Announcing "TheAbsolute TV"

[Kevin Solway]

TheAbsolute TV now updated to latest version of Wordpress, so should work now.

TheAbsolute TV

[Rhett]

I tried to view a few of them but there is no picture, just a small red square, and it doesn't work. I also tried to view them at Utube, but i got the below message, which is a problem i've had for a little while and haven't been able to fix.

"Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player."

If java is turned off, how do i turn it on?

I've tried downloading the latest flash but don't get the final video and it hasn't fixed the problem.

[Kevin Solway]

If java is turned off, how do i turn it on?

That's probably why you're not seeing the vids.

This link might help. Or here.

[Rhett]

If java is turned off, how do i turn it on?

That's probably why you're not seeing the vids.

This link might help. Or here.

Active scripting was actually enabled. While i was there i changed a couple of other things from disabled to prompt, and now when i click on the link to the vids, while there is still no picture, the little box has red blue and green in it and there is a message across the top saying "Your security settings do not allow websites to use ActiveX controls installed on your computer...". Utube remains the same. ?

[Tomas]

TheAbsolute TV:
http://www.theabsolute.net/tv/

If you have any requests, either email me, send me a personal message, or leave a comment at the site.

Kevin:

Works for me :-)

Thanks,


.

[Kevin Solway]

Rhett, probably the best thing for you to do is go directly to youtube.com and make sure that you can play videos there. They would have a comprehensive help system explaining how to get it working. Once you are able to view videos at youtube, it'll probably work on my site as well.

[Kelly Jones]

What if the videos are removed from Youtube? Will TheAbsolute.tv still have a copy?

[Kevin Solway]

I have copies of most of them, and can re-upload them to youtube.

[Kevin Solway]

There's now a link to the TV "channel" at the top of the forum. See "TV".

[brokenhead]

The links I tried worked fine.

The MOTI are really well-done, IMO.
Life as a Male was one of the funniest things I can remember seeing. Instant classic.

[kissaki]

I think the fact that each Men of The Infinite segment is short and to the point is a very effective format.

Some topics to consider including in future segments:
- Enlightenment is not a particular behavior, person, setting, or word(s). Delusion of ownership or capturing Enlightenment as a thing.
- Misconception of Buddhist future and past lives/births as separate soul entities
- Enlightenment is not academical in nature. Enlightenment is not scientific knowledge, all powerful control, or endless knowledge. Subtle attachments to knowledge.
- Different methods of pointing to Void. Negation vs Affirmation. The Nature of words.
- Enlightenment is not a life-plan. Individual must still choose and create values and resolve his non-inherent existence with activity of things in the world.
- Subtle misconceptions of words. Infinite means not finite, not astronomically huge. Immortal means not mortal / never born, not very very long time spans.

EDIT:
another talking point:
- correct perception of people / individuals as causal vehicles, empty boats and ultimately not responsible for their behavior. Relation to blame, anger, and delusions of reward and punishment from society.

You might as well go for broke and hit individuals with the very hard and self defeating topics.

[Dan Rowden]

I think the fact that each Men of The Infinite segment is short and to the point is a very effective format.

Youtube has a 10 minute limit on videos nowadays, so there's not much option but to keep them short. But for the most part I think that's actually helpful in avoiding tedious verbosity.

Some topics to consider including in future segments:
- Enlightenment is not a particular behavior, person, setting, or word(s). Delusion of ownership or capturing Enlightenment as a thing.
- Misconception of Buddhist future and past lives/births as separate soul entities
- Enlightenment is not academical in nature. Enlightenment is not scientific knowledge, all powerful control, or endless knowledge. Subtle attachments to knowledge.
- Different methods of pointing to Void. Negation vs Affirmation. The Nature of words.
- Enlightenment is not a life-plan. Individual must still choose and create values and resolve his non-inherent existence with activity of things in the world.
- Subtle misconceptions of words. Infinite means not finite, not astronomically huge. Immortal means not mortal / never born, not very very long time spans.

Interesting ideas. Other than the last, I've actually got vids in mind for the rest. I suspect that with regard to that last idea, that will happen in specific cases in specific video topics, so there may be no reason to do one dedicated to that particular subject. Perhaps a vid on language and definitions and how vital they are might be useful. e.g. when talking about reincarnation and some aspect of consciousness surviving death, it's absolutely vital to know what one specifically means by all of those terms - otherwise madness ensues.

To be honest, my problem right now is that of too many ideas. It's kind of overloading my brain. I'll have to jot a rough synopsis down when I have them so that I can retain them but not have them all swirling around in my headspace.

[kissaki]

Interesting ideas. Other than the last, I've actually got vids in mind for the rest. I suspect that with regard to that last idea, that will happen in specific cases in specific video topics, so there may be no reason to do one dedicated to that particular subject. Perhaps a vid on language and definitions and how vital they are might be useful. e.g. when talking about reincarnation and some aspect of consciousness surviving death, it's absolutely vital to know what one specifically means by all of those terms - otherwise madness ensues.

To be honest, my problem right now is that of too many ideas. It's kind of overloading my brain. I'll have to jot a rough synopsis down when I have them so that I can retain them but not have them all swirling around in my headspace.

Yes, that's quite understandable. My intention was simply to mention the points that I've found the most interesting, harsh, difficult, and profitable to understand in my time reading here.

[Kelly Jones]

The "International Philosophy" video is brilliant. If only Monty Python did more of them.

[mansman]

This one title was Sanity, very hard to hear, with all volume controls on max, other MOTI movies also need at least small bump of sound, please thank you.
I will add here this speech well said but beginner not able to understand, can be better, improved, how? well umm....immediate complaint no one will agree that to perceive hallucination things not there can be sane, head doctors have strict definition I believe and will not change if suddenly some community all see imaginary things flying in the sky, they all concluded nuts for sure. Just Im saying if important to you then try to make it better, seem to be space for improvement.
Most important not to make listner hypnotize to sleep with sound of voice, less possible if add a little volume 30-50% imo.

[Dan Rowden]

This one title was Sanity, very hard to hear, with all volume controls on max, other MOTI movies also need at least small bump of sound, please thank you.

Even though the vid entitled Sanity is the lowest volume (I tried a different recording method) I can still hear it on my system and I have no sound card and my speakers are nothing special. Perhaps you need to check your default system settings to see if they need to be turned up (as well as your Flash settings).

I will add here this speech well said but beginner not able to understand, can be better, improved, how? well umm....immediate complaint no one will agree that to perceive hallucination things not there can be sane, head doctors have strict definition I believe and will not change if suddenly some community all see imaginary things flying in the sky, they all concluded nuts for sure. Just Im saying if important to you then try to make it better, seem to be space for improvement.

If an entire community began to see flying things in the sky, they would consider this to be normal and therefore sane. If you didn't see them, they would think there's something wrong with you. This is why "sanity", in its broadest social meaning, is all about herdliness and not about one's connection to reality. Even clinical diagnoses of certain mental illnesses take into account statistical norms of perception. I know of no psychiatrist, for example, who would not diagnose a mental disorder of some kind on the basis that one does not exhibit emotions. Yet, there's nothing sane about the emotions.

Most important not to make listner hypnotize to sleep with sound of voice, less possible if add a little volume 30-50% imo.

Are you easily hypnotized? If so, what's your current bank balance?

[Kevin Solway]

New video: "Reincarnation"

[Kelly Jones]

The Tibetan Buddhists at Chenrezig gave me a few reasons why people don't remember their past lives. One person said that the birthing process and prior (the bardo state), where the mindstream seeks its next physical body, is so traumatic that all memories are erased. So no one remembers the birth process either. Another person said human rebirth is extremely rare, and that all humans are reborn from incarnations with little or no memory. Another reason was that humans lose their memories all the time and are constantly forgetting things. Another was that children have so much to learn, that their previous lives' memories are generally forgotten (and I think the person said that children are the ones who remember their past lives best).

The students said there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for reincarnation. (Translation: Accept whatever you're told).

I think the deal is that you can explore reincarnation and the idea of the mindstream, if you use a 'you must be right, and I'm just stupid' manner.

[Matt Gregory]

How about one on karma (if you guys haven't done one already)?

[Dan Rowden]

I think Kev's vid was essentially about that, wasn't it?

[Matt Gregory]

Yeah but I mean something more explicit that explains what the idea of karma is good for and what it's not good for. A lot of people think that if someone wins the lottery, then, according to their karma, they must have helped lots of people in the past or whatever (maybe it's puppies?). They turn a valid logical idea into whimsical speculation and I think that new age karma meme is very harmful.

[Carl G]

New video: "Reincarnation"

Nicely done, but seems merely opinion. One school of thought (cause and effect) does not necessarily preclude the other (personal reincarnation). The statement that there is no evidence is false. In the end the truth of the matter probably is unknowable.

[Kevin Solway]

I think that new age karma meme is very harmful.

Yes, we could do one purely on karma.

While the reincarnation video explained reincarnation, it didn't go into detail about how one escapes all karma, and escapes the round of birth and death, and what is meant by those terms.

One school of thought (cause and effect) does not necessarily preclude the other (personal reincarnation). The statement that there is no evidence is false.

It's true that there could be reincarnation, in the sense that the contents of our brains are somehow channelled into the brain of another body at death . . . minus all the memories (!!!!!!). But I've never seen any evidence that strikes me as even slightly suggestive that such reincarnation might take place. If there was a five-year-old child, who, all of a sudden, started speaking in a dialect of the high-German of a century ago, perfectly fluently, even though the child had had no contact whatsoever with any German speaker, then I would regard that as possible evidence in favour of the hypothesis.

[brokenhead]

It's true that there could be reincarnation, in the sense that the contents of our brains are somehow channelled into the brain of another body at death . . . minus all the memories (!!!!!!). But I've never seen any evidence that strikes me as even slightly suggestive that such reincarnation might take place. If there was a five-year-old child, who, all of a sudden, started speaking in a dialect of the high-German of a century ago, perfectly fluently, even though the child had had no contact whatsoever with any German speaker, then I would regard that as possible evidence in favour of the hypothesis.

It is interesting to hear you say this, Kevin. You say there could be, although you have never seen any evidence even slightly suggestive that there in fact is. Then what would make you think that there could be? I know I come across as contary to you a lot of the time, but in this case I am not being contrary in the least. I am genuinely curious why you would even entertain such a possibility if you yourself have seen no evidence. Two questions immediately come to mind: What would be the mechanism for the "somehow channelled" possibility? And what would be the "contents" you speak of if you are saying "minus all the memories"? Do you mean physical contents, like if all the actual atoms of one brain could somehow be made to appear as the corresponding atoms of a new brain?

I think most channelling stories are a hoax, scam or fraud, if not all of them always being all three things. What if there were a situation in which it wasn't a 5-year old child, but an adult who suddenly started narrating things he could not possibly have known about or made up. Say he did it in his sleep and his wife got alarmed and consulted a psychiatrist - a reputable medical doctor - to observe him, and in the process record everything the patient dictated in his sleep. Let's say the patient has a high-profile reputable day job in business and doesn't want word of his "condition" to become public knowledge, he just wants it to go away. Would that be the kind of evidence you are talking about? Something the psychiatrist keeps anonymous but discusses with learned colleagues? I mean something as above board as such things get. To me, channelling stories are all BS. But what if the psychiatrist rules out "channelling," which he has seen and/or read case studies about and knows this isn't that, it's just something not seen in the literature so he goes about documenting it because it fascinates him? Would that be ruled out as "evidence" of any sort of "content" transfer?

[Kevin Solway]

You say there could be, although you have never seen any evidence even slightly suggestive that there in fact is. Then what would make you think that there could be?

I say there "could be" in the same sense that I say there "could be" an alien-God who created our world, even though I've never see any evidence that would suggest that this is the case.

I am genuinely curious why you would even entertain such a possibility if you yourself have seen no evidence.

I entertain the idea as a possibility only, because it is indeed possible.

For example, just before we die an alien being might somehow make a copy of the contents of our brain, using some kind of advanced technology. But because of a bug in the software that the alien can't get fixed for some reason, the memories are always lost.

True, it doesn't seem very likely — but it's possible.

And what would be the "contents" you speak of if you are saying "minus all the memories"?

Sub-conscious tendencies, tastes, or predilections.

Do you mean physical contents, like if all the actual atoms of one brain
could somehow be made to appear as the corresponding atoms of a new brain?

Could be an exact chemical copy of the brain to begin with. But I'm thinking that there would be some kind of lossy transferal of information.

I think most channeling stories are a hoax

Certainly.

James Randi has had a million dollars on offer to anyone who can show that they are channeling a dead person, or demonstrate it convincingly, but no-one has taken him up on the offer.

Would that be the kind of evidence you are talking about?

It wouldn't be as convincing as if the same occurred in a four-year old child.

Would that be ruled out as "evidence" of any sort of "content" transfer?

Any "evidence" would have to be examined and tested by experts before it was admitted as proper evidence.