Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Thank you, Robert. At the moment fear has been pushed away for Webdiarists, I think. Love and sadness is the order of the day.

"Love is letting go of fear."

Robert: they say that the opposite of love is not hatred, but fear.

But, it seems to me that the opposite of fear is better called trust. I love my child because I trust its love for me (although I don't consider this, I take it for granted). I love my husband because I trust his love for me, (and, ditto). I am concerned for the welfare of different groups in my society, although I would not say I love them, because I trust that they are, irregardless of superficial differences, humans with similar dreams, ideals and goals to my own.

When such trusts are broken, or come into doubt, the whole relationship can start to fall into doubt, anger and hatred ... all of which can be summarised as fear.

The antidote to fear is trust.

Maybe fear is an indoctrination and part of our control program, as it stops us doing a lot of things that would not harm us, but enhance us. Most fear to change their diets, or fear giving up something that is harmful or they are emotionally attached to. You could say that love is the opposite to lust. Most begin with lust for something or someone, then they think it turns to love. Then their lust moves to something else. Love can't be turned on and of like a tap, but lust and all emotions can.

True love never diminishes only grows, you can see that with your domestic pets. If you've treated them properly and loved them, then they would happily die for you. That's love, but sometimes dying for something is also stupid, like religion or a politician.

Religion is an emotional thing and also an illusion, as with all emotions and illusions they never give you what they offer. At a guess, I would say that sometime back in our past, there may not have been emotions, only love and death. What changed that I wouldn't know, maybe it was religion. It has grown to a point now, where emotions are destroying everything. As we live deep within our emotions, sometimes we feel trapped, but that is also an illusion.

Our biggest fear that stops us doing things or changing, is the fear of losing something. The only thing we do lose, is the opportunity to change. Then we lose sight of the only constant in the universe.

The SBS series The Power of Nightmares was an excellent portrayal of the use of fear as a tool to create, and, in the end, that fear is illusion.

According to this series, the purveyors of fear were Bush and Blair. But portrayed in the series also was the illusion of the fear purveyed. And perhaps this is why Mr Howard has not suffered the same electoral backlash as Bush and Blair, as he did not purvey the same fear to the same extent.

Is Howard is going down that path, or at least attempting to, with the introduction of dirty-word-sedition? If so, and with the knowledge we now have, it makes things interesting.

Fear or favour?

Thank you for your antidote, F. Kendall.

It's fair to say fear has many dancing partners. It could also be said that knowledge is the antidote of fear, if we wish to seek for 'antidotes' and 'opposites' as such.

The phrase "fear of the unknown" is quite cute, really. I would say it is only and ever the unknown we fear. Once we know something we no longer fear it: other processes and responses kick in.

"But I know what it is and I still fear it," some may say, so we have to be careful to look further into it and find that we don't have knowledge of what it does, or how we would respond to it, and so on.. in the end, it is lack of knowledge which is at the base or core of fear.

And to me, trust is built on knowledge. That is, at the core of trust is knowledge. We trust people or things because we know them, what they do, how they respond etc. In the sense you raise then, to me, knowledge is the antidote of fear.

Robert, having re-read your article, I wonder whether you have encountered real fear.

A statement such as: "We find fear to be the ripping apart of our old life, that we express ourselves anew. We find fear, afterall, to be an illusion.", in no way corresponds with the many - most? - people who have experienced realised fears and find themselves depleted and, if not more fearful, certainly more apprehensive, as a result.

Fear is not always an illusion, Robert.

Anxiety, say as to whether the roast will burn, is quite different from the fear when awaiting pathology results, particularly those of a friend, child or beloved....and those results are negative, for so many.

To suggest that such a fear is an illusion is, well, unloving, Robert, and all the ripping apart triumph bit - well - try telling that to a parent whose gone through the multiple fears of diagnosis, succession of treatments, etc, of a baby with leukemia, say. Did their fear get their blood going?

You sound very young.

I know this may sound strange to those unfamiliar with the material, but I still try to stay mindful of the Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear:

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

When we talk about love, what really are we talking about? We hear the word everyday, I love my car, I love my wife, I love my god. But what/who do we actually love?

Possibly love is simply an idea that can manipulated in the mind anyway you wish. What do people mean when they say they love God? Are they not in love with a projection of their own imagination; are they not in love with themselves and simply worshipping an idea that lives only their mind? An idea they dress up as a preferred or noble version of themselves.

Somehow I feel those people who talk most about love know it least. For talking or thinking about love is not love. How many times has a friend told you how much they love someone, or something or their god? Do these people appear to be secure or are they somehow trying to reassure themselves that their relationship is fair dinkum and by doing so create a feeling of approval and security. And is insecurity not the breeding ground of fear?

To me many love songs reek of insecurity, selfishness and desire yet have nothing to do with love?

I love my wife yet there is no way I could define that love nor can I define an emotion by describing what I think its opposite is. All I know is I do not think about loving my wife, I just do. It’s a bit like breathing and every breath gives me life. It (love) lives without conscious thought, moment by moment. Some may say that I simply take my wife for granted, so be it, for we take our love for granted and do not try to idealise or intellectualise it. It just is. It lives moment by moment.

To me fear like the idea of love lives in the conscious mind even though its causes may lurk deep within the unconscious. At this point let me make it clear we are talking about psychological fear and not physical fear which is a natural mechanism that happens at times when we have to immediately defend ourselves or run like hell. Fight or flight.

Once again it can be very hard to define fear yet we know how it affects us. But what are we afraid of and how do we come to terms with our fears?

Robert says “But we can't escape it - that's the horrible and wonderful thing about fear. And so we are given the choice to face it, and in facing it we are presented with a gift.” In essence I would agree assuming that Robert is speaking of psychological fear only. Yet to understand our own fears we must know who we are, that is who we really are and not who we think we are.

This is where the problem occurs for many of us are so deluded with our own ideas, with our own minds that we self censor every piece of information that enters our minds and we will interpret and manipulate it till we model it into something that serves our own purposes and desires.

Robert, I remember sometime ago you wrote a piece for Webdiary called the Coffee Cup or something like that. If memory serves me well its theme was how that coffee cup meant something different to different observers. I suppose fear is a bit like that coffee cup and how we deal with it depends on our life experience and how those experiences shape our interpretation of the outside reality.

If you remember I wrote a comment to your Coffee Cup piece and challenged you to place a cup on a table and ask observers sitting at that table to describe the shape they saw as outlined by the top of the cup. Most people say they see a circle when in fact it is an ellipse. In other words a lot of us cannot even see the truth even when it is staring us in the face. Why? Well in the case of the cup we are conditioned to accept that cups are unusually round so our mind immediate betrays us and interprets the ellipse as a circle. We quite often live in our minds and not in reality. We quite often allow our minds to control our senses. We quite often allow past experiences to interpret the present.

Yes Robert, fear will always be with us, it’s the nature of the beast and our society is preyed upon by those who have a lot to gain by inciting fear into us for their personal gain.

Just think of all those television advertisements that prey on our fears, if you don’t have this or that you will not be accepted or loved. If you don’t have this or that then you will be financially destitute and so on. If you don’t vote for us then your mortgages will rise or you will be murdered by terrorists. Fear is the tool of cynics and opportunists and many of them become experts in dispensing fear on a daily basis. Fear sells, especially to the fearful.

Cynics and opportunists will always be around and as long as we allow them to mess with our heads and play to our fears we are destined to realise those fears. An example of this is the fear the American government exploited in the American population to realise an agenda that would only benefit those who peddled that fear. President Bush was quite happy to insist that Saddam was going to nuke them if he did not take pre-emptive action. So he did and I bet the American people are more fearful now than ever. One day he may use nuclear weapons to deal with another “fear” and if that happens it will only be a matter of time before payback and we will eventually see a mushroom cloud over New York or London or Kirribilli house.

So how do we deal with fear?

First you have to understand the nature of fear, your fear. To do that you will have to spend (quite) a bit of time with yourself and ask yourself, who is it who fears? This will require us to be personally honest. It means you will have to deal with things you may wish to run away from but if you ever want to see fear for what it is and allow it to pass through you then it will be a journey worth the time and effort.

You will never be able to eliminate fear, it his a part of us, but maybe you can become fear's observer and see it for what it really is and allow your mind to be free of conflict and self censorship.

Maybe we should treat fear as we treat the disappointment in not winning lotto. Your numbers don’t come up and you’re disappointed but only for a moment or so. No use in allowing your disappointment to destroy your day, so you don’t.

Thank you Robert for this contribution and I look forward to your next.

F Kendall, I don't think Robert was talking about the fear of death. As someone who has looked death in the face I think I know what you are talking about. Actually to tell you the truth it was not death that frightened me only the dying bit.

It is only human to be frightened of dying or death and it is only human to be frightened of seeing someone you love die. Sadly there is nothing much you can do about it except draw on that infinite and undefinable thing we refer to as love. I did and it helped me quite a bit.

Absolutely I remember your comment, Phil. And I recall being inspired and thoughtful on its account. Without wanting to contradict it, I have wondered, though, whether we are entitled by your presentation to bring to our observations a knowledge already proven? That is, by your example below, are we benefited from the proven knowledge of a round glass, being viewed elliptically, to be still considered round? Or should we reinvent ourselves afresh each moment? I'd like to hear your further thoughts.

In relation to continuing contributions, the Webdiary Team in my dealings with it after Margo's shock announcement has shown goodwill and a heartening sense of strength. From what I can tell, our consideration now is to Webdiary's future and ours in relation to it. While we feel Margo's loss deeply, there have grown in the midst some exciting possibilities. As one door has closed many other possibilities have opened, such was the fortitude of Margo in forging ahead all these years. How the future unfolds and the manner of it is yet to be determined exactly. And public input is of enormous value if not critical value and greatly appreciated at this moment for Webdiary.

It would be beaut to have the grace of the public to allow time for one of those possible new Webdiary incarnations to reinvent itself, but the public have a need to be served, and this may run against it. How do you feel, timewise, for what could be done?

Margo's vision for independent media was met with strong support in many places. For one, having shared some of this (large, ultimately) vision closely with her, I remain at the moment positive for what can be achieved. Our GM has shown himself to be strong and in thoughtful, balanced consideration. There is no doubt, however, we need public input and support to continue.

My input, like yours Phil, comes from the ground up. It is that force I believe in, as was indeed Margo's vision, that independent media here in the powerful future world of the internet could claim its place of value on the peoples' account: of and for the people. My contributions for whatever value they may or may not contain are very obviously not the work of a journalist, and central to Webdiary always must be a journalist of the same hunger and passion as Margo, and regardless of that uniqueness Margo had, replacing a journalist is no easy task. Let's see what happens. Be sure, and with thanks, you are just as much a part of it.

Robert, thanks kindly for your reply and I will attempt albeit with limited intellect to address your queries as outlined in your opening paragraph.

Firstly regarding the cup on the table; I have done this experiment quite a number of times with people of all ages and experience. I found that about 8 in 10 people would claim they saw a circle. I would even ask them would they testify in a court of law that what they saw was a circle. Most insisted they would. I would then ask, what if it meant that your testimony would be that vital bit of evidence to convict someone of murder which could end with their execution. Most said they would still declare they saw a circle. I’m sure most of these people would pass a lie detector test if put to that test. This of course would be a disaster for the accused.

I have seen a number of programmes on television recently where convicted murderers (usually people of colour) were found to be innocent by DNA tests. Many of the witnesses who testified (usually white people) said they truly believed they were telling the truth. I have no reason to doubt these witnesses as quite often they were not related to the accused in any other way than having witnessed a crime that was supposed to be perpetrated by the accused, even though the accused was innocent of that crime.

I suppose the guts of what I am getting at is can we trust ourselves to know the truth when we see it? The above in an example of how wrong things can go when we make erroneous interpretations of the truth.

“Knowledge already proven”

I would agree we should bring to our observations knowledge already proven. I would call this education, although much of which we learn may or may not be fact or truth. Nevertheless the learning process is vital to our survival for learning or education is nothing more than the necessary tools required for us to survive.

The point of the cup on the table is whether our education can help or hinder what is truth. The cup on the table in fact had absolutely nothing to do with the question. What shape do you see? The cup in fact was what I would call a concentration trap, a red herring if you wish. The cup in this case only confused the observer who immediately relied on past experience relating to cups to interpret something in the present.

I suppose the lesson to learn here is how to use our previous learning experiences to validate what actually exists in the present. And what experiences are best to draw on to answer the question required.

So to answer your question, “Without wanting to contradict it, I have wondered, though, whether we are entitled by your presentation to bring to our observations a knowledge already proven?” Yes we should bring to our observations knowledge already proven however it should be the that specific knowledge that can answer the question. The right knowledge. In the case of the cup the knowledge required is purely that knowledge which allows us to identify and label shapes. No more no less. The important thing regarding the cup is the question not the cup.

As such I feel that we don’t have to reinvent ourselves every moment though for the sake of clarity it sometimes helps to let go of all that baggage we have accumulated and carry with us in that part of us which is now dead. This is our past and with each and every moment we slip from the present to the past. From life to death. Our memory is nothing more than a catalogue of our past or living death so to speak.

The important thing here is how our memories are coloured by our dogma, prejudices and fears for it is those attributes of the human mind that will twist information into what ever satisfies its purposes, either consciously or unconsciously. In other words we can observe truth and see a lie.

I suppose this is what I was getting to in my earlier post. For those of us who wish to live an honest life and have honest relationships, sans fear and insecurity then we must be prepared to examine what lurks within our own minds and how we may be distorting truth to satisfy our fears and prejudices.

For those who wish to minimise fear in their lives then the best place to start is to have a good hard honest look in the mirror and simply ask; who the bloody hell am I?

Thanks again Robert and if we don’t chat again before Christmas then I wish you and your loved ones a very happy and safe festive season.

PS, I did find that with the cup thing those people who were artists or artistically inclined generally gave the correct answer while those who had university degrees and education plus generally failed, or maybe that’s just my prejudices speaking ;-)

Robert you wrote; “It would be beaut to have the grace of the public to allow time for one of those possible new Webdiary incarnations to reinvent itself, but the public have a need to be served, and this may run against it. How do you feel, timewise, for what could be done?”

Firstly I would like to state that I enjoy reading Webdiary however I was not surprised when I read “Thank you and Goodbye”. I will state that I was very sad for Margo for I have been a Margo fan for many years now. I thoroughly enjoyed her contributions to the The Sydney Morning Herald and the Sun Herald. I always read her articles last, a bit like keeping the most delicious part of your meal till the end. I would also like to add that when Margo disappeared from the Sun Herald I stopped buying it and now it is only on occasions that I buy the Sydney Morning Herald. Why buy when you can get it free from the internet? Hopefully after a good break she may continue to contribute to a public that need more like her.

Having said that I know little about Margo or the management team running Webdiary however I feel that it will be almost impossible to make Webdiary a going concern financially. It is a good thing to have a business model and plans but the internet community (like me) prefer not to pay for anything. At best you could hope for donations that will subsidise the outgoings. Of course the editing and so on would be a job of love for those who have the time and are dedicated to being a part of what I consider an excellent forum.

I also do not expect WD to sell many advertisements for obvious reasons, I suspect WD simply does not have the traffic necessary to attract advertisers; at best you could hope for a sponsor (or shareholder) who is happy to help with finance but would not interfere with content. You know just like Rupert is not. I suppose what I am trying to say is don’t expect or try to make this a profitable business, at least not in the short term and probably not in the long term either. At best over time WD may be able to cover costs. Therefore forget about the sponsor/shareholder unless there is someone out there who has deep pockets and high ideals.

As far as WD reinventing itself goes, what do you think WD’s new incarnation would be like? Does a biro write a letter any better than a pencil? And what is the purpose of WD anyway? Correct me if I am wrong but from what I gather WD is primarily another electronic forum for the public to discuss issues and take part in the democratic process in a manner that is civil and educational. It is probably better than most of its genre but the guts of what WD is about is communication.

Communication and information are the necessary components of a healthy democracy; this is something the WD community appreciate so let’s try not to make it into something it is not.

So how can WD survive and thrive?

I am not a media expert so feel free to be critical of what I am about to say for after reading your last paragraph it would appear you may disagree.

Yes, Margo is/was a professional journo and a good one at that but does WD really need professionals? You say WD needs a professional journalist yet the great force behind WD is the ordinary person, the amateur. Could not WD survive and flourish as a forum run by amateurs for amateurs?

Ok you are not a journalists and I suspect Craig Rowley is not a journalist but allow me to declare in all honesty that Craig, yourself and others make some of the so called “professionals” look like patsies. Much of Craig’s work in my opinion is excellent and the same goes for many who have contributed to this forum. After all the beauty about WD is those who contribute have only their conscience to answer to and not the likes of Rupert and his ilk.

WD could also be a vehicle for high school and university students who study media, journalism and communications to hone their skills learn on the job and use the experience in their future careers. It could be the nucleus, the seed crystal that becomes a starting point for those who want to make this world a morally acceptable place rather than a haven and breeding ground for opportunists and cynics.

You know if it were up to me I would contact every high school (that is online) to ask for student contributions, essays or poems or whatever to publish on WD. And not just Australian schools but schools from all over the world. I have a number of friends who are teachers and have had the opportunity to peruse some of their students’ work and some of it is excellent. This would attract not only the contributors themselves but their fellow students and their parents to the sight. Visitors and contributors from all over the world, keeping us in touch with the lives and feelings of ordinary people just like you and me. You never know with the extra traffic WD may attract the odd advertiser or three.

The future belongs to our children and it will be our children who will have to clean up the mess we adults made today, so let’s at least give our children the opportunity to have their say and be taken seriously.

Personally I would love to read how the ordinary person in Iraq, or Brazil or South Africa feels about what is happening to this world rather than relying on the main stream propaganda we are feed by willing “professionals” all too happy to satisfy their employers every desire.

Anyway Robert that’s about it from me just now, maybe I have left you with some things to consider or maybe not but thank you for asking. Finally allow me to wish you and the WD team all the very best and to thank you sincerely for what must be a labour of love or simply pure insanity, not that there’s anything wrong with that ;-)

Cheers mate and give my regards to Hamish, Craig and the rest of the team. And a special hug for Margo.