Jump to content
Finder

A LETTER TO GARETH ICKE

Recommended Posts

@GarethIcke  Thanks Gareth. You are full of light, thanks for the reply and everything else. It was informative. You took it the way I meant it and I appreciate it too. Much light your way!))

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2020 at 8:52 AM, Mitochondrial Eve said:

I would like to point out that I, for one, was not consulted. So, with the letter purporting to come from "many members of the forum" with the frequent use of the word "we", I was not one of those.

 

No? 

 

On 5/24/2020 at 5:41 PM, Finder said:

We do realise the recent hacking of the forum has brought you, David, the mods and the webmaster more troubles than was expected.

 

So, you are one of those who is completely oblivious to this fact? (i.e., you must not and can not be included in this "we") according to your statement quoted above for reference.

 

On 5/24/2020 at 5:41 PM, Finder said:

We do realise that you have a number of issues, conundrums and problems you'd rather not share and that you have to deal with right away and probably solve some of them simultaneously.

 

This realisation also happened to be outside of your awareness? As in: "I was not one of those" who realised this? Is that correct? So, you must not be included in this "we"?

 

On 5/24/2020 at 5:41 PM, Finder said:

We also realise that everyone on the management side of the forum is beyond busy and perhaps overwhelmed with new suddenly arising and totally unforeseen issues on a daily basis

 

This also has never occurred to you? Regardless of the funny fact that some members on this very thread actually mentioned their awareness of this fact in their posts? But for you, the existence of such an easily deducible fact, is somehow a total mystery and so, it follows, that by no means you can be included in this "we", correct?

 

  A question....

How conscious are you? Or perhaps, a more accurate question would be how un-conscious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Finder said:

 

No? 

 

 

So, you are one of those who is completely oblivious to this fact? (i.e., you must not and can not be included in this "we") according to your statement quoted above for reference.

 

 

This realisation also happened to be outside of your awareness? As in: "I was not one of those" who realised this? Is that correct? So, you must not be included in this "we"?

 

 

This also has never occurred to you? Regardless of the funny fact that some members on this very thread actually mentioned their awareness of this fact in their posts? But for you, the existence of such an easily deducible fact, is somehow a total mystery and so, it follows, that by no means you can be included in this "we", correct?

 

  A question....

How conscious are you? Or perhaps, a more accurate question would be how un-conscious...

 

Finder – you seem to suggest that I am not aware of the forum happenings and thus am of questionable consciousness. This misses the point of my comment concerning your letter.

 

Freedom of choice and consent are important principles to me and encompass what I see as personal responsibility. This includes having my own voice and being consulted with my consent obtained before somebody deigns to speak on my behalf.

 

I have read Larken Rose's 'The Most Dangerous Superstition' that ink has recently posted and this fits completely with the concept of personal responsibility and choice as oppose to blind acceptance of, and subservience to, what those in positions of authority may say and decide on our behalf. Furthermore, through the reading and research I have completed over many years regarding power dynamics, it is my understanding that there are two approaches / attitudes – “power over others” vs “personal power”. It is the latter of these two realities - which does not seek control over others - that I lean towards as the more desirable and effective for mankind and thus seek to pursue also on a personal level.

 

Is speaking out for my individual principles and preferences unconscious behaviour? Perhaps this entails consideration as to what us meant by unconsciousness. How I see unconscious behaviour is that a person has become embroiled within ego and fear-based reactions and lacks the awareness to recognise this. We are all guilty of this sometimes but I think the key to becoming conscious is to learn to realise when we are slipping into a fear-based response, due to a perceived sense of threat, which then often causes a desire to control another. I cannot agree, therefore, that seeking to pursue a path of personal responsibility and express one's own preferences falls within unconscious behaviour.

 

Regarding your comments suggesting that I am oblivious and lack the ability to deduce facts, my experience is that when others cast aspersions about another individual's perceived lack of intelligence, abilities or character and set out to define others, that this is a form of fear-based psychological projection. I would suggest that a more healthy and conscious response to somebody saying no is to respect the autonomy of the other person and accept their lack of consent rather than continuing to seek to assert your will on them which is the very definition, IMO, of unconscious behaviour and the “power over others” mentality.

 

Your response has certainly been thought provoking for which I am grateful and I would hope that the same would apply to you too.

Edited by Mitochondrial Eve
Spacing went awry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

First of all, your entire response is not aimed at what I said but clearly at a long term situation from your personal life, which I have nothing to do with, nor what I said here has anything to do with that particular story of yours.  That's for starters.

 

Now, let's go to my factual statements and actions and the meanings you invented and attached to them which you then felt free to replace with the facts and make me the author of YOUR meanings. You then felt free to accuse me of your just mentioned meanings.

19 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

Is speaking out for my individual principles and preferences unconscious behaviour? Perhaps this entails consideration as to what us meant by unconsciousness.

 

Unconscious behaviour is when you do sth (mentally, emotionally or physically) and you don't know/not aware you do it. Plain and simple. Please stop constructing multistory abstract concepts that divorce you with reality.

 

Conscious behaviour (mental, emotional or social) is when you do sth (say, feel, think, believe) and you are in full memory and full awareness that you do it. Nothing more and nothing else.

 

19 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

Finder – you seem to suggest that I am not aware of the forum happenings and thus am of questionable consciousness. This misses the point of my comment concerning your letter.

 

No, I don't. It's you who suggests it. What I imply is quite literally the following:

 

When I said:

"We do realise the recent hacking of the forum has brought you, David, the mods and the webmaster more troubles than was expected."  ----if you are fully aware of it, i.e. conscious of it, have a direct recognition of this fact, then using a very basic logic, it is your thought as well that I happened to express.

 

"We do realise that you have a number of issues, conundrums and problems you'd rather not share and that you have to deal with right away" -----if you are fully conscious of this fact too as the one taking place, I happened to voice your realisation on this matter as well.

 

"We also realise that everyone on the management side of the forum is beyond busy and perhaps overwhelmed with new suddenly arising and totally unforeseen issues on a daily basis"---------- if you are conscious, i.e. have a direct and clear perception and realisation of these events, then god damn it, I again managed to voice your awareness of this ongoing situation as well!

 

If you are fully conscious of the things that the three above statements mentioned, than it follows, I did express your awareness and knowledge of the situation. Plain and simple. 

 

On the other hand, if you are unconscious of (i.e., unaware of) the things that the three above statements of mine express, then sure, these above statements of mine do not express your awareness of these things. In which case you can not be included into the "we" pronoun used by me. Is that the case or not?

 

Hence, my question in the previous reply to you that reads: "how conscious/unconscious you are?" 

 

You say:

 

"Regarding your comments suggesting that I am oblivious and lack the ability to deduce facts, my experience is that when others cast aspersions about another individual's perceived lack of intelligence, abilities or character and set out to define others, that this is a form of fear-based psychological projection."

 

You are projecting onto yourself lots of stuff that you, for some odd reason, accuse others of, in this case me.

My comments suggest that if you are fully conscious of what I voiced at the beginning of my letter, then your demand to be excluded from the "we" pronoun contradicts basic logic and your claim that you are conscious of those things. Plain and simple. What you somehow made out of it is your very own invention. And stop making me the author of your assumptions and mental inventions. I am ONLY responsible for what I say, not for what people make out of it.

 

 

 

Edited by Finder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I will say that I currently dislike the path this thread has taken.

 

43 minutes ago, Finder said:

If you are fully conscious of the things that the three above statements mentioned, than it follows, I did express your awareness and knowledge of the situation. Plain and simple. 

 

I never agreed to your 'letter' .... while some parts I also hold .... I didn't agree that you would 'talk' for me and I didn't agree to the 'timing'!

 

Thus you were incorrect to use 'we' .... it should have just been from you.

 

There is much I could say here but it is not the time to do so!

Edited by ink
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, ink said:

I will say that I currently dislike the path this thread has taken.

 

 

I never agreed to your 'letter' .... while some parts I also hold .... I didn't agree that you would 'talk' for me and I didn't agree to the 'timing'!

 

Thus you were incorrect to use 'we' .... it should have just been from you.

 

There is much I could say here but it is not the time to do so!

 

Ink, I am only replying to the posts of Mitoch. Eve. Those who didn't agree to the letter have just dismissed it. Which was expected. I used "we" because of what has transpired on other threads. That's all. Putting many voices into one place. I said many people realise this and that. And some other do not. And yet others simply couldn't care less. I dislike when my words and meaning are twisted. So this reply is to the one who twisted the whole thing.

 

You yourself partly told us they are busy with numerous things. So, what's the harm to you personally that I mentioned the general awareness of the forumites of what is most probably taking place on the side of the webmaster and Ickes that is solving the problem? In which way I misrepresented you specifically? You are or were not aware they are multitasking and dealing with unexpected problems at the moment? I simply mentioned that I and others here take it into account. What specifically is wrong with that? First of all this is not the destination or a direction of my arguments, second of all, even if it was, what's so harmful in it?  

Edited by Finder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

letter or not....

 

the new or "back up forum" will be ready when Gareth and rest of the team feel it will work(be safer)

 

i'm pretty sure we don't know all the facts and all the attacks which are/where happening

 

so it is logical it needs time to get back to "old state"

 

not to mention people have lifes and there just isn't enough time for everything.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Finder said:

I dislike when my words and meaning are twisted. So reply to the one who twisted the whole thing.

 

I didn't read any twisting of your words .... and the words were YOURS not from all others.

 

You do not speak for the many .... you spoke for you but included 'others' without their consent nor their knowledge .... thus while your thoughts may have some attachment to your own nature .... You should not describe others via your determination of current events!

 

I disagree with you including me, personally, into your considerations regarding the status of the forum .... I shall voice my concerns as I wish to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, screamingeagle said:

letter or not....

 

the new or "back up forum" will be ready when Gareth and rest of the team feel it will work(be safer)

 

i'm pretty sure we don't know all the facts and all the attacks which are/where happening

 

so it is logical it needs time to get back to "old state"

 

not to mention people have lifes and there just isn't enough time for everything.....

 

Exactly! This is why I said, from the very beginning that we and I too, with all the damn tech glitches take it into acc. I am totally with you on this one. Agree with all you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ink said:

You should not describe others via your determination of current events!

 

Give me a factual quote of this. Concrete example, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, ink said:

I didn't read any twisting of your words .... and the words were YOURS not from all others.

 

The twisting of my words were in recent replies of Mitochond.Eve, not anywhere else. TO HER recent posts I am replying. Not to anything else! Or anybody else for that matter.

Edited by Finder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ink said:

I disagree with you including me, personally, into your considerations regarding the status of the forum .... I shall voice my concerns as I wish to.

 

If it will make you feel better, go ahead and register your complaint. Or post an open disagreement with everything I said in the letter. With Mitoch. Eve I am NOT talking about the letter, but other latest posts by her here. How the two of you (you & Mitoch.Eve) could make a simple logic embedded in my 3 entering statements over complicated and present it as a criminal offense, I have no idea. Go through the threads (outside of this one) and read the comments of others and see what they publicly say with the original consent of every poster that they would imply or attach to their info being public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Then you say:

"Freedom of choice and consent are important principles to me and encompass what I see as personal responsibility. This includes having my own voice and being consulted with my consent obtained before somebody deigns to speak on my behalf."

 

Ok. So, next time David or someone like him has the audacity to state sth like "Every person is an infinite awareness in the sea of Consciousness" he must be condemned and judged because he hasn't obtained the consent of others who may think and actually do think otherwise? I am only following your train of thought.

Or maybe FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND CONSENT is rather about exactly what DI so rightly stated, that (paraphrasing) "I can say whatever the hell I deem true, right and appropriate and while I have my freedom to say it, I give you freedom to agree with it or not. You are free to have any opinion about me you wish to have, and I have absolute freedom not to be affected by it".

 

Freedom of choice implies everybody has full freedom of expression of their thought, their awareness, their vision, and their views. You may agree or disagree with them, you may have a debate about it which should be based not on opinions and assumptions, but on actual happenings, direct awareness and verifiable facts. And don't you dare to tell me or anybody else here what any of us can or can not say on DI forum. To the best of my awareness, as long as I don't actively, aggressively, bitterly and unreasonably insult and accuse others or project onto them sth that has nothing to do with their statements, as long as I don't make others here responsible for the weather in my universe, I can say whatever I find necessary or appropriate to say.

 

Your current "inner freedom", lady, is an imprisonment if it gets contracted, affected or intimidated every time when someone else says what you yourself had no guts and no freedom to say, be or do. I do not limit your freedom. In fact no one does, You do it!

Edited by Finder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Members post their concerns as they wish .... None of them agreed to your posting your opening post in their individual voice and none gave you the right to speak for them .... you decided to do that and then you have taken one opposing post, which only stated that the member didn't wish you to talk for them and you have attacked that member.

 

This I dislike as it is not required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ink said: "post, which only stated that the member didn't wish you to talk for them and you have attacked that member."

 

Attacked? May I have an example? She accused me of a number of things in her latest posts, I had to go to the original statements for reference.

 

Forget about the letter and what I said there. Let's say, you mentioned here and there that the info on webpages must be saved and you are aware that any info can be taken off the i-net. Let's, for the argument sake, say that I have the same awareness about the same thing. So if I, by any chance, mention anywhere that "we", meaning you and me (and perhaps someone else who expressed the same concerns) if I say "we (=the two of us) are aware that the info on the i-net must be saved before it's taken offline by, ,say big tech", I am somehow limiting or infringing your rights as an individual? And you, even though you think this way and are aware of such a situation must not be included in my use of "we" pronoun? Is that what you are saying? This is my crime???  

Edited by Finder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Line on the left , one cross each ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MrA said:

Line on the left , one cross each ....

 

Hi, good to see you here. lol I can not determine the nature or purpose or the need of the fight, to be frank, so I am not participating. I was simply clarifying the definitions of the consciousness and unconsciousness for Mit.Eve, and fighting with a few tech glitches at the same time. Fighting with anybody or anything else at this point is outside of my interests or intentions. I am trying to figure out how to reply by breaking my post into 2 and still remain coherent in my reply to Mitochondria's latest post. But that's just my take on the matter. With a number of retro planet at the moment I am not at all surprised at people interpreting this reality from some unknown to me place on the most simle of subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people who just want to argue, "You said..." and "No, you said...", can you please start your own "We want to argue"  mega-thread?  The rest of us would like to stay on topic instead of scrolling through someone's feud that's never going to end.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, motleyhoo said:

You people who just want to argue, "You said..." and "No, you said...", can you please start your own "We want to argue"  mega-thread?  The rest of us would like to stay on topic instead of scrolling through someone's feud that's never going to end.

 

 

Who is arguing? I don't even know what Ink's all about. I have no argument with him about anything. He came and said he doesn't like where the topic is going without actually clarifying what or who I was replying and why I mentioned what I did. I couldn't post in one post because of the glitches, so he is not even in the know of the direction or main point of my posts and only saw bits and pieces from which he drew his conclusions. I have no idea what the fuss is all about. He issued some statements, I asked him to submit me with concrete evidence.

 

The topic of my reply is actually about the freedom of speech, mainly. And factual perception, not the one based on opinions or personal unfinished stories. Give me a break, will you? I do not require any company at this moment, just want to finish what I started 40mins ago. The site has been on and off line, at least on my side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Mitochondrial Eve

Your words: "I would still prefer to post my own views as an individual" So?.. Who's preventing you? Who or what are you opposing here? I posted my thoughts as an individual, never complained to anyone about my right and possibility to do it. Others followed the same fashion in regards to their posts. Have other people posts prevented your posting of your posts as an individual? What are you on about?

 

Then you say:

 

"How I see unconscious behaviour is that a person has become embroiled within ego and fear-based reactions and lacks the awareness to recognise this. We are all guilty of this sometimes but I think the key to becoming conscious is to learn to realise when we are slipping into a fear-based response, due to a perceived sense of threat, which then often causes a desire to control another. I cannot agree, therefore, that seeking to pursue a path of personal responsibility and express one's own preferences falls within unconscious behaviour." 

 

Are you talking to me or to yourself here? Or to someone else who I can not know? Exactly what the hell does it have to do with my right to inform the management of what is happening on the forum with plethora of tech issues making the used to be easy interaction between the forum members difficult (probs with posting), many members leaving (who used to be active), really decreased number of visits and increasingly low spirited moods?

 

Has it ever occurred to your supreme intelligence that I simply cared? Cared enough to say it as sincerely and honestly as I did? Did you notice that 10 other people actually appreciated that I said it? Has it ever occurred to you that you could have written such a letter too? Have you realised it that you didn't and I did? Have you realised I didn't write it for me, but for everyone, because I don't intend to spend much of my time here anyway, but I see other member here who love this place (I now officially don't mean you are one of them, as your comment requests). I see other members here who love meeting all those who contribute to their life in some indirect way and now with all these tech glitches and no info from Gareth, well, the place is just not the same any more. Has it ever occurred to you that I consider all regularly participating, esp long term forumites, and their contribution and participation in DI work just as important and valuable as the DI.com management and their contribution? Has it ever occurred to your offended and non-consensual arse that without the forum and what takes place here, the realisations, info, connections people make, etc, DI work will be affected in an undesirable way?  Never occurred? But your judgement of what I said based on your fantasies and fear of judgement from perhaps Ickes side did occur to you! Whenever DI or his sons were unwelcoming and uninviting honesty? Whenever they needed your approval? I value and appreciate them all most of all their ability to be their own creators of their own reality, I presented things as they were, not as sth else.

 

And even with that aside, you are disturbed by how what I said in my letter - has compromised your freedom of choice and consent, - all based entirely on your self made assumptions. And then you somehow arrived at a conclusion that I am selfish and you are the fearless! Outstanding reasoning! Well done indeed!

 

You say:

"I have read Larken Rose's 'The Most Dangerous Superstition' that ink has recently posted and this fits completely with the concept of personal responsibility and choice as oppose to blind acceptance of, and subservience to, what those in positions of authority may say and decide on our behalf."

 

So you decided to oppose my views expressed in my letter to practice the opposition of blind acceptance? You know what, go out there and oppose your blind acceptance of the banking rules, vaccine regulations, existence and use of passports and obeying the local police, eh? My letter and what I say is not an issue at all, go to the place where such issue is self-evident, and oppose the blind acceptance there, will you dare to? I am not your or anybody else's authority. Nor do I wish to be anyone's authority. If you made me one or assumed I am one for you or others, then who is here to blame?

 

Then you say:

Furthermore, through the reading and research I have completed over many years regarding power dynamics, it is my understanding that there are two approaches / attitudes – “power over others” vs “personal power”. It is the latter of these two realities - which does not seek control over others - that I lean towards as the more desirable and effective for mankind and thus seek to pursue also on a personal level.  What on Earth does that have to do with the content of my letter or my posts on this thread?

 

Go to discuss this philosophy with Ink on a corresponding thread. The content of Larken Rose book and the no brainer that you took you years of research have nothing to do with the topic of this thread! And if you, by any chance, assumed that I, in my letter, pursued the power over another, then give me a concrete, actual quote. Give me facts, don't give me your opinions, they are YOUR points of view, they ARE NOT FACTS of reality.

 

In your previous post you stated:

 "Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the questions asserted in the OP's letter, nor all of its content, I would like to point out that I, for one, was not consulted."

 

I was not aware I need to consult 3000+ registered members of the forum to post my thoughts, concerns and ideas. I was not aware I need to get YOUR approval to post my observation about anything here. I was not aware I need any member permission or that any member needs my permission to deliver to the management the info they need to have.

 

I am infinitely amazed at what and how many things your fantasies about my letter triggered in you.

 

Want to know the difference between fantasies and facts? Here it goes.

 

Your actual statement:

"....with the letter purporting to come from "many members of the forum" with the frequent use of the word "we",...."

 

The actual facts regarding the letter:

 

Total letter word count: 1130

Out of which,

 

Total number of the use of "we" that refers to the forumites: 6 times,  i.e. 0.53% of the entire letter.

 

The total number of "we" that does not refer to forumites used: 2 times

 

If we take the total number of "we" referring and not referring to the forumites is 8 times,

out 1130 words, which is still the minute 0.71%, i.e., is less than 1%. How is that frequent???????????

 

 

 

Edited by Finder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit off topic but if Gareth happens to see this then is there any chance ickonic could have an option to pay be on a monthly subscription please? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are all the threads, from before the forum hack, being migrated over to the new forum? Or is it just the threads that are currently available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys I've seen this mentioned before but have no idea what it is.  What is ickonic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×