So I guess my point was that I too had been at the point where I knew TV was bad for me, but felt I could get more out of it.  But the analyzing was just re-affirming what I already knew.  Now, I am going to miss TV for renting movies and documentaries.  I'm in a more cultural town now with a store full of foreign and independent films, that I can't watch, there's movies mentioned on here I've wanted to see (Dark City, Long Kiss Goodnight come to mind) that I won't be able to see.  Maybe if I save up like I plan to buy a new computer I could watch DVDs, or if I got some friends I could watch with them, but at the same time that there are so many admittedly good films to watch, there are so many good books to read.  So it's not like there's nothing to challenge my brain out there.

On another note, I had a few anti-TV dreams some time ago.  At least a year back.  Every now and then I have a dream where I'm talking to someone "off camera" who seems to give me good advice.  One time I saw the TV right across from my bad, and something kinda scary was coming out of it and I was told that it was dangerous even while off (might have been shortly after skimming BOTD, not sure).  Another time I was told that there are signs that a person is intelligent, and they are 1) doesn't smoke, 2) doesn't watch TV, and 3) eats lots of tomatoes.  At the time I still smoked, but gave that up fairly recently.  Don't know about tomatoes, had a few other tomato dreams I think, maybe my body needs more lycopene or something?  Thing is I think I eat more than average.

Glad to see this post generated so much discussion in my absence the past few days, even if it was somewhat agitated discussion at times.

the reason i mentioned that show specifically was because i think/feel it reflected the truth about a certain situation that's happening in the world ...

as much as television is used for propaganda purposes and mind control and all that ugly business - the truth is also present and out there in tv land ...

that documentary on sugar was a reminder for me about how corrupt our world is - this was just one form of it. this is something to learn from, is it not? people say - yes, well, the world is ugly, but so what, i can't do anything about it - but the most anyone can do about it ? isn't it to enquire into the truth ? so what does that entail ? doesn't that mean that facing facts is important ?

not just about the world outside, but also the facts we find within ourselves.

When I look at people who are mostly about money, material well being, or people who love power, or having an important position or title - you know - everything that's glitz and gleam on the surface - like some of the people that were featured in that documentary - the owners of the sugar companies - or some family friends of ours - or people i've worked for professionally - some of these people are extremely shallow - they don't have much on the inside ... they're usually seeking external things for their happiness - seeking pleasure, seeking to expand their wealth - more more more - and it's mostly just about them - living in a bubble like this - concerned only for their own small immediate sphere - this is dangerous - this is our fragmentary way of being - we see ourselves as separate - but that fragmentation - is it a reflection of what goes on within us ? is it just the 'surface dwellers' that are fragmented ? 

... there was one guy they were interviewing in that "Big Sugar" documentary who is an owner of one of these sugar companies, and he has a sugar plantation in in South America, where actual slaves are working for him right now in horrible conditions - and the gentlemen asking this man questions pointed this out - and the owner of the plantation was in complete denial - he was actually laughing and telling the interviewer that he must have his facts mixed up ... to see this was a phenomenal thing for me - but this sort of "self denial" i'll call it - it's not uncommon - i think this is part of the danger of what happens when we don't face facts, when we don't have an awareness of ourselves - we can become self deluded ...

it's hard enough when someone points something out to us and says - you're this way - especially if that's something unpleasant - what about having our own awareness of ourselves as we are - no matter how we are ? is it possible to be aware of ourselves, our complete way of being, without judgement or identification ? i say it is - and that's the factor that brings about fundmental change from within. 

Wheter someone watches tv or not - i don't think that matters as much as whether someone has self knowledge - and that's not something that can be passed from any medium, whether it's a person, television, books, whatever, from one person to another ... we learn about ourselves as we are by watching ourselves in relation to the world, people, ideas, situations, etc - we act as mirrors for each other - and that's how we learn ... at least that's part of it ...

(sigh)

Maybe in your own mind you don't feel like you look down on people who still watch a bit of tv occasionally. However, the words you choose to use often make it look like you do. Perhaps I was going a bit over the top using the words "something extremely wrong" however you do frequently come across as being very patronising. It might not be intentional but it's something I've noticed a lot.I mean  the statement "People want to believe that the couple of good programs or networks they can tick off makes TV okay in the end and "not so bad."    But it doesn't.   Because there isn't anything you can get from TV that you can't get from books." comes across as being an incredibly patronising statement aimed at people who still watch a bit of tv. By saying it like that it sounds like you're putting yourself above people who enjoy watching a couple of tv programs.

That's your interpretation of it. 

You know what *I* find most interesting? 

A)  I heard your thought earlier in my mind as you were probably typing it.   And it wouldn't be the first time I've known what you were going to say...word for word....before you posted it.  I'm truly not lying. I've mentioned this happening before, a long time ago.   I already knew *exactly* what you were going to say.  What's that all about, I wonder?   Which leads to... 

B)  I had a prominant ear ringing in my right ear just before your post went up.

I'll leave things at that.   The fact is Andy, nobody was even talking to you....................certainly not me.  Then you jump in, quote me, compose an entire defensive post justifying your TV watching.......like I care!  And like I want you to answer to ME......then, I respond, and now we have this??   You derailing things off onto something about "lyra" and "fighting" and "misunderstandings" all that?   Who started this?   Not me Andy.  Jeez Louise.    "Something weird" is amiss is putting it mildly.  I want no part of it, whatever it is. 

Back to TV.

Later...

And I've already clarified this several times on this forum because people keep making this fallacy - that because I'm down on TV then I'm somehow judging and looking down on those who partake in it.

(sigh)

Maybe in your own mind you don't feel like you look down on people who still watch a bit of tv occasionally. However, the words you choose to use often make it look like you do. Perhaps I was going a bit over the top using the words "something extremely wrong" however you do frequently come across as being very patronising. It might not be intentional but it's something I've noticed a lot.

I mean  the statement "People want to believe that the couple of good programs or networks they can tick off makes TV okay in the end and "not so bad."    But it doesn't.   Because there isn't anything you can get from TV that you can't get from books." comes across as being an incredibly patronising statement aimed at people who still watch a bit of tv. By saying it like that it sounds like you're putting yourself above people who enjoy watching a couple of tv programs.

Perhaps I completely misinterpreted your statement (it wouldn't be the first time ), but I do think it's interesting that you're the one person in this forum who spends an inordinate amount of time either arguing with people or defending your postition about something, usually because someone "misinterpreted" you apparantly.

Not me.  I love the technology of our time.  I am here in this moment and I want to experience what is to offer.

I study polls and ratings.  What interests people, interests me.  I'm trying to understand what is going on at this moment because I am here now.  Time means nothing really, so I am studying what humans do with their time.

Why resist the options technology offers?  Choose to do what you will, but leave every option open. 

I can rent 3 DVD's each day through Hollywood Video, which uses my 3 TVs.  At this point, I've seen nearly everything.

I have cable, which offers me hundreds of options.  I love informational stuff of every sort.

And I have porn, which helps me.  Yes it does.

I turn on Soundscapes when I am reading, or on the internet.

Interaction with another person is even more stimulating.  Yes, I feel it now.  Feel it.

But technolgy is a great option.  Yet, spirituality is more. 

So choose among the options you have.  Have many options. 

I like TV.

Now, I have a Sony Prosumer camcorder and am creating TV stuff.

GRRR enough TV

Give me some sex.

(And he takes a deep breath)

Defending yourself when you've been misrepresented is a whole different thing than defending yourself when nobody was even addressing you in the first place.

Of course there was nothing wrong with my defending myself...I was directly quoted, put in the spotlight, and (it seems) that I was being told that I'm insinuating that there's is "something exremely wrong with people" who still have TV in their life.

Funny thing is I added the "(you done so in this very thread - nothing wrong with that)" part as an edit nearly an hour after I initially posted it.  Even afterward I wasn't sure I did the right thing.  I totally understood where you were coming from.  You wanted to claify - as you felt Andy's comment about demonising people was aimed at you.  Other people jump to their own defense without any reason other than feeling self-consious...I find myself still doing that occasionally, even though I know better.

I understood what and why you posted - but the fact I added that extra line in; "(you done so in this very thread - nothing wrong with that)" made it appear to you that I had mis-interprited you.  Perhaps because I wasn't very clear in my post.

But yeah - I agree people always seem to feel the need to explain themselves, even when it is unnecessary.  (I used to work with a 55 year old woman that constantly explained herself in every conversation, no matter the subject).  Maybe it comes from some sort of conditioning or being self-conscious.

I guess my point is this; Regardless of the context of peoples self explaination (self-consiousness, mis-interpriation, clarification etc.) does it all rise from the same place inside of us?

But then I realised, telling people that constantly was all the doing of my ego.   People naturally "defend" themselves (you done so in this very thread - nothing wrong with that) - more so on the 'net than in real conversation - because it is difficult to know if a post is aimed at you personally.

Like with everything else - ego spouting, TV watching, Ice Cream eating, sports loving etc. the main times they are problems is when they come from unawareness, and an unconscious mind.  But I think that is pretty much what you are saying anyway...

Ego trips, that is sooooo true!  I have been guilty of that in some of my posts (I stated that in the "Toot your horn" thread).  Lately, when I post I have been really careful to make sure I am actually making a contribution and not just my ego talking.  Nevertheless, like a fly sometimes we get caught in the spider web and suffer the consequences.  It is part of growing (not necessarily physically) and we should just take our medicine, go to the corner and whistle for a while.  I suspect most of us at NR feel the same way. 

We should also remember that our "tunnel reality" is what causes arguments, defensiveness, misunderstandings and others.  I can consider myself a person of strong conviction an yet will label a person with the same behaviour as obstinate.  I could feel proud of being flexible but somebody else is wishy-washy.  Both are the same and yet, my tunnel reality sees two.   Whether we watch TV or not does not make any difference as long as we give room to the person taking the opposite position.  Great post Marcus.

Mavis,

When I have time I like to watch Saturday Night Live re-runs.  Law and Order is second.  Most of the time I record them so I can skip the commercials.  When you record them a one hour show turns into almost half and hour show-------------Heck of a way to optimize TV time.

Regards,

Lee

But then I realised, telling people that constantly was all the doing of my ego.  Now I mention it if the topic comes up - but even then, only sometimes.  Mostly I don't say anything unless people ask me about it.

Same here.  In "the real world"   I only tell people about my lack of TV when they directly ask me.   "SO!!  DID YOU WATCH _______ LAST NIGHT?!?!"   Then out comes the inevitable..."Um, no, I don't own a TV...." 

"YOU DON'T OWN A TV?!   YOU POOR THING!!  DO YOU NEED ONE??  I KNOW WHERE I COULD GET YOU ONE IF YOU W...."

"Um, no, it's on purpose.  But thanks."   

Defending yourself when you've been misrepresented is a whole different thing than defending yourself when nobody was even addressing you in the first place.

Of course there was nothing wrong with my defending myself...I was directly quoted, put in the spotlight, and (it seems) that I was being told that I'm insinuating that there's is "something exremely wrong with people" who still have TV in their life.   But I didn't do that.  So, yes, some clarification was in order to address a misconception.   I'm not criticizing those who "defend themselves."   I'm pointing out the interesting phenomenon where people can get on here and say "Hey!  I don't like TV!  And I don't watch it!"  and then ten people will immediately pop up...defending the fact that they watch it themselves.   Not defending TV.....but defending *themselves.*   When nobody was even addressing them in the first place, and it had nothing to do with them.  !   

I wish people could understand this.  I'm all about the idea that we don't have to answer to anybody...because I spent 18 years of my life being forced to answer to stuff in an "out of line" sort of way.   So I'm all about letting people know....Hey!  You don't have to answer to me, or anybody else!   If you watch TV, I don't care.   

But on a public messageboard if somebody if expounding the virtues of TV and I can see how they could get the same thing from say, books, (like what I was saying to oceanchild for instance) I'll point it out, being that it's a public messageboard venue and is appropriate.   That's what this is - idea and feedback exchange.   But I'm not going to attack oceanchild, or anybody else personally for engaging in it.  They're adults.  It's their life. 

Hope that clarifies.

Think about that one for a second.   You can see it in this thread.  You see it every time the subject of TV watching comes up on this forum.   Somebody says "TV isn't so hot, I don't watch it..." and ten people respond defending the fact that they watch it, what they do and don't watch and why, how much they watch, and on and on.   And it's not just TV, it's true for anything.   If I got on here and proclaimed "HEY!  I don't like strawberry ice cream!"  Guaranteed, somebody would get on here defending the fact that they eat it, saying they happen to like it, here are ten reasons WHY they like it, they don't see anything wrong with it, and here's why there's nothing wrong with it...and a small essay on their personal strawberry ice cream eating history just to illustrate why it's okay in their book, and why they don't feel bad about eating it.    !!   Seriously.  It's the weirdest thing.   Just because somebody doesn't like something you like, you shouldn't feel the need to defend yourself.   It has nothing to do with you.  (and yes, by saying stuff like, "...so shoot me!" and "you know what?  I think that's totally fine..." and "I'm not going to apologise..." you're being defensive.  Nobody was asking for an apology.  Nobody was even addressing you, or "putting you on the spot" or "making you answer for yourself" regarding TV in any way.  As an adult, you answer to nobody in life but yourself.  You have to live your life as you see fit.)

That's the same with everything though isn't it?  It's peoples nature.  If you look at every single post on this forum - you can see the person behind the text...and to some extent their ego as well.  Same goes for books when you read them - regardless of whether the book is fact of fiction - you can still see the persons ego in the text.  Also it is true for film and TV.

Some people just go to a greater extent than others.  Like I say - I don't watch TV (broadcast TV that is, I do watch a few TV programmes though).  I haven't watched TV for a good few years now - even though I have a really great expensive TV which I just brought.  For the first few years, I would take every oppertunity I could to tell people how "I don't watch TV", "TV is junk" - and point out many of the negative aspects of TV.

But then I realised, telling people that constantly was all the doing of my ego.  Now I mention it if the topic comes up - but even then, only sometimes.  Mostly I don't say anything unless people ask me about it.  Different attitudes from different people - I don't think either attitude is better than the other.  People naturally "defend" themselves (you done so in this very thread - nothing wrong with that) - more so on the 'net than in real conversation - because it is difficult to know if a post is aimed at you personally.

Like with everything else - ego spouting, TV watching, Ice Cream eating, sports loving etc. the main times they are problems is when they come from unawareness, and an unconscious mind.  But I think that is pretty much what you are saying anyway...

Personally I know that 99% of tv is trash, (and hell, I even occasionally watch some of the trash just for light relief and entertainment!...hey, so shoot me!!:) ) and you know what? I think that's totally fine, I'm not going to apologise for that or make excuses. But I will I admit I do get a little annoyed sometimes that some people in this forum like to keep on insinuating that there's something extremely wrong with people who still have a tv set in their house!

If you're referring to me, then you're definitely mistaken.  And I've already clarified this several times on this forum because people keep making this fallacy - that because I'm down on TV then I'm somehow judging and looking down on those who partake in it.   Nowhere in any of my posts have I put a forum member down for watching it.   But I will point out to them that Hey, t.v. is one of those mind control tools.   There seems to be a bit of conspiracy going on with the cable boxes.  Etc. 

But there's a difference between pointing out the problems with TV/stating that I myself don't like TV.....and "insinuating that there's something extremely wrong with people who still have a tv set in their house."   Something extremely wrong with people......those are dramatic, harsh words.   And no, I've never insinuated that about anybody on this forum.

What I find most interesting is that how anytime somebody on this forum points out the problems and issues with TV, then people start popping up...........to defend themselves.  !!   And not to defend TV itself.......but to defend themselves for watching it. 

Think about that one for a second.   You can see it in this thread.  You see it every time the subject of TV watching comes up on this forum.   Somebody says "TV isn't so hot, I don't watch it..." and ten people respond defending the fact that they watch it, what they do and don't watch and why, how much they watch, and on and on.   And it's not just TV, it's true for anything.   If I got on here and proclaimed "HEY!  I don't like strawberry ice cream!"  Guaranteed, somebody would get on here defending the fact that they eat it, saying they happen to like it, here are ten reasons WHY they like it, they don't see anything wrong with it, and here's why there's nothing wrong with it...and a small essay on their personal strawberry ice cream eating history just to illustrate why it's okay in their book, and why they don't feel bad about eating it.    !!   Seriously.  It's the weirdest thing.   Just because somebody doesn't like something you like, you shouldn't feel the need to defend yourself.   It has nothing to do with you.  (and yes, by saying stuff like, "...so shoot me!" and "you know what?  I think that's totally fine..." and "I'm not going to apologise..." you're being defensive.  Nobody was asking for an apology.  Nobody was even addressing you, or "putting you on the spot" or "making you answer for yourself" regarding TV in any way.  As an adult, you answer to nobody in life but yourself.  You have to live your life as you see fit.)

Earlier with oceanchild in no way was I trying to insinuate that there was "something extremely wrong" with him/her for still watching some TV.   But I was thinking My god......what a trip!  I wrote a scene in a story five years ago that mirrors what he/she is saying to a T!!!!!!   

And as long as someone seems like they still might be unaware of some aspects of TV (especially the cable boxes thing....most people don't mention that when they talk about "TV conspiracy" and it seems many have never heard of it....) then I will point it out, like Hey...you might want to know about this....some food for thought here....

How that's insinuating that there's "something extremely wrong with them" is a mystery to me.

People want to believe that the couple of good programs or networks they can tick off makes TV okay in the end and "not so bad."    But it doesn't.   Because there isn't anything you can get from TV that you can't get from books.

True in a sense.

But books definitely aren't the be all and end all. Go into any large book store and you'll find that for every trashy tv program that exists you'll find there's also a thousand trashy books. Even in the so-called good book sections like the "mind-body-spirit" (or whatever) sections , you'll still find there's tons of books full of crap and disinformation.

I'm certainly not trying to say that tv is better than books. Give me a good book any day of the week. I personally spend far more time reading than I do watching tv. However, I don't think tv is always quite the evil thing some people on this forum think it is. There are definitely people out there making tv programs that are really worth watching (either for education or just entertainment). They may be few and far between, but they definitely exist! (of course, the people who dont have a tv have no idea about that because they never see them! ).

I also think there's a lot to be said for images sometimes, and particularly visual interviews. Seeing somebody interviewed on tv is a completely different experience to just reading an interview in a book or an article. As they say, a picture paints a thousand words, and I think there's some degree of truth to that.

For example there's a new David Attenborough nature/wildlife documentary just started on BBC1 in the UK called Planet Earth, and much of the footage (which was actually taken using military camera technology) is just incredible and aweinspiring.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/planetearth/

There's just absolutely no comparrison between reading about it in a book to seeing it all brought alive in full motion video and sound.

In my opinion tv is only a problem if you can't control your habit, or can't control your urge to just turn it on and channel surf for no reason.

Personally I know that 99% of tv is trash, (and hell, I even occasionally watch some of the trash just for light relief and entertainment!...hey, so shoot me!!:) ) and you know what? I think that's totally fine, I'm not going to apologise for that or make excuses. But I will I admit I do get a little annoyed sometimes that some people in this forum like to keep on insinuating that there's something extremely wrong with people who still have a tv set in their house!

Well I can completely agree with you on that 100%. Thankfully in the UK commercial breaks aren't nearly as bad as in the US (and on BBC channels we don't even have commercial breaks!).

I've only ever been to the US once back in 1995 when I lived for 3 months in Colorado and I watched a fair bit of tv back then. The constant commercial breaks used to drive me mad. I mean you guys have commercial breaks 2 or 3 minutes into a program, and then you'll have breaks every 10 minutes and then even a commercial break just before the credits roll. It's completely crazy, and that was back in 1995. maybe things have got even worse since then. Here in the UK we have an average of 1 commercial break every 15 or 20 minutes. It's still annoying but a lot better than what you guys deal with.

My current tv is actually a few feet to the left of my computer, and so if I'm ever watching a program with commercials, I'll either go and make a drink, or I'll immediately check Noble Realms or some other website on my computer, but I will never ever waste time watching commercials!!

Anyway, to sum up. Yes tv's generally do a lot more harm than good, not much argument there; however, that's mainly to unconscious people who don't know any better.  For us Noble Realmers, I personally don't see much problem with having a tv, particularly for entertainment purposes. We all need light relief sometimes.

What bugs me the most about TV isn't the programs................................it's the commercials.   Sure, yeah, the programs can be dippy, or downright gross, but commercials....CAN NOT DEAL.  Even on a radio I can't deal with them.  They make me angry!!    And they give me a headache.

Regards,

lee