I just have to say that this is a most excellent thread. Many "flaws" in IM/LoA that I myself have thought about have been pointed out.
I spoke with my brother (who's working on his PhD in philosophy) about subjective reality, and that while it's part of elementary philosophy, it's pretty well established that reality is objective, not subjective. You can all say that I perceive my reality is objective because I believe it to be, and that's fine. However, I do find subjective reality a very handy tool for viewing the world.
I took a philosophy of religion class about 15 years ago (goodness, it's been that long now ?!?!) and there were some premises that people generally accepted when talking about God (or whatever name you want to use for him/it). I wish I could remember what it was about, and perhaps I should look it up. But it basically was along the lines of "you can't make a square circle." Perhaps this line of thinking needs to be applied to IM/LoA?
What I'm getting at is, is someone growing wings along the same lines as making a square circle? What ARE the limits to IM? And while it very well may be that the limits to IM are what you believe them to be, I find it a weak argument. If the LoA/IM is Truth, and I believe it to be, there should be some stronger arguments for these supposed exceptions that have been brought up.
Take for example the creation of the universe. If the universe was created by the Universal Spirit, why did it take billions of years? Why couldn't have taken 7 days as those who take a very literal interpretation of the bible claim? Maybe it's just that some things take as long as they take to manifest, that attracting the right synchronicities doesn't always happen instantaneously. But when we start putting limits on how long
we think it should take, or how
we think it should come about, we're making it take that much longer because it will take the universe that much longer to align everything according to our standards.
And what about intending generalities instead of specifics? Intending the winning lottery numbers/ticket vs. intending a certain amount of wealth. Intending a mate with certain qualities and characteristics vs. intending a specific person as you mate. Intending a certain type of job vs. intending that specific job. There has to be something with intentions that create harmony and intentions that create disharmony.
Or to backtrack a little, the idea that thought can be completely creative. If our thought doesn't have the ability to be creative, wouldn't it mean that we can only react to things? That we can't really be held accountable for our actions because we had no choice but to react a given way to a specific cause? But if we do have the ability to make a completely creative choice from our own will, that we are not only creating the through, but that thought is starting a whole chain of cause and effect? If this is true, then our thoughts are creating our realities - our intentions are being made manifest.
I've just kind of rambled, and I'm not exactly sure what my point is, but I do see this all as being somehow related. Maybe someone can make since of my comments, but I've got work to do
