I just
posted a blog on this exact topic that I would love some comments on. I'm new to blogging and really wondering if I'm producing useful stuff or not - here's an extract:
First of all, let’s look at a tidbit of information that indicates how misunderstandings are bound to arise. Ester Hicks, author of the book
The Law of Attraction
, has stated (I can’t quote exactly, as I do not remember where in the published material it was), that there is a common resistance to use the word vibrations in the movie and in books on the subject. The reason for this is that this word gives off association that reduces the credibility of the presentation for a number of people. This type of issue is a common denominator of a lot of misinterpretations.
When information is to be presented one has to take into consideration how people receive it. Certain ideas have traditionally been ridiculed to such an extent, that the majority of people are conditioned to associate most words used to describe these ideas with scams and delusions. The word vibrations has come to be associated with “new age la-la land” to such an extent that those who want to present ideas that they think is not “new age la-la stuff” but still easily can be associated with that, have a big problem in which words to choose instead. With the Law of Attraction a lot of presenters have chosen to use words that are more commonly associated with people’s everyday experience and current popular scientific presentations. The downside to this is that this context is mostly based on Newtonian physics and the philosophy of Descartes reductionism. Even though science have moved beyond this, popular opinions and cultural beliefs have not. The LoA is just not possible to explain within the context of Newtonian physics and reductionist thinking, and the attempts to explain it with just the terminology for that context has backfired in a big way.