Joesugar,
Yes, I am in total agreement. When I started reading Cybernetics it made total sense out of the Law of Attraction. To me it explains that so much of what we accomplish is being carried out on a subconscious level based upon what we are focused on. And the more focused we are the more successful we are at achieving it, whether we are focusing on the negative or the positive, it’s our choice. It takes the mysticism out of the Law of Attraction and makes complete logical sense. When I first learned of LOA it was too hard for me to swallow, especially as described by "The Secret", and made the Universe out to be one big wish granting Genie. But after reading psycho cybernetics it brought things into a much more plausible perspective.
The only difficult thing I still run into is that sense I have failed so many times at so many things it is difficult for me to apply Cybernetics because I haven’t the courage to pick a target anymore. I am having difficulty finding forums discussing the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joesugar  Hello to all,
I am new to the forum but have been studying the Law of Attraction (LOA) and related subjects for a few years now. Erin's recent blog entry on the LOA and the ensuing discussion brought to mind one of the things that continually strikes me about it, that is the similarities between what is said about the LOA and the work of Maxwell Maltz on Psycho-Cybernetics in the 1960s.
Both speak of the necessary role that self-image plays. Both speak of how the subconcious cannot tell the difference between a real and vividly imagined experience and the role this plays in achieving our goals. The big difference seems to be that Maltz approaches it from a cybernetics point of view where the subconcious acts as a goal seeking mechanism whereas LOA approaches it from quantum mechanics point of view where we create our own realities.
Has anyone else here read this book and noted similarities? Or perhaps you've read it and don't think they're connected at all? |