Seems like the tune has changed from part 2 where in and out was less morally weighted. I mean to intend that I create a good meal that I will eat well was an in flow - but now that though is an in flow as fear beased? fine - so eating to survive is a fear based way of looking at nourishment, I suppposed I can fit that and continue.
Also there seems to be a shift from the idea that the thought energy division is about giving versus receiving. It's now love and fear.
Is all giving to be viewed as love? Generating something "out there" is all good and lovey? Aren't there cases were creating something or even giving is actually harmful to the receiver? OK, so that's fine if we color it with love - which is to say giving with love is going to be clear.
The same with recieving - now is all recieving fear based? OK, lets color recieving with fear and say that's what will be a strong signal for LoA to kick in. But, then there are ways to recieve that are not fear based (I hope) that is an inflow that can have a strong signal. For instance intending that I have good health is self love of an in flow kind. Or what about all the IM stuff about receiving money and finding the blocks to it, as if that kind of receiving is OK and removing the blocks is taking the fear out of it?
And so a fear based motivated person is able to wield LoA very effectively? Doesn't that contradict the ideas that IM work "for the good of all"?
I don't know - maybe the jump from in/out terms to fear/love is more like a retro edit of thoughts on Steve's blog - and he so much as says the terms weren't well defined. And in/out doesn't really map to fear/love but the ideas of a fear/love polarity are indeed a strong line for personal modus operandi.
As always great stuff to think about and look at applying!  |