Garbage, all of it.

[John Freestone]

@tk

You cannot trust a people who may have audience. While they are correct in everything they (you) say, they will always be the weakest and possibly strongest part of you.

ALG and SP are your consciousness.

Sorry? I don't understand most of that. If you are saying that people who have an audience can never be trusted, I would reply that you have a point, but might be overstating it. While an audience might be a reason for someone to be dishonest (deliberately or via unconscious denial), I think some people handle this pressure better than others. Besides, I always find it best to hear what people have to say and then make up my own mind, so in that sense I don't have to 'trust' anyone, at least not to the point of taking everything they say as true.

Next, you suggest that they will always be correct in everything they say (and so will I). If I understand you, this seems like a ridiculous statement, meaning that no-one ever says anything that isn't true, and I think you have just disproved it by making that statement. Besides, if no-one ever said anything that wasn't true, this would refute your first statement; everyone (with or without an audience) would be trustworthy all the time.

You can see where we're going with this. I can't make any sense of "they will always be the weakest and possibly strongest part of you", nor of "ALG and SP are your consciousness". I get the feeling you're writing new-age psychobabble to avoid having to think. Sorry if I've got it all wrong, and I'd love it if you could help me understand what you're saying.

[Angela]

John, you seem to be making a big deal out of your distrust for Steve. How come? I mean, what's in it for you to write out these posts? What's in it for us? I am willing to prostrate myself before the reality of you writing them; I'm just wondering: how come?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

John, you seem to be making a big deal out of your distrust for Steve. How come? I mean, what's in it for you to write out these posts? What's in it for us? I am willing to prostrate myself before the reality of you writing them; I'm just wondering: how come?

Hi Angela,

What it gives me is involvement with others in discussing personal development, and discussing pd is part of doing pd. I came here to learn and to share my views. When I did a net search looking for something of this kind (I can't remember the exact search terms), this forum is one of the first I came to, and I thought, ok, why not? So here I am. I happen to have some negative views about Steve's philosophy, and his and Erin's blogs are a significant part of this forum, so it is natural that I would comment on them. Through doing this I have also discovered that I'm not alone in that critique. I try to share the truth of what I feel and understand - at first I had a very strong negative reaction and have since appreciated a lot of what Steve writes, and I have not held back from saying that.

Behind all of this, however, is my desire to discuss pd, philosophy, religion, politics, ideas of all kinds at a range of different places on the net. MrsCogan expressed her wish to educate people about science here, and I have a wish to educate people about philosophy, spirituality and personal development, although for me that is a more equal, give-and-take process than I imagine it is for an educated scientist to educate people about science. I am an amateur philosopher, but even if I wasn't, philosophy has a lot more room for different interpretations and views than science. Furthermore, I am passionate about the potential of the internet to enable amateurs to express their views and discuss weighty topics, where before there was a much stronger barrier, the academic qualifications and so on. I'm using my voice, expressing my views, that's all.

What's in it for us?, you ask.
I don't know. That's for you to decide.

What do you get out of writing stuff here, Angela? And does it bother you that I criticise Steve Pavlina? You sometimes seem quite sarcastic with me. There was no need to say that you prostrate yourself before the reality of me posting things, was there, except to express your anger?

Even if I only make one person think a bit more about stuff, I will have contributed here, and since I've made myself think a lot more about stuff, I've accomplished that at least. I'm discussing. I'm working out my ideas. Thanks for asking.

[Angela]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, John. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, and I'm sorry if I appear that way. My "prostrate" comment was my way of playfully telling you I'm not arguing with you or your right to post here, I completely accept the reality of what you're doing. It was a not a .

I have no anger about you or your posts, and I don't mind criticism of Steve. Actually, I was wondering if you don't trust the owner of the forum, what's the attraction? And you seem to talk about your reasons for not trusting him or the things he says a lot. You don't seem angry, or to be carrying the slicing sword of righteous reason like MrsCogan was (well, maybe a little? ). In my experience, when someone talks a lot about not trusting someone, there's some mirroring going on (and yes, I'll look at that for myself! ) I gotta say, the "prostrate" thing is a pretty good example of that, I think.

I asked my question of you because, if I feel like someone's being inauthentic or scammy or spammy, I don't tend to participate in their blog. It's a little hard for me to wrap my head around why you or others would do that, as opposed to the many other bloggers who also have interesting talk going on in their forums, but the owner is someone whose views you're open to. I mean, if you're distrustful, how open can you be?

I sort of get it more, now -- you are posting on other sites as well, it looks like, and you're just broadening your posting horizon, yes?

[John Freestone]

Yes, that's right, and I'm pretty new to doing this as intensively as I am. I mean, decades ago when the scientists were promising an Information Superhighway where we could all talk to the world from our bedrooms, I thought it was just what I had always wanted. But I've been online for 8 years and only just started to find my 'voice' in this way, and I am grateful to everyone here for being so accepting and helping me to feel comfortable doing that. I am experienced at writing on the net, but it's been mostly at a forum I own myself, largely about therapy, which was my work until recently. It's like I just woke up and thought - hey, there's a big world of ideas out there and I'm stagnating! Besides, I don't advertise my forum and hardly anyone goes there!

I see what you mean about joining a forum where I'm not too confident about the underlying philosophy - why not find like minds to talk to? - well, I guess I find it can get too comfortable and psychologically incestuous. Everyone can keep reaffirming the party line and can share the same blind-spots. There's often more growth when we come up against people with different ways and ideas.

I'm mixed up and working stuff out. As I said earlier, I do see some truth in the LoA and I-M, I just don't see it quite the way it is often presented here. Also, as I said, I change my mind about the world - sometimes I'm into the idea of subjective reality, other times I think the MrsCogans of the world might be right. At the moment, I'm actually quite taken with Ken Wilber's model of spiritual growth - the Great Nest of Being - as described in his 2000 book Integral Psychology, so I'm going through a yes-spirit-does-exist phase, and I've also signed up at the James Randi Educational Foundation forum, where I imagine I'm going to be banging heads with some hard-line materialists in the near future. Scientific materialism, they like to pretend, is the same as being 'sceptical', but they fail to see that scientific materialism is THE religion of our time, and they're not sceptics, they're believers! I don't suppose I'll make much headway. There's this weird thing about the spiritual dimension (or even just our subjective mind), that seems to resist scientific investigation. Hence, James Randi has had his million dollars waiting for I don't know how many years for the first person to demonstrate supernatural anything, and somehow it hasn't been won. I don't think that necessarily means that there is no spiritual or transpersonal realm, but it certainly is a big puzzle to me why it is so hard to demonstrate its reality. Anyway, I digress. I think I just wanted you to know that I'm a bit argumentative in general, not just here! I'm glad you're not mad at me. I value your posts a lot, BTW.

Who's moderating? Does it matter that we seem to have wandered miles away from the topic? I prefer very loose topic keeping, myself. Let discussions meander where they will, I say!

[jawillie]

I am just an "amateur" but I must chime in.

I won't quote anyone famous. I won't give you scientific experiences or findings and I certainly don't have a list of "resources" to back up what I have to say.

See, I don't think about my beliefs, I feel them.

You can't convince me of anything with your science. Sorry to frustrate you.

I am connected to what I believe is the Source of life. You don't have to believe there is a Source. You don't have to believe that we can be connected to it. But I DO believe it based on my own life, my own experiences and my own FEELINGS.

I do not like to be a part of anything "organized," especially religions, because I feel when you get a group of people together, THIS happens (what we see in this thread). Frankly, I feel humans get things all wrong.

LoA is NOT a religion for me. As soon as you tag that onto it I go running.

LoA simply "is" to me.

I tend to buy into Buddhism, but I won't say I am a Buddhist. I like some of the things Jesus said but I am not a Christian. I believe only what I feel in my heart. And you can't budge that belief with anything from the academic world.

Do I believe Science, yes. Do I think Science can explain what I feel in my heart? Heck no, not ever!

I don't need science to tell me what to believe. I am happy that way, so I will just avoid these frustrating threads in the future.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

But I've been online for 8 years

...and boy, are your fingers tired! bahdumboomp. sorry.

I think this exchange is totally on-topic: A good next question to follow "Is this all garbage?" is "Well, what the hell is it, then?" so it makes sense to talk about that in this context, doesn't it? I think so.

John, sometimes I get a bit jumbled up in your long posts -- I find it a little hard to follow your points. I think part of that is that you're exploring so many paths, some that don't look like they would peacefully co-exist. That's my problem, not yours, and I'll try to be more present to what you're saying. But I think there are in fact like minds for you here, because it looks to me like people (including me) engage with you and have fun. Maybe I'm mirroring again, and I need to look at my own posts!

p.s. Trust is an attractive issue for me, can you tell?

[cylon]

You really can't tell about people though. It's a board about IM so the assumption could be that many people here had no previous experience with different viewpoints. You know my story, I am not a scientist but I enjoyed calling myself a skeptic for many years, I was ACTIVELY a skeptic, meaning that's how I got my identity. Natural world, period. Religion and superstition, the enemy. That was my worldview. I didn't just wake up one day and say "Gosh, the world must be MAGIC! Neat!"

But I tend to say that more now.

I mean there are many intelligent people here. I bet this place for many is the consequence of several years of thinking and immersion in the quest to "understand". Then there are the people who saw the Secret and that was their introduction to thinking more about "the big questions."

Anyway I subscribe to a series of interview cds that are about personal relationships and before I played it today I said "I wonder why I got this today. I've been taking a break from IM while I go on this crazy inner resistance purge. I'm missing my intention writing and visualizing. I wonder if this cd is going to relate to what I'm going through".

And of course it was all about Law of Attraction. WHICH MEANS---time to write out my vision again of the life I want to live.

This actually could be a new topic. RT had discussed IM as an advanced practice of PD. I did lots of PD for childhood issues, and while it did help to heal some old wounds, it kept me in the past, dwelling on experiences I don't want (or wouldn't want again). You're not supposed to focus on what you don't want. But I want to close the door on it for good. So I think it was/may still be necessary.

'nother hit and run. You kids play nice.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I don't think that necessarily means that there is no spiritual or transpersonal realm, but it certainly is a big puzzle to me why it is so hard to demonstrate its reality.

LOL .... you still don't get it, do you? If:

(1) LOA is true; and
(2) James Randi is who he is,

then it follows that:

(1) no true psychic will ever appear in Randi's reality; or

(2) if a true psychic does appear in Randi's reality, he or she will not, in James Randi's reality, be perceived to be a true psychic.

After all, nothing can enter a person's reality unless he has drawn it into his reality with his own thoughts.

Because Randi is such a strong skeptic, I confidently predict that the only people who will ever show up for his experiments will be the crackpots and the frauds ...... and that happens precisely because Randi has drawn them into his reality!

His powerful belief is that the paranormal etc etc simply don't exist, and that it's all nonsense, THEREFORE he will attract plenty of evidence into his own reality, that it IS all nonsense! And that is the only kind of evidence he will ever attract into his reality, until / unless he changes his beliefs.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

@tk Sorry? I don't understand most of that ... You can see where we're going with this. I can't make any sense of ......... nor of "ALG and SP are your consciousness". I get the feeling you're writing new-age psychobabble to avoid having to think.

He simply means that SP and I appear in your reality because you have attracted us into your reality, as usual, with your own thoughts. And that the meanings you attach to what SP and I have to say, are really the meanings that YOU attach.

That really goes for everyone and everything else in your reality, basically.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

LOL .... you still don't get it, do you? If:

(1) LOA is true; and
(2) James Randi is who he is,

then it follows that:

(1) no true psychic will ever appear in Randi's reality; or

(2) if a true psychic does appear in Randi's reality, he or she will not, in James Randi's reality, be perceived to be a true psychic.

Another way of saying it is that if a person proved to James Randi that psychics exist, then LoA couldn't be true, because he's specifically creating psychics to be fake.

In other words, the fact that he has not seen any proof IS the proof that LOA exists. It's hard to explain, but it makes sense to me.

It's kind of like God appearing in front of you and saying "God Doesn't Exist."

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by tk427

6 billion seperate realities all meshing possibly at will seems to make little sense.

Probably as little sense as 60 - 100 trillion living cells coordinating perfectly to carry out a wide range of very complex chemical & organic processes all day long, to keep you alive.

But that's how many cells make up your body ... and well, you're alive.

This seems to imply multiple points of consciousness,

Frankly, for most purposes, Abraham's co-creator model of reality provides a clearer and simple explanation than SR.

This is the objective reality model

It isn't, really. It's actually a model of multiple subjective realities which may or may not impinge on each other. However the interaction or non-interaction of the different realities is always a perfect reflection of what's being thought.

[Acting Like Godot]

Did I already mention this ......?

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Steve doesn't even pretend to be humble: he's so clever he can outsmart karma.

..... LOA/IM is the manipulation of karma.

The key element of karma is intention. In an oversimplified nutshell:

think bad thoughts ---> do bad deeds ---> attract bad consequences
think good thoughts ---> do good deeds ---> attract good consequences

Buddhist teachings (since you're partial to them) tell you that the karma is created by the mere thinking of the intention. Eg suppose you intended to kill someone, and you succeeded. Compare to a situation where you intended to kill someone, but you failed (perhaps because he was a big strong guy trained in martial arts and he broke your arms before you could stab him).

Either way, you have accumulated very bad karma. The intention to kill - is the main thing. Whether you succeeded or not is a secondary point.

In LOA/IM, we see that:

think ABC ---> attract ABC.

That is all. ABC can be good / bad / amoral. It could be the famous "blue feather" experiment, or the famous "manifest-an-empty-parking lot" experiment, whatever. The point is:

think ABC ---> attract ABC.

That's karma.

[John Freestone]

I just got up, made a coffee and came here, and OMG (as I think you kids like to say ) - powerful learning here for me.

jawillie, I feel rather sad that you find this kind of thread frustrating, but you might not have come back, so you won't hear me say that. I stand by your right to feel your worldview rather than think it, and I share some of your frustrations with scientific people who think their worldview is the only possible one, but I see all these differences of opinion as healthy, how we learn stuff.

ALG - once again you are a powerful source of learning for me. I hadn't thought of James Randi creating his sceptical universe too, which doesn't attract real 'supernatural' occurrences, or rather, as you say, attracts endless frauds and loonies, as well as thousands of equally sceptical friends all backing up their relatively shared subjective realities. It makes perfect sense from the LoA viewpoint, I can see that now. I'm not saying that I can just drop my intellectual (or emotional, jawillie) objections to LoA immediately, but I'm so glad I put that puzzle here, and kind of kicking myself for being so stupid. I guess the idea was vaguely floating around in the back of my mind that LoA theory would go something like that, but I hadn't focused my mind on it.

I kept thinking that there must be something about the structure of scientific experiments that inhibits mystical/transpersonal/psychic effects - something that stops the whole scientific community from being able to measure psy phenomena ... and I guess there are three things: 1) the individuals involved are almost exclusively materialists, so they are individually creating their reality of materialism, 2) they are involved in constructing a shared subjective reality, and 3) they are individually and collectively taking action in the world in accordance with that viewpoint, i.e. putting up all the procedural barriers against data 'contamination' and to make sure that everything allowed into the experimental focus is measurable in material terms. Am I getting it? I read some of the applications for testing for JR's million dollars and, yes, from a scientists viewpoint, it is all very fair and reasonable - unscientific, untestable claims are disqualified before they even get close, others have the necessary bits and bobs of scientific procedure put in place to avoid people unconsciously contaminating the data. But from an LoA perspective, I can begin to see that all this is like the individual limiting the doors of perception. I can't easily switch off my sceptical bit and be 'converted', but I get the point: if Jesus came back and walked on water in front of James Randi, he'd start splashing about looking for hidden platforms, thus reinforcing his scepticism from his sceptical point of view, and even when he didn't find any hidden platforms, he'd just look for other material explanations he 'must' have missed. It's that 'must'. He wouldn't consider that he might have witnessed a miracle, which by definition isn't going to reveal material proof.

Thanks cylon, tk427, impaul99 and jawillie. This is sooooo strange, so interesting for me. I'm not new to all this, you know, I have wondered about this stuff for decades. When I dropped out of my science degree I read Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach and it was such an important book for me. I took on board the idea of freedom and letting go into the stream of life, so it gave me strength to pursue other paths in life, but I was sceptical about the miracle side of it - blue feathers and levitating spanners and flying through clouds of flies without killing any. Maybe my scientific indoctrination is stronger than I think, and maybe it's time to look again...or, I suppose some of you would say...experiment with it myself. Yikes, now that is slightly scary.

I better stop before I confuse Angela too much - and it's true, my fingers are tired after 8 years online.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I'm afraid I see the same denial and self-delusion in tk's post:I have seldom read a set of statements so full of apparently unwitting self-contradiction (as opposed to self-aware paradox). If "we accept the moment is perfect no matter what is happening", why would any sane person wish to "shape the moment to be the moment we choose"?

Why would any sane person accept a dismal moment as his/her choice? Because they created it? Any resistance to it keeps it in manifestation. If you receive the moment as it is, fully, it is allowed to evolve, in an instant!

If it seem preposterous to accept the moment, whatever it is, there is an underlying presupposition of perfection in there. Like we, spirit, God, are supposed to know what we're doing and can't play a game of denial with ourselves?? But, that's exactly what we are doing. Can you accept that?

If you ask "why????", that's more mind-candy. There is no why. I choose to pretend (use denial).... a lot. It's a habit I have.

But what's neat is I'm having to use my ego consciousness (that part of me I bitch about and blame all my shortcomings on) to re-educate the "higher" parts of self. [the whole of self is evolving and sometimes the higher parts can't get something from where they are at, so the issue is moved down to the physical experience for the ego-self to work out. ] So throw out any ideas of spirit being perfect. It doesn't exist, except in our minds.

[BringTheDarkness]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Frankly, for most purposes, Abraham's co-creator model of reality provides a clearer and simple explanation than SR.

Hi ALG,
Can you expand on this comment a bit more please? I've never read Abraham's stuff so I'm curious as to what the difference is.

BTD

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Dharma

Why would any sane person accept a dismal moment as his/her choice? Because they created it? Any resistance to it keeps it in manifestation. If you receive the moment as it is, fully, it is allowed to evolve, in an instant!

I'm sorry, Dharma, but I'm struggling to understand this. I think it makes sense, though, from the point of view of subjective reality, so perhaps that is what you mean. That is to say that there is no objective reality to any moment, because each of us creates every moment. Is that what you mean by the first part. If so, I still struggle to understand the difference between resisting a moment and receiving it fully, and how the first of these 'keeps it in manifestation' and the second allows it to 'evolve, in an instant'. Is there a Personal Development for Stupid People Forum - maybe I should go there.

If it seem preposterous to accept the moment, whatever it is, there is an underlying presupposition of perfection in there.

This too is confusing me. I would say the opposite, you see, that if it seems reasonable to accept the moment, whatever it is, there is an underlying presupposition of perfection in there (i.e. in it, the moment). This was part of what I think tk was saying, and to which I felt empathy. It expresses in another way what you have described as receiving the moment as it is, fully'. I felt that this was in contradiction of tk's next bit, where he suggested that the purpose of accepting the moment in this perfect-whatever-it-is way was so that you could change it to whatever you wanted it to be. Maybe I've misunderstood both of you.

Like we, spirit, God, are supposed to know what we're doing and can't play a game of denial with ourselves?? But, that's exactly what we are doing. Can you accept that?

Lost me again.

If you ask "why????", that's more mind-candy. There is no why. I choose to pretend (use denial).... a lot. It's a habit I have.

But what's neat is I'm having to use my ego consciousness (that part of me I bitch about and blame all my shortcomings on) to re-educate the "higher" parts of self. [the whole of self is evolving and sometimes the higher parts can't get something from where they are at, so the issue is moved down to the physical experience for the ego-self to work out. ] So throw out any ideas of spirit being perfect. It doesn't exist, except in our minds.

This all seems mixed up as well, and at odds with more traditional understandings of higher self and ego and spirit (IMHO). I tend to think that if I have a higher self, it is always streets ahead of any ego consciousness (i.e. my thinking, which as you say can just be mind-candy), but in order to consolidate experience of a higher-self nature, whether spiritual experiences from meditation or drug-induced insights or whatever, sometimes my lower mind has to work out intellectually what it was about. In fact I'm tempted to say that it is always necessary for us to integrate higher learning at an intellectual level to really honour it and make use of it in the world. People who don't do this are prone to losing their way, becoming psychotic, believing anything at all, and have no conceptual grasp of their spiritual gains.

I seem to be less comfortable with the equation 'we, spirit, God' than you are, although I could see that from that perspective it would make sense to say 'throw out any ideas of spirit being perfect'. I am separating the dimensions of self and spirit and, in the traditional way, seeing self as limited, in partial darkness, not fully lit (enlightened), and Spirit as absolute, perfect, God. Thus, from my perspective, if I accept the moment as it is and, in buddhist stylee, refrain from attributing goodness or badness to it or wishing it to be any different from how it is, I am practising ... whatever you want to call it ... communion with God, prayer, meditation (certainly this is the central practice of Vipassana insight meditation and Mindfulness, being in the moment without judging it.

Where are our views at odds, I wonder? Do you really see the higher self as unable to 'get' things, which have to be referred (downwards?) for your physical-ego-self to 'work out'? Can your lower self educate your higher self, and if so, what does the higher-lower distinction mean?

[John Freestone]

On the other hand, if genuinely psychic people intend to prove that they are psychic, and intend to do so by winning Randi's million, why do they consistently fail to manifest that outcome? Is Randi's intention stronger and blocking theirs? Surely they can't both be getting what they want. Any ideas, Law Teachers?

Or maybe it's that there is no objective reality, and the whole thing - James Randi, his failing psychics, this forum, my left foot - is all a crazy dream someone's having?

Or there's an objective reality that we can investigate through rational science, and psychics haven't proved their powers because they don't exist, but my left foot and this forum do?...you know, the 'normal' explanation.

Agnosticism is fun.

[Technicolor Tim]

The movie "The Secret" has been around for a couple of years now. Everybody and their brother seems to be going wild about it. And Law of attraction books have been around, and sold well, for a hundred years or more. God knows how many copies of Think & Grow Rich have been read all around the globe by enthusiastic folks eager to improve their lives.

Where are all the millionaires?

[RT Wolf]

^ Yep, you're right, you hit the nail on the head. Where are all the millionaires? Where's Oprah saying she used the LoA? Where's Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) admitting he used the LoA in The Dilbert Future? Where's ALG and his top-3% income in his home country (I don't know whether he's a milliionaire yet, but I'd reckon he's close)? Where's Steve Pavlina who found his income shoot up significantly after he started using IM? How about Andrew Carnegie, who commisioned Think and Grow Rich?

Where are the people featured in the secret, who, one would assume, have substantial wealth? where's the Univeristy of toronto graduate who made somin like 15 million dollars in 15 years, and attributes it to Loa? How's the olympic gold medalist who now teaches the LoA?

Deepak Chopra recently released a DVD called Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, basically a video version of his book. Its like a cross between the Secret, What the bleep do we know and not-so-goodness. Where are the musicians and actor/directors featured in it?

How's about Jim Carrey and who gets synchronisities and has used LoA techniques, such as writing himself a cheque before he got paid for it?

How's about the people who are "possibles", simply because the LoA says that what you think comes into being, so they just choose to think a certain way. Richard Branson might be doing that when he goes off an island whenever he finds himself thinking negatively? Where's Will Smith who believes in the powre of positive thinking?

And let's remember, that the LoA doesn't necessarily need "practice", just changing ways of thinking. One would assume that there's a certain way most successful people think, and that at least some of them didn't have to learn to think that way, so they might just watch the secret and go, "Yea, I've just always done that." sorta like Oprah did.

The IM hypothesis, asusming its correct would tell predict that your skepticism would attract more skepticism and disevidence. Alternatively, you are here and you are receiving at least some form of evidence (whether you believe it or not is upto you), so there is at least something in your thoughts that's attracting IM. So, if LoA is correct, unless you take control of your thinking, you'll keep encountering the LoA.

Yar.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

On the other hand, if genuinely psychic people intend to prove that they are psychic, and intend to do so by winning Randi's million, why do they consistently fail to manifest that outcome? Is Randi's intention stronger and blocking theirs? Surely they can't both be getting what they want. Any ideas, Law Teachers?

Or maybe it's that there is no objective reality, and the whole thing - James Randi, his failing psychics, this forum, my left foot - is all a crazy dream someone's having?

Or there's an objective reality that we can investigate through rational science, and psychics haven't proved their powers because they don't exist, but my left foot and this forum do?...you know, the 'normal' explanation.

Agnosticism is fun.

I think sometimes if there are masters of manifestation or super psychics they are very quiet and not into showing off. Part of their path was probably to not be in the lime light. And now a days someone with special powers would become like a freak show if they showed off (if it was possible to) in a public way at all. There are healers that might be healing people just by walking down the street, very quietly without pomp and circumstance. The quiet noble sage that breathes healing into the village. And might not even know they are doing that, after all their egos are probably not after fame or attention. For a sage to even start to draw attention to himself would start to take their "special" power away since that would be a drift into ego land.

[cylon]

Yar. He was asking where the successful people were, you provided.

[RT Wolf]

Indeed, though I wonder abuot the tone of my post. Its more than a little sarcastic and I felt not so good while writing it, and that's not likely to make anyone happy while reading it and simply cling to their beliefs more. Like I'd lost my patience. Maybe I'm heading for a Max Power-style meltdown, or maybe i'm just tired. Time to reconsider hanging out at these forums. I think I may have learned all I can learn from here and now I will just have to continue to practice and create.

[cylon]

Lol. I didn't see it as any more sarcastic than ALG, and he doesn't strike me as frustrated. Hell I'm glad you posted it.

[Dbarker]

Originally Posted by cylon

Lol. I didn't see it as any more sarcastic than ALG, and he doesn't strike me as frustrated. Hell I'm glad you posted it.

Me too. I think one of the problems with critics of LoA is the inability to either instantly or in some shortened timeframe, manifest what they "think" they desire. I find myself thinking I know what it is I want to attract in my life and yet I also feel the doubt creep in and realize I'm not where I need to be yet. I believe we can manifest anything, and I mean anything, in our lives, if we hold the intention at a deep enough level.

One example relates to the question, "where are all the millionaires?" I intend to manifest $1 million dollars. However, I have not come to grips with the doubt in my mind (ego) about how I will do that. Somehow, I have to come to the realization that the universe will provide the answer to that and I might not have to have the "how" right at this moment of intention. That goes back to being fully in the moment and only focusing on the intention at hand. It is work for me, but it is certainly well worth the effort.

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by cylon

Lol. I didn't see it as any more sarcastic than ALG, and he doesn't strike me as frustrated. Hell I'm glad you posted it.

I am glad you posted it, too!

[Acting Like Godot]

Aha, Wolf, you missed one guy out.

Bill Gates was a teenager studying at Harvard University. Then he read "The Master Key System" by Charles Haanel. Bill Gates promptly dropped out of Harvard, founded Microsoft and the rest is history.

Of course, the above could be an urban legend. And it probably is, in the subjective realities of those who refuse to believe it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

How's the olympic gold medalist who now teaches the LoA?

You mean Angela Bailey? She wasn't a gold medallist, but close enough. She had a silver.

Her best time for the 100m put her, at that time, as the world's 4th fastest female 100m sprinter.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by tk427

Bill Gates was born into wealth and had relative connections that made it easier to succeed. He may have used the LoA, but he was hardly a rags to riches example.

It's all relative. If you use his current riches as a benchmark, he was certainly all rags when he was a teenager.

[Lil Chris]

I found this video to help give some perspective on how it's all relative and how this belief in LOA is possible, given some of the beliefs presented here (It's about 20 minutes) YouTube Link