Originally Posted by Lionman
Oh yeah, and you might want to read this
which I posted in another thread. It's from the same guy who coined Biocentrism and directly related to SR. Be the pigeon who can learn to see itself in a mirror
(understand reference after reading)
Thanks Lionman for both links- I've looked at them both and have to admit I was not familiar with Biocentrism. Despite the fact it doesn't deal with the issue of consciousness itself, in many ways there is a logic to it which is at the same time hard to explain. I would not dismiss any of it out of hand and to be honest I'd love it if the world turned out to actually be this way.
But I do have a concern. Even if the truth does lie within SR (and thus ties in with LOA, IM and so forth) I doubt the breakthrough that mankind needs in order to make full practical use of it will be found here on these forums. Now of cause you could argue that from an SR perspective that need not be true- please excuse me here but I am staying objective. Any breakthrough in the practical application of this subject is most likely to come from the very scientists who have coined such phrases as Biocentrism.
So why does that matter? Well, I go back to my point about whether this website is really a PD site or an entertainment site. Now I'm not saying both can't be included, I'm simply asking what it's real primary purpose is? Again I look objectively but I feel most things we achieve in life require effort and consistency. Be that running a business or making dinner- a sustained effort using known principles generally produces the fastest results. For 99% of those looking to make money fast, the quickest way in all honesty is still probably to get a job. How does changing the lens all the time really help? The only way it can help from a PD point of view is if the results being obtained with that lens really are better/ faster/ etc. Years of watching the IM forums tell me that many more people are failing to grasp it than achieving it. Does that mean IM is BS- not at all. It simply means that from a PD perspective it may be better to focus on the areas that do get good results rather than trying to distort the world view all the time- even if that distorted view eventually turns out to be correct.
There are no doubt talented people who will disagree with me. Acting Like Godot has clearly mastered IM better than most, Steve is getting results with SR, Angela can see the benefits of fun and positive thinking, and no doubt someone, somewhere is benefiting from a belief in santa claus. Are these people wrong- no! They may have an answer, but what is clear is that despite thousands of words from ALG in the IM forum- somewhere the message isn't getting across- even that most important message of letting go and just trying it, doesn't seem to be getting results. So all I am saying is that until such time as the communication through these lens can be improved to create a tipping point- isn't it better to give advice on principles we know that will work for the majority?
Going back to the OP, I doubt any qualified scientist could answer those questions, let alone us here!