[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

As you prefer. If you insist that they are separate and distinct and shed no light on each other, then this only means that your earlier post is meaningless.

Personally I think that the peak experience does offer insights into LOA (although that is hardly the most important feature of a peak experience). The peak experience offers insight into LOA, because the peak experience gives you a sense of the interconnectedness of all things.

I thought you were telling me that I was mixing up peak experiences and LoA and my post was saying they are realted big time - and you are saying that too. We are both saying the oneness gives you the perspective to see LoA in operation. I am insisting this - not that they are sperate and distinct and shed no light on each other.

If you have that sense of the interconnectedness of all things (I believe you had used the word "oneness"), then you see experientially, how your thoughts can potentially affect anything (since all things are interconnected).

Let me explain it by using the analogy of a near-death experience. The near-death experience is also "life-changing" and people who have had undergo personality changes for the better etc.

However, as they go about their daily lives, these people are no longer still having a near-death experience; their brain is not dead; they aren't lying on a hospital dead; they aren't seeing a bright light at the end of the tunnel; they do not feel that they are floating out of their bodies etc.

No problem. The experience of oneness is not a state that easily sticks around. In a sense just a memory. But it's not the memory of the event that we take away from the experience. We are saying the same thing. Oneness does show how one's vibration is actually all that is - its not just a potential it is seeing/feeling manifestation/creation unfolding.

It is always in effect. Unlike a peak experience, or a near-death experience.

OK. LoA is always there. Viewing the LoA manifestations is not. A peak experience can show it to you but then that showing can go away but one is left with the feeling or faith that LoA is always there even if we don't see it all the time.

You have to understand that in my earlier post, I was drawing a distinct impression between conscious creation - such as the deliberate attempt to use the LOA to manifest certain effects - and unconscious creation (or what Abraham refers to as "creation by default")

My argument was that according by MI theory, some people will hold natural advantages over others in conscious creation. This essentially is no different from any other kind of activity. According to MI theory, for any kind of activity (whether solving crossword puzzles, or playing a musical instrument, or kicking a ball, or reading a map), there will be some people will hold natural advantages over others.

This is the issue I am trying to sort through. Deliberate attempts to use LoA to manifest certain effects versus unconsious creation. What you say is sounding like this: some people are built to be able to easily manifest deliberatly and others are not. I would say it's not an ability, it's an awareness. Deliberate manifestation is really just that you have awareness of what creation is. That awareness allows one to have goals that are aligned with the spiritual and you get to see them unfold. Unconcsious creation is being, well, unconscious of creation - being stuck in ego and habitual loops of perception. From there goals are not spiritual and may or may not unfold and you may not notice what it is that is being created around you.

ok, so then you can say it's the awareness that some have natural abilities for and other don't. But I still think that would be comparing and not something that helps anyone that is unconscious. Tell a mostly unconscious person that the problem is you don't have natural ability to become conscious or as much as someone else? Is that a empowering message? To make some special and someone else not?

Sometimes I wonder about natural ability all together. Someone who is gifted usually had a drive in that direction and spend lots of time in the field thay are gift in. It's the drive and motivation and awareness that is different, not the gift itself, perhaps. Mozart was brought up in an environment that allowed him to follow his drives that was music. What if he wasn't in that environment? Would have have been able to be a gifted composer in an isolated African dessert where no one played music?