[Balbrae]

Originally Posted by Moriarty

personally, I think this is all over-productive minds. The brain is extremely intricate machinery and yet we're still discovering new things about it. If one works at blocking a memory then the brain will accomodate this...its no different to a traumatised victim who has blocked the trauma out. We can make more of it if we want, but this is just ignorance on our part.

Mainstream psychology's basic point about repressed memories is that those memories caused trauma, leading one to ignore them and stuff them way down inside. Our neural network is so amazing that memories can literally be shunted off from ordinary, conscious access, as a "protective mechanism." However, one cannot shut off non-conscious access to them. The key problem with repressed memories is that they cause maladaptive behavior, until they are acknowledged and "released." A person who was brutally attacked may develop an extreme aversion to being in public or may distrust people to the point of hysteria. I tend to agree with Butterfly Woman: erasing a memory, under the logic of it, would not be the same thing as repressing a memory. Actually, erasing a memory would be a form of "releasing" it. Erasing a memory would appear to be a non-conventional--and perhaps not fully understood--method. This method of "memory release" is unconventional because it does not occur by, say, a stereotyped method of reliving the horror to a psychiatrist, perhaps under a hypnotic state, so that the conscious mind can dissolve it bit by bit, session by session.

As Butterfly Woman correctly states, this forum on the Internet focuses a school of thought concerning Intention-Manifestation. Just so that you don't think that these posts espouse ideas that are "just ignorance on our part," ideas of the LoA had a recent rebirth from the 1850s through the 1930s, then called the "New-Thought Movement." This is not some brand-new idea.

The point is, with belief, we can force the brain to see images that dont exist...to believe things that never happened....to live in fantasy...to adore where adoration has no place..etc.

You are half right here. If you can "force" your brain to visualize, then that is but a start. Under the LoA, that visualization will materialize in the physical world. So it is not for silliness that one engages in such visualization.

I'm dont lean towards science..in fact, i'd be the first to start a debate in this arena. Yet, I do think that we need to be somewhat logical with subjects such as this. I feel we to easily jump right into magical thinking.

Cheers

Depending on how you mean the phrase "magical thinking," you may be right. There IS something special and magical about the LoA, which connotes ease, and not brute force. But, when you state "we need to be somewhat logical with subject," you leave the train of logic yourself.

All that logic is, is a connected set of premises and conclusions that observe internal consistency. As for manifesting a different past, the premises were laid out above: (1) time is simultaneous (everything is occurring at the same time); (2) there is no "past", "present," or "future," but only the illusion of such; (3) with every decision a person makes, he or she "sends off" an alternate self into a different dimension, where that alternate self actualizes the other choices that once confronted you (a school of quantum physics believes this, so this theory is not without serious-minded support. The "Many Worlds Theory" of quantum physics posits that with each collapse of the probability wave function (upon observation by an observer), a different universe/dimension of life is created for the choice not actualized); and (4) all of one's alternative selves exist at the same "time," separated only by dimension.

Seth was utterly brilliant on the subject, he spoke of the manner in which people change dimensions every day, and he meant literally every day! The diagram I posted above has its internal logic, mapping out an occurrence where one accesses one's past self. There is nothing illogical about it, as its conclusions obey the rules of the set of premises. Now, simply because we have not yet detected the occurrence of an alternate self merging with a past self--or manifesting a different past--does not mean that it holds no logic. Indeed, under the logic of the idea, the whole point is that the one doing the merging and the one who has been "merged with" cannot remember the event. Seth would say, "we are none the wiser." Science readily admits that there is more we don't know than we do know, but that doesn't make science illogical. This is quite a logical discussion, even for a special and "magical" topic.