Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

haider · 05-12-2007, 07:32 AM

Wow, I leave this thread for a couple of days, and the posts go forth and multiply!

Max, thank you for your thoughtful response, but I'd like to explain what I said, since some of my statements were ambiguous. You responded to 3 issues, so I will focus only on these:

1) The Law of Attraction: When I said that LoA is "based on the idea that: this is what the world is like, so learn to accept it," I wasn't defining LoA, I was stating a premise that LoA is based on. Joe Vitale says in The Secret (something along the lines of): "LoA is working in your life, whether you believe in it or not." This means that the law is objective, and is not based on your beliefs (i.e. it is not subjective). Therefore, to believe in the LoA, you are accepting an objective reality premise. LoA cannot be switched on or off based on your beliefs. It can only work for you or against you based on what you make of it. This is pure objectivism, and cannot be said to be subjective.

2) Steve's beliefs: Your statement: "He [Steve] actually says (somewhere) that he accepts all beliefs SR/OR whatever to help people who believe in one thing but not others," deserves some elaboration:

- In the True Nature of Reality podcast, Steve rejects both objective reality and a mixture of objective and subjective reality. He says reality is fully subjective. What I'm saying is that nobody can believe in pure subjectivism without coming across a contradiction (whether the person acknowledges it or not).

- I don't see how Steve can accept a belief himself, and act on that belief, in order to help others who share that belief. I believe in objective reality and can explain subjective reality to others, but I wouldn't adopt subjective reality beliefs in order to convince subjectivists. I think where Steve makes use of objective reality, he's walking into a contradiction without realising it (actually, he explains it as him being so used to the OR premise, that it's difficult to escape it).

Many posts by Steve are based on objectivism, and there's no way of escaping it. For example, why should I quit smoking or drinking coffee, if I can pretend (and, therefore, change reality) that smoking and coffee are not harmful? Why can't I eat all the meats that I want, and stuff my face every time I eat, but still be as healthy as I want? Why should I accept the premise that killing humans or hurting animals are "immoral" when, in my subjective reality, I make the rules?

3) The nature of belief: I'm a Muslim, and I come across Muslims who say that they only follow Islam because they were born into it, or that their belief in God is based on faith and not evidence. My response is usually: then why are you still Muslim? And why do you still accept the belief in God? This isn't to undermine the beliefs themselves, but to condemn the approach to these beliefs. If somebody can accept the belief in God based on faith, then he can accept any other belief based on faith as well. He can be an atheist, a Christian, a Nazi, a racist, a whateverist, and base his belief on faith. That attitude, to me, doesn't seem to respect the Truth, but is a form of whim-worship, where we want to define the Truth for ourselves, based on what we want it to be.

I would certainly disagree with the notion that all religions and beliefs are based on faith, or the deliberate neglect of evidence. Many religions are irrational and disregard reality, others express a misunderstanding of reality, but this does not mean that in order to hold "fundamental beliefs" you must suspend your reasoning and deny the evidence of your senses.

Again, I don't mean to offend, but the vast majority of posts in this thread seem to be a play on words (consciousness, Consciousness, CONSCIOUSNESS, avatar, maya, etc, etc). The discussion is being taken into the realm of wishful thinking, precisely because people are defining reality based on what they want, and not what reality is really like.

05-12-2007, 07:32 AM	#71 (permalink)
haider Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 23	Wow, I leave this thread for a couple of days, and the posts go forth and multiply! Max, thank you for your thoughtful response, but I'd like to explain what I said, since some of my statements were ambiguous. You responded to 3 issues, so I will focus only on these: 1) The Law of Attraction: When I said that LoA is "based on the idea that: this is what the world is like, so learn to accept it," I wasn't defining LoA, I was stating a premise that LoA is based on. Joe Vitale says in The Secret (something along the lines of): "LoA is working in your life, whether you believe in it or not." This means that the law is objective, and is not based on your beliefs (i.e. it is not subjective). Therefore, to believe in the LoA, you are accepting an objective reality premise. LoA cannot be switched on or off based on your beliefs. It can only work for you or against you based on what you make of it. This is pure objectivism, and cannot be said to be subjective. 2) Steve's beliefs: Your statement: "He [Steve] actually says (somewhere) that he accepts all beliefs SR/OR whatever to help people who believe in one thing but not others," deserves some elaboration: - In the True Nature of Reality podcast, Steve rejects both objective reality and a mixture of objective and subjective reality. He says reality is fully subjective. What I'm saying is that nobody can believe in pure subjectivism without coming across a contradiction (whether the person acknowledges it or not). - I don't see how Steve can accept a belief himself, and act on that belief, in order to help others who share that belief. I believe in objective reality and can explain subjective reality to others, but I wouldn't adopt subjective reality beliefs in order to convince subjectivists. I think where Steve makes use of objective reality, he's walking into a contradiction without realising it (actually, he explains it as him being so used to the OR premise, that it's difficult to escape it). Many posts by Steve are based on objectivism, and there's no way of escaping it. For example, why should I quit smoking or drinking coffee, if I can pretend (and, therefore, change reality) that smoking and coffee are not harmful? Why can't I eat all the meats that I want, and stuff my face every time I eat, but still be as healthy as I want? Why should I accept the premise that killing humans or hurting animals are "immoral" when, in my subjective reality, I make the rules? 3) The nature of belief: I'm a Muslim, and I come across Muslims who say that they only follow Islam because they were born into it, or that their belief in God is based on faith and not evidence. My response is usually: then why are you still Muslim? And why do you still accept the belief in God? This isn't to undermine the beliefs themselves, but to condemn the approach to these beliefs. If somebody can accept the belief in God based on faith, then he can accept any other belief based on faith as well. He can be an atheist, a Christian, a Nazi, a racist, a whateverist, and base his belief on faith. That attitude, to me, doesn't seem to respect the Truth, but is a form of whim-worship, where we want to define the Truth for ourselves, based on what we want it to be. I would certainly disagree with the notion that all religions and beliefs are based on faith, or the deliberate neglect of evidence. Many religions are irrational and disregard reality, others express a misunderstanding of reality, but this does not mean that in order to hold "fundamental beliefs" you must suspend your reasoning and deny the evidence of your senses. Again, I don't mean to offend, but the vast majority of posts in this thread seem to be a play on words (consciousness, Consciousness, CONSCIOUSNESS, avatar, maya, etc, etc). The discussion is being taken into the realm of wishful thinking, precisely because people are defining reality based on what they want, and not what reality is really like.