosophic opposites, which he described as the “realities common to all things,” and from this emerged a key concept of Aesthetic Realism: “The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites.”

Although he continued writing poetry, Siegel devoted most of his time over the next decades to developing the philosophy he later called Aesthetic Realism. In 1951, William Carlos Williams read “Hot Afternoons” again, and wrote: “Everything we most are compelled to do is in that one poem.” Siegel, he wrote, “belongs in the very first rank of our living artists.” The prize poem became the title poem of Siegel’s first volume, Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana: Poems, which was nominated for a National Book Award in 1958. A decade later, a second volume, Hail, American Development, also met with critical acclaim. “I think it’s about time Eli Siegel was moved up into the ranks of our acknowledged Leading Poets,” wrote Kenneth Rexroth, in the New York Times. Walter Leuba described Siegel’s poems as “alive in a burning honesty and directness” and yet, having “exquisite emotional tact.” He pointed to these lines, from “Dear Birds, Tell This to Mothers”:

Find the lost lines in

The writing that is your child, mothers. . .

Siegel defined poetry as “the oneness of the permanent opposites in reality as seen by an individual.” His students affirm that an important aspect of the philosophy continues to be the study of how a good poem has within it “the composition, beauty, sanity we want in ourselves." This education, they assert, “makes it possible for poetry to be, as Matthew Arnold said, a criticism of life."

Trouver (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

My very general response is that the information got better, but valuable content was also lost. I'm less concerned about length, and more interested in integrating the two drafts, using the better parts of each, and resolving the remaining holes that weren't filled in between them. I can either attempt to do that myself, and then get your comments, or we can go through one paragraph at a time (there are only 4 of them). 71.224.206.164 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good for a fresh eye, so why don't you try and if you need info (sources) I will try to locate them. Thanks.Trouver (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I can probably put something together by Monday. If you want to start gathering sources for the next section, we could attempt to stagger the editing so there's less down-time between sections. -User 71, out of town66.108.69.23 (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I was out of town this week-end without a laptop and must need some additional software to edit from my BB. I like your suggestion, though, and will gather sources for the rest of the article while you edit this. Thanks.Trouver (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Poetry and Aesthetic Realism(Combining 2 Drafts above 3/16)

Eli Siegel stated that ideas central to the philosophy of Aesthetic Realism were implicitly present in “Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana,” the poem that brought him national fame in 1925, when it was selected from four thousand anonymously submitted poems as the winner of The Nation’s esteemed poetry prize. The magazine’s editors described it as “the most passionate and interesting poem which came in—a poem recording through magnificent rhythms a profound and important and beautiful vision of the earth on which afternoons and men have always existed.” These are two lines near the end of the poem:

Hot afternoons are real; afternoons are; places, things, thoughts, feelings are; poetry is;

The world is waiting to be known; Earth, what it has in it! The past is in it;...

“Hot Afternoons” was controversial; the innovative technique of this long, free-verse poem tended to polarize commentators, with much of the criticism taking the form of parody. “In Hot Afternoons,” Siegel later explained, “I tried to take many things that are thought of usually as being far apart and foreign and to show, in a beautiful way, that they aren’t so separate and that they do have a great deal to do with one another.” His search for what all things have in common, or what connects all branches of knowledge, led him to the philosophic opposites, which he described as the “realities common to all things,” and from this emerged a key concept of Aesthetic Realism: “The world, art, and self explain each other: each is the aesthetic oneness of opposites.”

Although he continued writing poetry, Siegel devoted most of his time over the next decades to developing the philosophy he later called Aesthetic Realism. In 1951, William Carlos Williams read “Hot Afternoons” again, and wrote: “Everything we most are compelled to do is in that one poem.” Siegel, he wrote, “belongs in the very first rank of our living artists.” The prize poem became the title poem of Siegel’s first volume, Hot Afternoons Have Been in Montana: Poems, nominated for a National Book Award in 1958. A decade later, his second volume, Hail, American Development, also met with critical acclaim. “I think it’s about time Eli Siegel was moved up into the ranks of our acknowledged Leading Poets,” wrote Kenneth Rexroth, in the New York Times. Walter Leuba described Siegel’s poems as “alive in a burning honesty and directness” and yet, having “exquisite emotional tact.” He pointed to these lines, from “Dear Birds, Tell This to Mothers”:

Find the lost lines in

The writing that is your child, mothers. . .

Siegel defined poetry as “the oneness of the permanent opposites in reality as seen by an individual.” He maintained that music distinguishes true poetry, whatever the language, period or style; the music of a poem shows the poet has honestly perceived opposites as one, and sincerely united personal feelings with the impersonal structure of the world.“Poetry,” he explained, “arises out of a like of the world so intense and wide that of itself, it is musical.” His students affirm that an important aspect of the philosophy continues to be the study of how a good poem has within it “the composition, beauty, sanity we want in ourselves." This education, they assert, “makes it possible for poetry to be, as Matthew Arnold said, a criticism of life.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trouver (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC).