Garbage, all of it.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

It seems to me that when you decide to believe in magic, it means suspending rational judgement, because rational judgement belongs to a "wrong" mindset, an illusion about reality. Reality is just what you're creating in your mind.

I would hope rational judgment is part of the equation. Maybe our rational judgments have not been entirely accurate for a while. We have proved the 3d world to the point of wondering even at the scientific observation level what the heck it is. Newer probing into matter and energy is really weird stuff. And statements from scientists often sound like something a mystic would say, or the gurus of past said.

Hence some of the resistance to sceptics like me - believers don't want to have their "positive" thoughts interrupted by my doubts. As a well-educated person on such matters, you must see that, and it's common in many religions. You have to give up doubt altogether, immerse yourself in faith. Maybe that's what I'm struggling to understand about LoA - so many believers seem to want to do experiments to prove that it works, as if it wasn't a religion, but a hidden science waiting for the world to discover it. When someone asks believers for evidence, they get told they can't have objective evidence, but must prove it for themselves, whilst also being sent off to websites where the proof is documented rigorously.

What is doubt? Is it really fear? What is faith? Does it have to be blind? I hope not. Our logical brain can come along for the ride it you entertain some of the newer science about quantum particles/energy/field.

[John Freestone]

I think I understand better today, almost like I set myself the question last night and have slept on it - why, if one believes in SR (as I've been reading about it from Steve Pavlina's blog), would one do experiments?

I'd like to clarify what the question means, and actually I could use Steve's writing as an example (although I won't bother quoting him exactly). The basic philosophy of SR (subjective reality), he says, it that reality is very different from how the materialist view goes. Reality is, in "fact", consciousness: nothing more. Your body, including your brain, and also your personal mind, are constructs, ideas, created by consciousness. Other people, too, and the environment - the whole world - is actually inside your consciousness, as it were, rather than outside it.

Fine. That's a philosophy. It has a certain degree of internal logic to it. However, soon Steve introduces new conditions in this cosmology: you manifest things in the physical plane by what you think. Pardon? So there is something called the "physical plane" then, not just consciousness, which a moment ago was the sum total of the universe - one divine cosmic consciousness. Presumably, then, the physical plane is an illusion created by consciousness, or the original proposition (that consicousness is all there is) was incorrect, a simplification, and in fact there is also this other place we live - the physical plane. Death, Steve also promised, was merely a construct, an illusion of consciousness, BTW.

So that's my difficulty, my confusion, my question, which is a genuine one ALG, and I'm sorry if you find it "boring" (I think the word you're looking for is more like "irritating", however).

Is all this SR stuff (which I see as very much the basis of IM and LoA) saying that reality is just one cosmic consciousness, and absolutely anything is possible if I overcome my habitual thinking patterns (karmic), and we spend time experimenting to see what we can change though an act of will simply because of that same karmic illusion - in fact we could do anything at all? Is that what your experiments are, exercising the will-muscles, kind of thing, to confront and destroy those self-imposed mental limitations?

And if so, why bother discussing whether ALG is a master manifester, since ALG doesn't actually exist, he's just a figment of the Cosmic Consciousness's delusions? Or are there actually different people, different beings, souls and all that? If so, why does the SR theory say that all there is is cosmic consciousness and all the people in my life, everything even in my past and future, the whole of the content of consciousness, is an illusion? Do you believe that people aren't really real? Do you believe in SR/IM/LoA so much that you're prepared to say it's perfectly safe for a person to jump off a cliff?

You see, I've never dismissed the idea that our thoughts influence reality, I just think that it might possibly be a big mistake to take it to extremes and believe that the whole of reality is sitting inside consciousness, and I rather wonder if all the experimentation isn't so much the development of IM skills towards an infinite will power, but an attempt to discover the limits of the Law. Those of the first persuasion will say they can't manifest a coin or a feather or do some other miracle for me on demand because "they're not good enough at it yet". The second kind, like me, would say that there are things I can influence with my will and things that I can't.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, moonrambler, by "personal development on steroids", but it sounds like you're asking a similar question there. It is a natural human tendency (in the "normal" philosophy of separate human beings with distinct brains and thoughts) for us to extrapolate things to untenable conclusions. New science is often cited as a reason why we should all be able to be in several places at once, levitate at will or have any amount of money we want, and I used to make that suggestion without much real understanding myself, but my conversations with real particle physicists have brought me back down to earth, put my ego in check again, and reminded me that reality might be a lot more complicated than I like to think. It's that liking to think that is the problem.

I agree completely with wolfgang that people could be doing a lot more with their minds in terms of healing their bodies. I would go further and say that positive thinking does make a difference to outcomes in the physical world that seem disconnected with our thoughts - the LoA, in effect - I just see the limits of the LoA being closer to home, I see it as probably being located in an individual human mind, and I see it as probably working (if and when it does) through complex, non-mystical processes. These may be many and varied. One example would be communication between people on an unconscious level through body-language, pheromones, etc., which can account for experiences sometimes interpreted as telepathic. A great deal of success in the lifestyle experiments reported here (of the "I made millions!" kind) can be thought of in terms of this theory, which I might call the "Weak Law of Attraction". If you set your mind to doing something, you unconsciously and consciously instigate all manner of events that you would not by thinking it unlikely, and those events set off other events. By thinking positively, feeling confident, etc., you make those around you notice you more and respond to you more willingly and obligingly. Those inclined to believe in magic will interpret the results in mystical terms, but there are sound, scientific, material reasons why most of these effects take place. The good news is that you don't have to stop doing your positive thinking and meditations. You don't have to stop practising the Law of Attraction. You don't have to stop deciding to get rich and being more likely to get rich. It's just that you retain a degree of critical intelligence that recognises you can't - AND WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO - fly, levitate, drink hemlock or walk through walls...and you remain immune to the influence of those who, either innocently or to deliberately take advantage of you, might persuade you of impossible things.

These effects - the subtle manipulations of body-language, verbal and sub-verbal cues, subliminal messages of all kinds - are the stock in trade of the confidence trickster and the innocent but deluded cold reader of "messages from beyond" or "fortunes", and they work in tandem with the suspension of disbelief, the susceptibility, the hypnotic programmability, of the other.

I therefore have no doubt that intending to increase your IQ, ALG, is likely to do so, and intending to get published is what causes people to get published. We seem only to be arguing about the mechanisms involved. Doubts, rejections of theories, trying new ideas on for size, discussing things, arguing - these are things I enjoy doing at forums. I have never told you you must believe what I believe. I'm just arguing with you. You can withdraw from that argument at any time. It seems my discussion of superstition has offended you, since you pretend that I am calling you a superstitious villager. I am just as susceptible to superstition as anyone else, and I don't mean to insult your intelligence at all. Often, I believe, it is those of the highest intelligence who get caught up in extravagant theories and fail to see their limits (the whole history of science and philosophy is full of them).

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, moonrambler, by "personal development on steroids", but it sounds like you're asking a similar question there. It is a natural human tendency (in the "normal" philosophy of separate human beings with distinct brains and thoughts) for us to extrapolate things to untenable conclusions. New science is often cited as a reason why we should all be able to be in several places at once, levitate at will or have any amount of money we want, and I used to make that suggestion without much real understanding myself, but my conversations with real particle physicists have brought me back down to earth, put my ego in check again, and reminded me that reality might be a lot more complicated than I like to think. It's that liking to think that is the problem.

Going at personal development in a big-time way by investing lots of time and effort (even if it's fun effort) and getting much bigger results than previously. Is that the reason for success, or is it law of attraction?

It is difficult to conclude whether a gigantic unexpected bonus at work is the result of being a very valuable employee (acting in "the certain way"), or LoA. Or is it the same thing?

A great deal of success in the lifestyle experiments reported here (of the "I made millions!" kind) can be thought of in terms of this theory, which I might call the "Weak Law of Attraction". If you set your mind to doing something, you unconsciously and consciously instigate all manner of events that you would not by thinking it unlikely, and those events set off other events. By thinking positively, feeling confident, etc., you make those around you notice you more and respond to you more willingly and obligingly. Those inclined to believe in magic will interpret the results in mystical terms, but there are sound, scientific, material reasons why most of these effects take place.

To me, though, this really is Law of Attraction. It is a way of being.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I would hope rational judgment is part of the equation. Maybe our rational judgments have not been entirely accurate for a while. We have proved the 3d world to the point of wondering even at the scientific observation level what the heck it is. Newer probing into matter and energy is really weird stuff. And statements from scientists often sound like something a mystic would say, or the gurus of past said.

It is true, to some extent, that new science sounds like ancient mysticism, but if "rational judgement is part of the equation" then we must be careful about what we conclude. Firstly, there are many scientific theories that are pure speculation - indeed that is what all theories start as. Most of the weird science you're talking about has in no way been proven, though some of it does have some evidence. Secondly, it almost always applies to unbelievably small dimensions of matter. Particles have been deduced as existing in two places at once (it is even too much to say "observed") under strict scientific conditions - but gurus only under hearsay conditions.

Rational judgement would also speculate how much the scientists of today have been influenced by humanity's deep and ubiquitous spiritual philosophies through time - are they unfairly biasing their theories towards ones that involve magical ideas - especially when you understand how new theories grow on top of older ones. Many scientists are actually of a mystical or religious bent themselves, although many aren't. Einstein and Newton come to mind immediately.

Mostly, however, we find that those who have a good understanding of particle physics do not extrapolate their findings to encompass all being. They also believe in evolution. They also believe in the force of gravity that holds their desk in place. They don't imagine that they can reinvent the whole of engineering to reflect the fact that particles can appear and disappear. They don't spend their time trying to build matter-transporters. Some of them promise "replicators" in the home quite soon ("Earl Grey, hot"), but none of the technology suspends any rational law of science: it's just nanotechnology, assuming they get there.

Time travel, it has been said, is perfectly possible in theory. The only problem is that the theory requires more energy than is supposed to exist in the universe, and the existence of a certain type of particle that has not yet been discovered. See how great the weird science is?

What is doubt? Is it really fear?

Well, it can be, but this is another of those whips the LoA illuminati like to hit us with: If you don't believe in your magical powers, you must be frightened. The common culture has got you under its spell of fear. However, if you started out hypnotised by the prevailing myths and then overcame that enslavement, you did it by thinking for yourself, doubting what you thought you knew and what other people told you.

So, no, doubt isn't really fear. Fear keeps you believing what you believe as much as it stops you imagining different scenarios. If someone tells you to stop doubting and just believe, they could be hoping to raise your consciousness, but very often they're trying to stop you noticing something. Often, in this LoA game, it's done because it makes them feel better the more people agree with their theory...it increases their hit count and their income for instance. Doubt isn't a problem, but fear is. Those who use that whip are in fact trying to make you fear to doubt. They are trying to stop you considering alternatives to whatever it is they're proposing. All the religions do it. SR is a religion, in case you hadn't noticed.

What is faith? Does it have to be blind? I hope not. Our logical brain can come along for the ride it you entertain some of the newer science about quantum particles/energy/field.

I feel there's a distinct message between the lines here (using my psychic powers ): I really really want to believe this stuff, and...ooooh look, here's some weird science...that just must support the theory.

Sorry, I just think there is a really important psychological state that is dreadfully undervalued. It's called not knowing. Suspension of belief. ALG pities me for it, but I'm in good company along with Socrates. It is difficult sometimes. It takes patience to get used to it. Everywhere we look we're being told what the facts are, and we're programmed to try to work it out, to know one way or the other.

We can't fail to exercise faith, of course. Every time I take a step I have faith the world is going to be there to step on. But it is blind. That is one of the true gifts of ancient mystical teachings. Fixed views was one of the categories of things that keep us trapped, according to Gautama Buddha (which is deeply ironic if you know how much Buddhists have argued about their dogma ever since!).

[moonrambler]

Here's an example of the sort of thing that happens to me ALL the TIME. These events make me think there may be a law of attraction, but conjuring this sort of thing on purpose doesn't work real well for me.

I spend a lot of time driving, thinking and daydreaming much of the time. This morning's theme was the first summer I went to college in a town about 70 miles from here (I started college in summer rather than in fall), which I was thinking about partly because it got flooded this week. My thoughts went something like:

"I was real happy that summer, if I made a list of my top 10 happiest times in my life, that summer would be in there, it was so cool to get away and be on my own in a new place, and it was a small campus community in summer, kind of like a Utopia, and wouldn't it be cool if there were a place like that I could move to, and I met Bob [still one of my closest friends] that summer, and every Wednesday we used to watch Starsky & Hutch [because I had a big giant crush on Starsky], and Tami used to write me all the time, and that last year in high school we used to have friendly arguments about who was hotter, Starsky or Hutch, and man, I should really get in touch with Tami again, it's been way too long, and I remember this picture my Dad took of me that summer [I just ran across this picture recently] when he'd gotten that new Polaroid and was taking pictures of everybody and everything, and I was holding up a picture of Starsky & Hutch and I can tell by the look on my face I was seriously tired of that camera, heh, and boy was I skinny back then, and I went out with Randy, who was my first college boyfriend, if you want to call him a boyfriend, because we only went out for three weeks, and he had that awesome Z28 Camaro which over the next few years got totally rusted out for some reason, which must've really made him irritated."

Then I stopped at a rummage sale, got back in the car, looked in the side view mirror, and damn if I didn't see a _____________ . I was so surprised I went out loud, "ACK!"

There really are only two things I could've seen that would wrap this up perfectly, and it is the more unlikely of the two.

[John Freestone]

Am I being thick, moonrambler? What did you see?

[Angela]

I'm guessing it was a Z28 Camaro. Either that or Paul Michael Glaser.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Am I being thick, moonrambler? What did you see?

I saw the red & white Starsky Torino!

[Wax Frog]

"Don't give up on IM, Moonie... it's still worth one... more try... Did you just see that car go by... "

Sorry, couldn't help myself

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I saw the red & white Starsky Torino!

Whew, thanks. I just couldn't stop wondering. Is that moment now one of your top ten?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

"Don't give up on IM, Moonie... it's still worth one... more try... Did you just see that car go by... "

Sorry, couldn't help myself

Wow, now there's a song you don't often hear!!

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Whew, thanks. I just couldn't stop wondering. Is that moment now one of your top ten?

Well, I don't know. It certainly was a good one though.

[Angela]

There's a fun little example of the Law of Attraction in action today in an L.A. Times interview with the fabulous Herbie Hancock. He is the first jazz artist in 43 years to win for Best Album, and it's probably the lowest-selling winner in that category in history.

I like that he is focusing on the "way of being" approach (encouragement) to attracting what he wants:

But given the other nominees, you had to be considered a long shot. How did you deal with that?

I started thinking what would be the purpose of my receiving that Grammy. If it's just for my own ego to get another Grammy, that's nice. I like getting Grammys. Who wouldn't? But I already had 10 Grammys. And I never did make music to get Grammys. You don't get into jazz for reasons like that. And then it became clear to me what a great mark it would be for jazz and for the jazz community. It would call attention to it and it would be encouraging to younger musicians. So I started chanting three hours a day, seeing images of myself receiving the award.

And it worked?

Well, I got the award.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

It is true, to some extent, that new science sounds like ancient mysticism, but if "rational judgement is part of the equation" then we must be careful about what we conclude. Firstly, there are many scientific theories that are pure speculation - indeed that is what all theories start as. Most of the weird science you're talking about has in no way been proven, though some of it does have some evidence. Secondly, it almost always applies to unbelievably small dimensions of matter. Particles have been deduced as existing in two places at once (it is even too much to say "observed") under strict scientific conditions - but gurus only under hearsay conditions.

maybe the issue is trying to conclude anything shouldn't be done. weird science is speculation and not conclusions. the one bit that gets assumed a lot is that the small particle world is stuck in the small particle world - that may be a hasty conclusion, and to say the small particle world can be in the macro world is a hasty conclusion too.

Rational judgement would also speculate how much the scientists of today have been influenced by humanity's deep and ubiquitous spiritual philosophies through time - are they unfairly biasing their theories towards ones that involve magical ideas - especially when you understand how new theories grow on top of older ones. Many scientists are actually of a mystical or religious bent themselves, although many aren't. Einstein and Newton come to mind immediately.

Mostly, however, we find that those who have a good understanding of particle physics do not extrapolate their findings to encompass all being. They also believe in evolution. They also believe in the force of gravity that holds their desk in place. They don't imagine that they can reinvent the whole of engineering to reflect the fact that particles can appear and disappear. They don't spend their time trying to build matter-transporters. Some of them promise "replicators" in the home quite soon ("Earl Grey, hot"), but none of the technology suspends any rational law of science: it's just nanotechnology, assuming they get there.

belief locks in what we see to the point that we forget what we believe. or we have decided to believe a set of "rules" to be able to live like this in a somewhat stable 3d world - that may only be as stable as our consciousness's ability to keep focus on our agreements about what to believe.

Well, it can be, but this is another of those whips the LoA illuminati like to hit us with: If you don't believe in your magical powers, you must be frightened. The common culture has got you under its spell of fear. However, if you started out hypnotised by the prevailing myths and then overcame that enslavement, you did it by thinking for yourself, doubting what you thought you knew and what other people told you.

not just LoA material says this. fear is the ego. separation from source/God is fear. faith that things are ok is not fear. doubting faith in a divine plan that is in effect no matter what, is fear.

So, no, doubt isn't really fear. Fear keeps you believing what you believe as much as it stops you imagining different scenarios. If someone tells you to stop doubting and just believe, they could be hoping to raise your consciousness, but very often they're trying to stop you noticing something.

I don't think anyone can just believe by not doubting. Doubting means not believing something. Doubting something can be a fear based response to not having a belief that makes one safe.

Often, in this LoA game, it's done because it makes them feel better the more people agree with their theory...it increases their hit count and their income for instance. Doubt isn't a problem, but fear is. Those who use that whip are in fact trying to make you fear to doubt. They are trying to stop you considering alternatives to whatever it is they're proposing. All the religions do it. SR is a religion, in case you hadn't noticed.

don't agree w/ you about SR as religion. where's the church of SR? SR is some kind of idea that can be defined in such a way to be true by it's definition. I mean not the part about your own consciousness being the only one conscious here. But that subjectivity is all our senses give us anyway. why is that a religion?

I feel there's a distinct message between the lines here (using my psychic powers ): I really really want to believe this stuff, and...ooooh look, here's some weird science...that just must support the theory.

I thought you didn't believe in psychic powers and here you are being a psychic! of coarse this is the way I go about looking that things. And that's what I'm trying to tell you. Doubt if you wish but weird science is in support such that we can still have rational thoughts that don't object to newer ways of looking at the 3d world and our role or our consciousness's role in it.

Sorry, I just think there is a really important psychological state that is dreadfully undervalued. It's called not knowing. Suspension of belief.

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying knowing is suspension of belief?

ALG pities me for it, but I'm in good company along with Socrates. It is difficult sometimes. It takes patience to get used to it. Everywhere we look we're being told what the facts are, and we're programmed to try to work it out, to know one way or the other.

We can't fail to exercise faith, of course. Every time I take a step I have faith the world is going to be there to step on. But it is blind. That is one of the true gifts of ancient mystical teachings. Fixed views was one of the categories of things that keep us trapped, according to Gautama Buddha (which is deeply ironic if you know how much Buddhists have argued about their dogma ever since!).

I would think you know that the earth will be there. It is faith in that which you know and that makes you believe it. Blind faith, I've thought, is something one doesn't quite know yet and accepts based on someone else saying it is that way.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

It is true, to some extent, that new science sounds like ancient mysticism, but if "rational judgement is part of the equation" then we must be careful about what we conclude. Firstly, there are many scientific theories that are pure speculation - indeed that is what all theories start as. Most of the weird science you're talking about has in no way been proven, though some of it does have some evidence. Secondly, it almost always applies to unbelievably small dimensions of matter. Particles have been deduced as existing in two places at once (it is even too much to say "observed") under strict scientific conditions - but gurus only under hearsay conditions.

What you are missing is why they have to come up with these theories in the first place, which is that the Newtonian model doesn't work on a very large or very small scale. Why do the rules change when we are not directly perceiving the event?

Rational judgement would also speculate how much the scientists of today have been influenced by humanity's deep and ubiquitous spiritual philosophies through time - are they unfairly biasing their theories towards ones that involve magical ideas - especially when you understand how new theories grow on top of older ones. Many scientists are actually of a mystical or religious bent themselves, although many aren't. Einstein and Newton come to mind immediately.

Kind of sounds like all people are going off their subjective experience of reality.

Mostly, however, we find that those who have a good understanding of particle physics do not extrapolate their findings to encompass all being. They also believe in evolution. They also believe in the force of gravity that holds their desk in place. They don't imagine that they can reinvent the whole of engineering to reflect the fact that particles can appear and disappear. They don't spend their time trying to build matter-transporters. Some of them promise "replicators" in the home quite soon ("Earl Grey, hot"), but none of the technology suspends any rational law of science: it's just nanotechnology, assuming they get there.

Science assumes that the subject/object matrix is real. If they didn't, it would be impossible to induce causality (answer the question "how"). What we are really talking about is ontology. Because of the dualistic nature of language it is difficult to talk about the nature of being, which is why mystics use metaphor to communicate what they understand. Jesus used farming, fishing and wedding feasts. We use quantum mechanics, relativity and computer science.

The problem comes in when people take these metaphors literally, either to be absolute truth or as a replacement for science. When Jesus talks about the farmer throwing seeds on various types of ground, he is not giving a lesson in agriculture.

Time travel, it has been said, is perfectly possible in theory. The only problem is that the theory requires more energy than is supposed to exist in the universe, and the existence of a certain type of particle that has not yet been discovered. See how great the weird science is?

Where does this line of thinking take you? In other words, how does it serve you? If we were discussing this a hundred years ago and I described some of the technologies in existence today, you'd think I was nuts.

Well, it can be, but this is another of those whips the LoA illuminati like to hit us with: If you don't believe in your magical powers, you must be frightened. The common culture has got you under its spell of fear. However, if you started out hypnotised by the prevailing myths and then overcame that enslavement, you did it by thinking for yourself, doubting what you thought you knew and what other people told you.

I'm going to take a different route than wolfgang on this one. You should doubt everything. If you continuously doubt everything, you never land on a firm set of laws or principles that work absolutely. Most skeptics don't do this... they doubt what they never believed in the first place, but rarely look at what they do believe.

So, no, doubt isn't really fear. Fear keeps you believing what you believe as much as it stops you imagining different scenarios. If someone tells you to stop doubting and just believe, they could be hoping to raise your consciousness, but very often they're trying to stop you noticing something. Often, in this LoA game, it's done because it makes them feel better the more people agree with their theory...it increases their hit count and their income for instance. Doubt isn't a problem, but fear is. Those who use that whip are in fact trying to make you fear to doubt. They are trying to stop you considering alternatives to whatever it is they're proposing. All the religions do it. SR is a religion, in case you hadn't noticed.

Subjective reality points out that we are not perceiving the actual reality. What that actual reality is can only be speculated. So "SR" doesn't ask anyone to believe anything, rather to look at what they do believe and how that effects their life. It goes further than "positive thinking' or something to point out that how we perceive things actually changes the phenomena we perceive.

I feel there's a distinct message between the lines here (using my psychic powers ): I really really want to believe this stuff, and...ooooh look, here's some weird science...that just must support the theory.

Sorry, I just think there is a really important psychological state that is dreadfully undervalued. It's called not knowing. Suspension of belief. ALG pities me for it, but I'm in good company along with Socrates. It is difficult sometimes. It takes patience to get used to it. Everywhere we look we're being told what the facts are, and we're programmed to try to work it out, to know one way or the other.

"I know that I don't know," is a paradox which you might wish to contemplate further. Considering the Platonic theory of Ideas and the Cave metaphor, I would say you are not in the best company. I think Aristotle is more up your alley.

As I said before, this is about looking at beliefs, many of which we've been conditioned to accept, and choosing what we want to perceive in reality. It does not require the suspension of reason.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

The good news is that you don't have to stop doing your positive thinking and meditations. You don't have to stop practising the Law of Attraction. You don't have to stop deciding to get rich and being more likely to get rich. It's just that you retain a degree of critical intelligence that recognises you can't - AND WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO - fly, levitate, drink hemlock or walk through walls...and you remain immune to the influence of those who, either innocently or to deliberately take advantage of you, might persuade you of impossible things.

Perhaps we really don't want to prove to ourselves that the laws we've created for this universe can be broken in this way. Perhaps we don't want to be so proficient at the game that the illusion crumbles. Or it would get boring, like Monopoly would if we controlled the dice so that we always quickly win in a big way.

[cylon]

newsflash--I have no intention of drinking poison (just to see) or jump off a building to see if I'm superman.

There should be a poll here of how many forum members have done some death-defying trick.

When I'm in the moment and the "zone" I feel so good that all I want to do is laugh and be happy and spend time doing the things I love.

What we talk about here is getting in tune with your "highest self" the wise, eternal part of you that takes joy in life. That's the part of you that wants to manifest abundance and be happy. When you're feeling happy, at peace, then you're in touch with that part. And that part of me has never asked me to jump off a building.

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by cylon

newsflash--I have no intention of drinking poison (just to see) or jump off a building to see if I'm superman.

There should be a poll here of how many forum members have done some death-defying trick.

When I'm in the moment and the "zone" I feel so good that all I want to do is laugh and be happy and spend time doing the things I love.

What we talk about here is getting in tune with your "highest self" the wise, eternal part of you that takes joy in life. That's the part of you that wants to manifest abundance and be happy. When you're feeling happy, at peace, then you're in touch with that part. And that part of me has never asked me to jump off a building.

YES! Totally. Thank you for that.