David Icke: what do people see in him?

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby MagsJ » Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:33 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:I'm having a good time here now. Got some good mates, and none of them like David Icke which I'm pleased about.

Lol

I love the Tate museum btw - I don't live anywhere near, but I'd visit it every week if I could!

The Tate is awesome.. all the museums and galleries are awesome. :D

Have you visited any of the royal parks and/or London Zoo? I haven’t been since first lockdown, but I’m starting to get my enthusiasm back..

I had a major crash a few years back, from a vax injury, and it’s been the slowest crawl ever back to rebuilding my health and energy-levels.. there was no time for a wonderful love, but there is now. : )
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25080
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 09, 2021 8:45 pm

Maia wrote:
I think that a constitutional monarchy where the reserve powers of the Crown are used to defend democracy and the rule of law, is a very good thing. It brings continuity and stability. It's true that it occasionally throws up a completely unsuitable character to occupy the throne, as with Edward VIII in 1936, but he was forced out in less than a year.


Your excerpts from Icke remind me of Ecmandu here. And sometimes Meno and Adam.

Seriously though, back to the gap between what some claim to believe and what they are actually able to demonstrate is true. And especially [for me] even to themselves. What in their lives brought them to believe this and not something else. And how, had their lives been different, might they perhaps have found such beliefs ridiculous. Only in considering this can we then shift the focus to what those like scientists and philosophers can establish as either more or less reasonable to believe.

As for monarchies [constitutional or otherwise], I am more inclined myself to shrink them down to being pretty much out of the picture altogether. I simply associate them historically with everything that is undemocratic. And to the extent citizens can become preoccupied with them doesn't seem [to me] all that far removed from citizens being preoccupied with Gods.

But that no doubt is derived existentially from my own many experiences as a political activist drawn to the political philosophy of those like Marx.

And I would never argue that those who support the existence of a constitutional monarchy in their own country are wrong to do so. In fact, I can't even argue that those who want to bring back the monarchies of old are wrong.

But that's "me".
Last edited by iambiguous on Tue Aug 10, 2021 3:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46435
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Tue Aug 10, 2021 12:04 am

conspiracy types make stupid people feel smart
pending
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 32472
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:28 am

Really? Iambiguous? You slander a person you won’t debate because you’re “too nice”

You’re a psychopath.

Actually, join an official debate with me on that.

5 posts each.

Topic: iambiguous is a clinical psychopath
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:04 am

Ecmandu wrote:Really? Iambiguous? You slander a person you won’t debate because you’re “too nice”

You’re a psychopath.

Actually, join an official debate with me on that.

5 posts each.

Topic: iambiguous is a clinical psychopath


Did I or did I not say "seriously though" after noting your name?

It was all said in jest my friend!! 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46435
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:12 am

iambiguous wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Really? Iambiguous? You slander a person you won’t debate because you’re “too nice”

You’re a psychopath.

Actually, join an official debate with me on that.

5 posts each.

Topic: iambiguous is a clinical psychopath


Did I or did I not say "seriously though" after noting your name?

It was all said in jest my friend!! 8)


I’m not used to jest. I’ve lived in and been to hell realms you can’t imagine. I survived them by always being the smartest person. I was nice to you.

If you talk to me like a hell being, expect a little pushback ... if you keep doing it, expect to be sent there.
The purpose of life is to give everyone individually what they always want at the expense of no being - forever.

The biggest problem of life is the, “hey, I don’t want this to be happening” problem for everyone.

Welcome to thinking.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 16011
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am
Location: Duh. Existence. I'm sure that'd be wrong on SAT's!

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:33 am

MagsJ wrote:Have you visited any of the royal parks and/or London Zoo? I haven’t been since first lockdown, but I’m starting to get my enthusiasm back..

I had a major crash a few years back, from a vax injury, and it’s been the slowest crawl ever back to rebuilding my health and energy-levels.. there was no time for a wonderful love, but there is now. : )

Yeah I've done a zoo in London, was pretty great! I've got a walk-with-the-wolves experience coming up soon on the west coast near the lake District.

What's a Vax injury? I read that as "vaccination injury" but... that can't be right, can it? Whatever it was, it sounds brutal :(

Are you recovered now?
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 6293
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Maia » Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:38 am

iambiguous wrote:
Maia wrote:
I think that a constitutional monarchy where the reserve powers of the Crown are used to defend democracy and the rule of law, is a very good thing. It brings continuity and stability. It's true that it occasionally throws up a completely unsuitable character to occupy the throne, as with Edward VIII in 1936, but he was forced out in less than a year.


Your excerpts from Icke remind me of Ecmandu here. And sometimes Meno and Adam.

Seriously though, back to the gap between what some claim to believe and what they are actually able to demonstrate is true. And especially [for me] even to themselves. What in their lives brought them to believe this and not something else. And how, had their lives been different, might they perhaps have found such beliefs ridiculous. Only in considering this can we then shift the focus to what those like scientists and philosophers can establish as either more or less reasonable to believe.

As for monarchies [constitutional or otherwise], I am more inclined myself to shrink them down to being pretty much out of the picture altogether. I simply associate them historically with everything that is undemocratic. And to the extent citizens can become preoccupied with them doesn't seem [to me] all that far removed from citizens being preoccupied with Gods.

But that no doubt is derived existentially from my own many experiences as a political activist drawn to the political philosophy of those like Marx.

And I would never argue that those who support the existence of a constitutional monarchy in their own country are wrong to do so. In fact, I can't even argue that those who want to bring back the monarchies of old are wrong.

But that's "me".


Well, I gave Mr Icke a chance, as I do with everyone, but I'm not going to torture my brain any further with his ramblings. Incidentally, his name rhymes with "pike", and not "sick", despite what my screenreader keeps wanting to tell me.

I don't think there's any fundamental meaning to existence that's the same for everyone, so trying to demonstrate such a thing is probably futile. Just as life is what we choose to make it, so is its meaning. That's my opinion, anyway, based on my experiences. I have taken meaning from nature around me, but this is because I happen to have an affinity with it, and always have had. As I've said often, I truly feel I've been very lucky in life, and this is exactly why.

As for monarchy, I suppose it depends on the monarchy. In England monarchs were never absolute, and always had to rely on their council, or what later became known as parliament, to govern. And since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 monarchs have reigned at the invitation of parliament, not the other way round.

Yes, monarchs have always cloaked themselves in the aura of religion in order to sanctify their person, and this is exactly why they can be above politics, and why they can be impartial in law. I think this would only work though in a country that already had a very well established monarchy.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby iambiguous » Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:51 pm

Maia wrote:Well, I gave Mr Icke a chance, as I do with everyone, but I'm not going to torture my brain any further with his ramblings. Incidentally, his name rhymes with "pike", and not "sick", despite what my screenreader keeps wanting to tell me.


Just out of curiosity, who decides what screen readers want to tell those who use them? I Googled "screen readers for the blind" and came up with this: https://www.wired.com/story/web-accessi ... s-dominos/

Are there any controversaries you are aware of in regard to them. Aside from technical issues like pronunciation.

Maia wrote:I don't think there's any fundamental meaning to existence that's the same for everyone, so trying to demonstrate such a thing is probably futile. Just as life is what we choose to make it, so is its meaning. That's my opinion, anyway, based on my experiences. I have taken meaning from nature around me, but this is because I happen to have an affinity with it, and always have had. As I've said often, I truly feel I've been very lucky in life, and this is exactly why.


Yes, I basically think and feel the same way about an essential meaning and purpose to our existence. On the other hand, I am also willing to acknolwedge that there may well be one. Rooted either in religion or ideology or nature. Instead, in focusing in on existential meaning, I keep coming back to dasein. Noting how I understand that to others in my signature threads and hoping for feedback regarding why others either share or do not share my conclusions.

And, no doubt about it: luck is no small thing in anyone's life.

It's just that, given how my own conclusions about all this have resulted in a "fractured and fragmented" sense of self/reality, I don't come across many who are really willing to grapple with the possibility it might be true for them as well. In fact, the main reason my own life is now "imploded" into basically a solitary existence, is that one by one all of the many friends I had from my days as a political activist pulled away from me. And, sure, given how "I" construe myself in the world around me "here and now", I really can't blame them. I really want nothing more than to yank myself up out of the hole I've dug myself into philosophically.

Maia wrote:As for monarchy, I suppose it depends on the monarchy. In England monarchs were never absolute, and always had to rely on their council, or what later became known as parliament, to govern. And since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 monarchs have reigned at the invitation of parliament, not the other way round.

Yes, monarchs have always cloaked themselves in the aura of religion in order to sanctify their person, and this is exactly why they can be above politics, and why they can be impartial in law. I think this would only work though in a country that already had a very well established monarchy.


I think of monarchies as rooted by in large in the organic, historical evolution of political economy. Which means that the fundamental meaning behind human interactions must revolve first and foremost in any community's capacity to feed themselves, to clothe and shelter themselves, to defend themselves, to create an environment conducive to the reproduction of the community.

And that revolves by and large around the economic means of production and who owns and operate them. In the West, very nearly close to absolute monarchies existed by and large in Feudal times. But as merchants and trade burgeoned throughout Europe and beyond, the Feudal order gave way to mercantilism which, over time, gave way to capitalism. And there was no room for monarchies in the world where "the market" ruled.

And to the extent those like Icke and others fail to take that into consideration, they can think and believe almost anything.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46435
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Maia » Wed Aug 11, 2021 11:49 am

iambiguous wrote:
Maia wrote:Well, I gave Mr Icke a chance, as I do with everyone, but I'm not going to torture my brain any further with his ramblings. Incidentally, his name rhymes with "pike", and not "sick", despite what my screenreader keeps wanting to tell me.


Just out of curiosity, who decides what screen readers want to tell those who use them? I Googled "screen readers for the blind" and came up with this: https://www.wired.com/story/web-accessi ... s-dominos/

Are there any controversaries you are aware of in regard to them. Aside from technical issues like pronunciation.

Maia wrote:I don't think there's any fundamental meaning to existence that's the same for everyone, so trying to demonstrate such a thing is probably futile. Just as life is what we choose to make it, so is its meaning. That's my opinion, anyway, based on my experiences. I have taken meaning from nature around me, but this is because I happen to have an affinity with it, and always have had. As I've said often, I truly feel I've been very lucky in life, and this is exactly why.


Yes, I basically think and feel the same way about an essential meaning and purpose to our existence. On the other hand, I am also willing to acknolwedge that there may well be one. Rooted either in religion or ideology or nature. Instead, in focusing in on existential meaning, I keep coming back to dasein. Noting how I understand that to others in my signature threads and hoping for feedback regarding why others either share or do not share my conclusions.

And, no doubt about it: luck is no small thing in anyone's life.

It's just that, given how my own conclusions about all this have resulted in a "fractured and fragmented" sense of self/reality, I don't come across many who are really willing to grapple with the possibility it might be true for them as well. In fact, the main reason my own life is now "imploded" into basically a solitary existence, is that one by one all of the many friends I had from my days as a political activist pulled away from me. And, sure, given how "I" construe myself in the world around me "here and now", I really can't blame them. I really want nothing more than to yank myself up out of the hole I've dug myself into philosophically.

Maia wrote:As for monarchy, I suppose it depends on the monarchy. In England monarchs were never absolute, and always had to rely on their council, or what later became known as parliament, to govern. And since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 monarchs have reigned at the invitation of parliament, not the other way round.

Yes, monarchs have always cloaked themselves in the aura of religion in order to sanctify their person, and this is exactly why they can be above politics, and why they can be impartial in law. I think this would only work though in a country that already had a very well established monarchy.


I think of monarchies as rooted by in large in the organic, historical evolution of political economy. Which means that the fundamental meaning behind human interactions must revolve first and foremost in any community's capacity to feed themselves, to clothe and shelter themselves, to defend themselves, to create an environment conducive to the reproduction of the community.

And that revolves by and large around the economic means of production and who owns and operate them. In the West, very nearly close to absolute monarchies existed by and large in Feudal times. But as merchants and trade burgeoned throughout Europe and beyond, the Feudal order gave way to mercantilism which, over time, gave way to capitalism. And there was no room for monarchies in the world where "the market" ruled.

And to the extent those like Icke and others fail to take that into consideration, they can think and believe almost anything.


Ultimately, the designers of the software, but I can switch to individual letter mode if I want. I suppose the main controversy with JAWS is its price. Luckily I have a job, but it can be prohibitive for those not in paid employment.

I think that luck, or fate, is the guiding force of the universe. Not in a negative sense, but rather, in the interconnectedness of all things. Or nature, in other words. You can change your own luck very easily by changing your frame of mind, at least in my experience, and that's all anyone needs to do to drag themselves up out of any hole they might have dug themselves into. That's the absolute best advice I can give on that, though I fully realise it may sound simplistic or trite. Sometimes, the simple things happen to be the true ones.

I imagine Icke would like to overthrow the monarchy and set himself up instead. But yes, monarchies have to adapt to the times in order to survive, and those that don't, which is basically almost all of them, end up on the scrap heap of history. The Windsors are famous, however, for bending with the wind. No one likes or trusts politicians, or anyone who seeks power, but the monarch remains aloof from all that. Or should do, at any rate.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby MagsJ » Wed Aug 11, 2021 2:33 pm

Maia wrote:Legends of lost civilisations are fascinating, with or without weapons of mass destruction, but I would always hesitate to ascribe them to aliens, rather than human ingenuity.

I am open to the possibility of such innovations being the ingenuity of aliens.. what could possibly have happened to the previous civilisations that might have come before us? There is evidence of cities, but not of bodies.

Regardless of that, I too find it all very interesting..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25080
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby MagsJ » Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:09 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote:Yeah I've done a zoo in London, was pretty great! I've got a walk-with-the-wolves experience coming up soon on the west coast near the lake District.

I recently read that the EU has been trying to renaturalise the UK with bear and wolf populations for years now, but I think the UK went with containing them in our National Parks.. the safest option.

Flannel Jesus wrote:What's a Vax injury? I read that as "vaccination injury" but... that can't be right, can it? Whatever it was, it sounds brutal :(

Are you recovered now?

It was.. I’ve been out of action for over 3 years.. just getting over it now, with help from my GP and specialist clinics. It’s identical to Long Covid, so researchers are doing comparative studies on both illnesses, to identify triggers and best remedial cures.

I’ve got so much/adventures to catch up on, so no time to dwell but to do..
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25080
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Wow, sounds like you've been through it. I'm sorry to hear that, glad to see you're coming out the other side now though. Hope you're catching up goes well though!
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 6293
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Maia » Sat Aug 14, 2021 11:48 am

MagsJ wrote:
Maia wrote:Legends of lost civilisations are fascinating, with or without weapons of mass destruction, but I would always hesitate to ascribe them to aliens, rather than human ingenuity.

I am open to the possibility of such innovations being the ingenuity of aliens.. what could possibly have happened to the previous civilisations that might have come before us? There is evidence of cities, but not of bodies.

Regardless of that, I too find it all very interesting..


I find stories of Atlantis and similar sunken lands particuilarly interesting, not least because there are so many of them. Atlantis, Lemuria, Mu, Thule, Ys, Lyonesse (that last one being off the coast of Cornwall), and so on, the list is almost endless. In these cases, where there's usually a flood involved, maybe the bodies were just washed away and lost.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby iambiguous » Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:25 pm

Well, I have to try one more time.

Maia wrote: I think that luck, or fate, is the guiding force of the universe. Not in a negative sense, but rather, in the interconnectedness of all things. Or nature, in other words.


Then, seemingly, it can only come down to teleology:

PHILOSOPHY: the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
THEOLOGY: the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.

Now, philosophically, luck and fate would seem to revolve around the extent to which human beings are in possession of free will. Is David Icke able to opt of his own volition to express the opinions he chooses, or is his brain, as matter wholly in sync with nature's material laws, able only to opine as nature -- the universe -- compels him?

Same with you and I.

If so, then luck and fate are in turn entirely intertwined in the only possible reality. And, as for the "purpose" and the "meaning" behind them, well, would that not be as well inherently/necessarily subsumed in this only possible world?

From my frame of mind, given some measure of free will, in the absence of God or the Pagan equivalent, what possibly can be the source of a teleologically purpose and meaning? Other than what any particular individual happens to think is true given the life that they've lived. The part I root in dasein, the embodiment of an essentially meaningless and purposeless world. The part you root in the Goddess/Nature, that mysterious [to me] font able to guide your own behaviors.

Now, with theology on the other hand, the "doctrine" that governs luck and fate would seem to be embedded in one or another rendition of God or a religious path. Here then faith often comes into play and it is not necessary go much beyond it. If I am lucky or unlucky, fated or not fated, it's all ultimately subsumed in my beliefs. People then sustain them, from my point of view,, because the alternative is just too disturbing. The loss of the comfort and the consolation they sustain in anchoring their Self to God or the Goddess or to one of hundreds of other spiritual fonts/paths they might have ended up believing instead had their lives been different.

Again, how "I" have come to think human about identity here in a way others do not.

Maia wrote: You can change your own luck very easily by changing your frame of mind, at least in my experience, and that's all anyone needs to do to drag themselves up out of any hole they might have dug themselves into. That's the absolute best advice I can give on that, though I fully realise it may sound simplistic or trite. Sometimes, the simple things happen to be the true ones.


Here, however, in my view, given free will, your understanding of the hole that I am in can only be understood given the assumption you make about "I" in the world around us, given the hole that you are not in yourself. We can only take out of each other what we first put into each other: our own "selves". Your Self is not fractured and fragmented. Still, the only way I can come to grapple with that is by way of your own more in depth reaction to the arguments I make in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

In other words, given particular sets of circumstance that unfold in your life, how do you not construe your own identity as "I" do here. Given the assumptions I make about the "fabricated" self at the existential juncture of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. What different assumptions do you [and others] make who are not drawn and quartered out in the is/ought world?

I imagine Icke would like to overthrow the monarchy and set himself up instead. But yes, monarchies have to adapt to the times in order to survive, and those that don't, which is basically almost all of them, end up on the scrap heap of history. The Windsors are famous, however, for bending with the wind. No one likes or trusts politicians, or anyone who seeks power, but the monarch remains aloof from all that. Or should do, at any rate.


Well, the crucial point for me is that monarchies, as they once were historically, have ended up on the scrap heap of history. And, given my own political prejudices "here and now", that's a good thing. No more divine right of kings or anything else that might upend what many construe to be the best of all possible world: democracy and the rule of law. Instead, what threatens to take their place today is a world ruled by political ideology, dogmas, and authoritarian "populism". That and the fact that much of the world today still revolves around those who swear only by this: "Show me the money". Whether they reside in Washington D.C., London, Moscow or Beijing.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46435
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Maia » Sat Aug 14, 2021 7:07 pm

iambiguous wrote:Well, I have to try one more time.

Maia wrote: I think that luck, or fate, is the guiding force of the universe. Not in a negative sense, but rather, in the interconnectedness of all things. Or nature, in other words.


Then, seemingly, it can only come down to teleology:

PHILOSOPHY: the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
THEOLOGY: the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.

Now, philosophically, luck and fate would seem to revolve around the extent to which human beings are in possession of free will. Is David Icke able to opt of his own volition to express the opinions he chooses, or is his brain, as matter wholly in sync with nature's material laws, able only to opine as nature -- the universe -- compels him?

Same with you and I.

If so, then luck and fate are in turn entirely intertwined in the only possible reality. And, as for the "purpose" and the "meaning" behind them, well, would that not be as well inherently/necessarily subsumed in this only possible world?

From my frame of mind, given some measure of free will, in the absence of God or the Pagan equivalent, what possibly can be the source of a teleologically purpose and meaning? Other than what any particular individual happens to think is true given the life that they've lived. The part I root in dasein, the embodiment of an essentially meaningless and purposeless world. The part you root in the Goddess/Nature, that mysterious [to me] font able to guide your own behaviors.

Now, with theology on the other hand, the "doctrine" that governs luck and fate would seem to be embedded in one or another rendition of God or a religious path. Here then faith often comes into play and it is not necessary go much beyond it. If I am lucky or unlucky, fated or not fated, it's all ultimately subsumed in my beliefs. People then sustain them, from my point of view,, because the alternative is just too disturbing. The loss of the comfort and the consolation they sustain in anchoring their Self to God or the Goddess or to one of hundreds of other spiritual fonts/paths they might have ended up believing instead had their lives been different.

Again, how "I" have come to think human about identity here in a way others do not.

Maia wrote: You can change your own luck very easily by changing your frame of mind, at least in my experience, and that's all anyone needs to do to drag themselves up out of any hole they might have dug themselves into. That's the absolute best advice I can give on that, though I fully realise it may sound simplistic or trite. Sometimes, the simple things happen to be the true ones.


Here, however, in my view, given free will, your understanding of the hole that I am in can only be understood given the assumption you make about "I" in the world around us, given the hole that you are not in yourself. We can only take out of each other what we first put into each other: our own "selves". Your Self is not fractured and fragmented. Still, the only way I can come to grapple with that is by way of your own more in depth reaction to the arguments I make in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

In other words, given particular sets of circumstance that unfold in your life, how do you not construe your own identity as "I" do here. Given the assumptions I make about the "fabricated" self at the existential juncture of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. What different assumptions do you [and others] make who are not drawn and quartered out in the is/ought world?

I imagine Icke would like to overthrow the monarchy and set himself up instead. But yes, monarchies have to adapt to the times in order to survive, and those that don't, which is basically almost all of them, end up on the scrap heap of history. The Windsors are famous, however, for bending with the wind. No one likes or trusts politicians, or anyone who seeks power, but the monarch remains aloof from all that. Or should do, at any rate.


Well, the crucial point for me is that monarchies, as they once were historically, have ended up on the scrap heap of history. And, given my own political prejudices "here and now", that's a good thing. No more divine right of kings or anything else that might upend what many construe to be the best of all possible world: democracy and the rule of law. Instead, what threatens to take their place today is a world ruled by political ideology, dogmas, and authoritarian "populism". That and the fact that much of the world today still revolves around those who swear only by this: "Show me the money". Whether they reside in Washington D.C., London, Moscow or Beijing.


Any meaning to life is what you choose to give to it. And the meaning you have chosen, is meaninglessness. Not one that I would ever choose, but you are free to live your life as you wish.

If, as you say, you want to know why I follow the path that I do, based in my experiences in life, then all you have to do is ask me about it, as I've said many times. Without specific questions, however, I can't anticipate what it is that you wish to know.

But if you're more interested in a debate about your own state of mind, then I'm sorry, but I think that such a debate will only end up with you getting angry and accusing me of not wanting to talk to you any more. That has happened three times already, after all.

So if you want to talk to me, you are always welcome to come onto my threads and engage me with those subjects that I'm interested in.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:13 pm

Maia wrote:Any meaning to life is what you choose to give to it. And the meaning you have chosen, is meaninglessness. Not one that I would ever choose, but you are free to live your life as you wish.


But, in regard to moral, political and spiritual value judgments, how are your own choices not rooted in turn to the manner in which I construe human identity as the embodiment of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
And here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

What I wish from you most of all is a far more substantive/substantial exchange regarding both our lives here. One in which you explore the assumptions I make regarding how your own values could well have been very, very different had your life been very, very different.

Something along the lines of identity explored here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Son

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/search. ... only&ch=-1

Or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toto_the_Hero


Perhaps not as dramatic as babies switched at birth, but any number of contexts in which a profound experience you have in life can result in truly momentous consequences regarding how you view yourself out in the world interacting with others.

And no, I have only chosen to think of my life as essentially meaningless and purposeless. Existential meaning and purpose on the other hand is everywhere. I merely root it more in dasein than in things like religion or spirituality or deontology or political ideology or nature.

You noted above that...

"I don't think there's any fundamental meaning to existence that's the same for everyone, so trying to demonstrate such a thing is probably futile. Just as life is what we choose to make it, so is its meaning."

Which is something that I would offer as one of my own conjectures about myself out in the world with others. But I'm still very much uncertain as to how you intertwine nature, Paganism, the Goddess etc., into your own value judgments on this side of the grave. How do you manage to to sustain a sense of self that is not "fractured and fragmented" given the lack of one or another transcending font -- which most call God -- in your own life?

It's almost as though anything goes. If, in your own interactions with nature and the Goddess you come to think and feel this instead of that, that need be as far as it goes.

For me though that just gets all tangled up in the "hole" I have dug for myself in regard to "I" out in the is/ought world derived largely from dasein.

Maia wrote: If, as you say, you want to know why I follow the path that I do, based in my experiences in life, then all you have to do is ask me about it, as I've said many times. Without specific questions, however, I can't anticipate what it is that you wish to know.


I've asked you specific questions. Namely, how your understanding of those experiences is embedded in the manner in which I understand the nature of specific sets of experiences precipitating value judgments derived mostly from the experiences themselves. And then in acknowledging how those experiences might have been very different precipitating very different values instead. It is in confronting the subjective/subjunctive existential nature of identity here that takes us to philosophy. What can the tools of philosophy provide us in the way of coming up with the most rational and virtuous point of view when confronting conflicting goods...whether in regard to political things like vaccinations and Brexit, or all the moral conflagrations that rent the species, or all the hundreds and hundreds of spiritual paths available to us depending on the existential trajectory of our individual lives.

Maia wrote: But if you're more interested in a debate about your own state of mind, then I'm sorry, but I think that such a debate will only end up with you getting angry and accusing me of not wanting to talk to you any more. That has happened three times already, after all.


It's not a debate, but a discussion regarding how your assessment of your self has not resulted in a fragmented and fractured frame of mind. How nature and Paganism and the Goddess are not just "existential contraptions" rooted in dasein but something more than that. Maybe not understood in the manner in which some understand God, or those like Satyr at KT understand nature, but certainly able to sustain a more grounded sense of identity than "I" am.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46435
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:38 pm

Icke a man of limited education and intelligence.

After kicking a leather bag of wind on a bit of grass for a few years, and getting paid a stupid amount for it, a TV company decided he had enough charisma and interest in sports to give him a job on the Telly, for which he was paid another stupid amount of money. Presumably this gave him some false confidence to think that people might think he has something worth saying.
His opinions are ungrounded and his reasoning absent.
Since then there is very little else to say.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Sculptor » Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:40 pm

MagsJ wrote:I recently read that the EU has been trying to renaturalise the UK with bear and wolf populations for years now, but I think the UK went with containing them in our National Parks.. the safest option.
.


You say the darndest things!!

Are you going to cite where you "read" that?
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2602
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby MagsJ » Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:19 pm

Sculptor wrote:You say the darndest things!!

..thanks : )

Are you going to cite where you "read" that?

Mmmmm :-k

:D
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25080
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby Maia » Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:24 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Maia wrote:Any meaning to life is what you choose to give to it. And the meaning you have chosen, is meaninglessness. Not one that I would ever choose, but you are free to live your life as you wish.


But, in regard to moral, political and spiritual value judgments, how are your own choices not rooted in turn to the manner in which I construe human identity as the embodiment of dasein here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
And here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

What I wish from you most of all is a far more substantive/substantial exchange regarding both our lives here. One in which you explore the assumptions I make regarding how your own values could well have been very, very different had your life been very, very different.

Something along the lines of identity explored here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Son

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/search. ... only&ch=-1

Or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toto_the_Hero


Perhaps not as dramatic as babies switched at birth, but any number of contexts in which a profound experience you have in life can result in truly momentous consequences regarding how you view yourself out in the world interacting with others.

And no, I have only chosen to think of my life as essentially meaningless and purposeless. Existential meaning and purpose on the other hand is everywhere. I merely root it more in dasein than in things like religion or spirituality or deontology or political ideology or nature.

You noted above that...

"I don't think there's any fundamental meaning to existence that's the same for everyone, so trying to demonstrate such a thing is probably futile. Just as life is what we choose to make it, so is its meaning."

Which is something that I would offer as one of my own conjectures about myself out in the world with others. But I'm still very much uncertain as to how you intertwine nature, Paganism, the Goddess etc., into your own value judgments on this side of the grave. How do you manage to to sustain a sense of self that is not "fractured and fragmented" given the lack of one or another transcending font -- which most call God -- in your own life?

It's almost as though anything goes. If, in your own interactions with nature and the Goddess you come to think and feel this instead of that, that need be as far as it goes.

For me though that just gets all tangled up in the "hole" I have dug for myself in regard to "I" out in the is/ought world derived largely from dasein.

Maia wrote: If, as you say, you want to know why I follow the path that I do, based in my experiences in life, then all you have to do is ask me about it, as I've said many times. Without specific questions, however, I can't anticipate what it is that you wish to know.


I've asked you specific questions. Namely, how your understanding of those experiences is embedded in the manner in which I understand the nature of specific sets of experiences precipitating value judgments derived mostly from the experiences themselves. And then in acknowledging how those experiences might have been very different precipitating very different values instead. It is in confronting the subjective/subjunctive existential nature of identity here that takes us to philosophy. What can the tools of philosophy provide us in the way of coming up with the most rational and virtuous point of view when confronting conflicting goods...whether in regard to political things like vaccinations and Brexit, or all the moral conflagrations that rent the species, or all the hundreds and hundreds of spiritual paths available to us depending on the existential trajectory of our individual lives.

Maia wrote: But if you're more interested in a debate about your own state of mind, then I'm sorry, but I think that such a debate will only end up with you getting angry and accusing me of not wanting to talk to you any more. That has happened three times already, after all.


It's not a debate, but a discussion regarding how your assessment of your self has not resulted in a fragmented and fractured frame of mind. How nature and Paganism and the Goddess are not just "existential contraptions" rooted in dasein but something more than that. Maybe not understood in the manner in which some understand God, or those like Satyr at KT understand nature, but certainly able to sustain a more grounded sense of identity than "I" am.


With respect, I'm not going to read through some other, pre-existing threads in order to enter into a discussion. One of them, for example, has been going for ten years. If you can express those ideas organically, as part of an actual conversation, then that might be different.

You ask, how do I sustain a sense of self that is not fractured and fragmented, without a transendent god. To me, it's very easy. Nature is everywhere, and I'm a part of it. A part of the goddess, in other words. I do not feel fractured or fragmented in any way. On the contrary, I feel that I'm exactly how I'm supposed to be.

It's definitely not anything goes, though. Indeed, I think I have a pretty high moral standard. We are all creatures of nature, and abusing others is just abusing nature itself. What goes around, comes around. Or, put another way, like attracts like. If you're nice, people are, in general, nice back to you. And vice versa. A positive attitude reinforces itself. As does a negative one.

And yes, it's obviously the case that had my life been different, I might have held different opinions, and had different values.
User avatar
Maia
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 2:22 am
Location: UK

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby iambiguous » Mon Aug 16, 2021 9:09 pm

Maia wrote:With respect, I'm not going to read through some other, pre-existing threads in order to enter into a discussion. One of them, for example, has been going for ten years. If you can express those ideas organically, as part of an actual conversation, then that might be different.

You ask, how do I sustain a sense of self that is not fractured and fragmented, without a transendent god. To me, it's very easy. Nature is everywhere, and I'm a part of it. A part of the goddess, in other words. I do not feel fractured or fragmented in any way. On the contrary, I feel that I'm exactly how I'm supposed to be.

It's definitely not anything goes, though. Indeed, I think I have a pretty high moral standard. We are all creatures of nature, and abusing others is just abusing nature itself. What goes around, comes around. Or, put another way, like attracts like. If you're nice, people are, in general, nice back to you. And vice versa. A positive attitude reinforces itself. As does a negative one.

And yes, it's obviously the case that had my life been different, I might have held different opinions, and had different values.


Well, I had to try. Given the exchange that first unfolded between us on the dream thread, I just felt there was real potential for us not only to explore these things out in the deep end of the existential pool, but even to sustain a virtual friendship.

Sadly, I basically see us now as engaging in two different discussions. But please don't get me wrong...in no way am I suggesting here that my end of it is better or more authentic or more reasonable than yours. Just different.

Maybe that might change on a new thread from you pertaining to some other issue that interest you. I hope so.

But, again, glumly, we just construe this...

"If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically [and spiritually]."

...from different sets of assumptions.

I figured if anyone might come up with a point of view that would facilitate me in scrambling up out of the hole I've dug for myself over the years, it might be you. Or, if not that, then the other way around.

Again, it was largely a win/win situation for me. But only if it goes that far.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46435
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Aug 25, 2021 5:16 am


Maia : I have read the book and disagree with most of what he says :

The moon is not hollow but a rocky world just like Earth and the other three inner planets

Saturn does not affect Earth : the connection with Saturnalia / Satan is purely mythological

The Olympic logo is entirely benign and simply represents the Five Continents

There is nothing sinister about geometrical shapes in general or their combinations

I read the book because he is an interesting point on the spectrum : I may read more of his

As to what people see in him you will have to ask them

I simply acquire knowledge and information : no more no less

I do however admire his consistency and refusal to go quietly into the night as it were
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby promethean75 » Wed Aug 25, 2021 8:18 pm

What would be seen in David Icke would largely depend on the kind of x-ray being used by the examiner. Computed tomography, projectional radiography and fluoroscopy, for example, would produce different imagery.

In the other hand, any direct autopsy results would obviously depend on the area and particular anatomical region where the autopsy is performed.
promethean75
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm
Location: at the fringe with Novatore

Re: David Icke: what do people see in him?

Postby MagsJ » Wed Aug 25, 2021 9:08 pm

promethean75 wrote:What would be seen in David Icke would largely depend on the kind of x-ray being used by the examiner. Computed tomography, projectional radiography and fluoroscopy, for example, would produce different imagery.

In the other hand, any direct autopsy results would obviously depend on the area and particular anatomical region where the autopsy is performed.

..waiting for your pizza to arrive, or your muffins to burn in the oven?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. ~MagsJ

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something important at some point in time.. Huh!? ~MagsJ

You’re suggestions and I just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a very bad DJ ~MagsJ

Examine what is said, not him who speaks ~Arab proverb

aes Sanātana Dharma Pali: the eternal way ~it should not be rigid, but inclusive of the best of all knowledge for the sake of Ṛta.. which is endless.
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 25080
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users