[Acting Like Godot]

Well, it's good that we all understand each other, Mark.

Personally, for me, in seeking to understand LOA in a theoretical way, I turn to diverse sources. As mentioned before, I would read, for example, about quantum physics, Buddhism, Abraham-Hicks, neuroscience, psychology, Carl Jung, Indian spiritual practices, hypnosis etc.

I would not say that LOA is false, because a part of it is not in accordance with a certain chapter in Buddhist scripture. Similarly I would not say that LOA is false, because a part of it is not in line with one of Carl Jung's treatises.

And I would not say that LOA is false, because scientists haven't proven a certain A, B or C in quantum physics.

But it is always interesting for me, to put all these different fields, disciplines etc side by side, and see how they actually manage to add up to a grand, and surprisingly coherent and consistent description of reality and consciousness.

For instance, if you refuse to accept the "consciousness causes collapse" theory in quantum physics, one of the major alternatives would be physicist Hugh Everitt's "Many Worlds" theory - and gasp! When you read about that theory, it's practically like a chapter from Jane Roberts' "The Seth Material", where Seth, a purportedly channeled being, explains what he calls "multidimensional reality".

Anyway, all that, as I said, relates to the theoretical aspect of LOA for me.

In practice, I just go around manifesting more and more good things for myself and my family. It's fun and exciting, and sometimes it does make the theory part seem rather silly and irrelevant. Who cares exactly how it works, as long as it DOES work?