Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot  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. |
Yup, I can see that, and I know I do the same, just picking and choosing different aspects of all those same concepts (and quite possibly many of the same as you) to accept and integrate into something that works for me.
It's what we humans have done for a long time. Some Christians have chosen some parts of the bible to accept and others to reject (or at least label as metaphor), while others make different selections. Steve has said he immerses himself in set of beliefs he's exploring, then decides which beliefs to keep and which to reject, thereby not identifying with any one system.
So why should it be possible that different people can look at the same concepts and combine them in different ways, each equally appropriate (at least to them)? There's probably a number of positive and negative reasons (creativity on the positive side, cognitive bias on the negative side, for example). But I think it does highlight the problem with taking an assumption and running with it. It seems obvious to the one who made it, yet many other people would disagree. We'd do well to stop and think why, otherwise we may end up running off the cliff that everyone else saw but we didn't...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot 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". |
And no doubt if you look further into the past you'll see similar ideas of multidimensional reality. From my point of view, both theories are equally (un)likely. Mainly because I don't know enough and there are dissenting opinions amongst those who know more. I have a nice view from up on the fence here so I think I'll sit for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot Anyway, all that, as I said, relates to the theoretical aspect of LOA for me. |
A little earlier I read a quote, which I can't remember exactly so I'm paraphrasing, "we all consistently use what we already know to build little stories about what we don't." I'd extend that to say that we're more inclined to associate something new with the strongest of our existing pieces of knowledge. Therefore if your primary belief is in the LoA, it's no surprise that you readily associate everything with it, particularly if you define the LoA as something with a very large scope. The same with me and generally scientific beliefs. (and there's neuroscientific support for this process which you may have come across).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot 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? |
It all depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to use if for yourself and your family, sure, how doesn't matter much, as long as you know enough of how to make sure that it
does work. If you want to pass it on to your kids, how matters a little more, but not too much.
But if you want to teach it to everyone, well, then how matters a lot, particularly when curious (and possibly annoying) students ask difficult questions. I've taken yoga classes with a few different teachers. Two of the best knew a lot of the history of yoga, had trained with revered yogis, and were highly knowledgeable and obviously very good at what they did. Both incorporated traditional, non-scientific concepts and theory into their training. Yet one had also studied human physiology. Guess who was the better instructor? (though 'better' in this case is really a distinction between really really really good and really really good
)
And if you want to improve the process, how matters. If you want to use it to improve
other process, how matters. If you want to use it to understand (or explain) how the universe works, how matters.
As for testing the God hypothesis, ha, no thanks. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's not a waste of time
