Law of Attraction and Psycho-Cybernetics

[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?

[danlman]

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.

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?

[joesugar]

danlman,

If you liked PsychoCybernetics, I recommend you get hold of a copy of "The Psychology of Persuasion" by Robert Cialdini and read Chapter 3 where he discusses commitment and consistency. Pay particular attention to where he speaks of the experiences of Korean War POWs held by the Chinese and how seemingly small, inconsequential actions can change our perception of ourself and how we react to situations without our realizing it.

I mention it because upon reading this, it occurred to me that this is the whole explanation behind affirmations and how even the smallest actions on our part can have significant effects in our lives.

[danlman]

Joesugar,

Hello I just so happen to have a copy of "The Psychology of Persuasion" by Kevin Hogan but this is the wrong author. I will keep an eye out for the one by Robert Cialdini; I am very interested in what you were talking about.

Thanks.

One small note, If Psycho cybernetics is so successful you would think you would see a lot more discussions about it on the web. Just a thought.

[Dive Bomb]

It's a fairly popular book on the web, I see it mentioned in peronal development type forums. It's a good read, the language is not as mysterious and "woo woo" as other books. It's more left brained in my opinion.