Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot  Now, are you paying the lawyer $700 for his physical action (typing), or are you paying him for his thoughts? |
Aren't you paying him for the work that he does? Work which involves
both thinking
and action.
Megan: I'd be interested to read that study about mental weight lifting. Do you remember where you came across it? And suppose it were valid, and that thinking can build muscle, or make other changes to the body. That doesn't support the argument that thinking can directly influence objects disconnected from the body. Particularly if the study could isolate the mechanisms of thought influencing muscle (release of hormones which stimulate growth for one example, and unconscious clenching of muscles during the 'thought' exercises for another...)
This thread of the discussion highlights the issue of scope; Some believe all thought can influence all matter, while others believe that thought does have some influence, but only through physical mechanisms, which could be psychological/neurobiological mechanisms which only
seem to directly link thought to results.
As for the review, I agree that The Secret is presented in a way which depicts the LoA as an irrational belief. I don't agree that it is irrational at it's core, just that there is a lot of unnecessary mysticism surrounding it, such as the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of quantum theory (appropriately called quantum mysticism by some).
In that respect I (surprisingly) agree with dorothy hanna; the author didn't 'get it'. But I can't blame him, the creators of The Secret put it together in a way that doesn't allow someone to really get it. The core message is surrounded by far too much distraction. You can understand it if you're already familiar with (or even willing to embrace) all that distraction, but otherwise you'd miss the point.
The Secret is great for believers, and potentially convincing for those who are unsure, but little more than confirmation of wilful misguidance to sceptics.