I would like very much to lead you all away from the deemed "spirit" of Toki Pona for a brief moment, and to reflect on the usage of "pona" and "ike" in multiple contexts. It appears that, in literature and conversation, when modifying verbs in terms of "pona" and "ike", the former meaning of each is often used - "good" instead of "simple" and "bad" instead of "complicated". This can bee seen in these two sentences: "mi lukin pona e ijo" and "mi lukin ike e ijo" - "I see something well" and "I see something poorly". But how often is the other possibility perceived? Context often tells, but "lukin pona" could mean "see simply"; for instance, seeing an outline, or the "thing" it its most basic terms/form. On the other side, "lukin ike" could mean "see in a complex manner"; for instance, seeing every minute detail of the thing in question. There is often a hidden "negative" possibility with both simplicity and complexity, and a hidden "positive" with both as well. Do you want or need to see the "thing" in question in full detail, or at its most basic? How much understanding of what's in question is conveyed through "simple" or "complex" - does focusing on detail give a broader understanding, or in a particular situation, lead away from the essence of what it simply is? However, does "simple" mean you are understanding something's essence, or not understanding it enough? Does "complex" mean you can appreciate all of something's detail, or that there's so much going on that you can barely understand even its most basic terms? All in all, context varies as much as life does, and while some instances of the words "pona" and "ike" might be useful for one context, they can tell a completely different story taking the other. I hope this rant helps to give a second insight to both words and their meanings. In my own belief, this insight makes the most "pona" word in Toki Pona really just "lon", which is swayed by neither "goodness" or "badness", yet is perceived by many as comprising of both.
ale li pona.
sina o sona e ni.