Garbage, all of it.

[moonrambler]

I knew something like this would happen today -- I use plastic bags from the local supermarket's recycling bin for box packing (way cheaper than buying bubble wrap!) and somebody hadn't taken their receipt from an Old Navy bag. The receipt is for:

LR 16" DLPHN P

[Angela]

I'm looking out towards the sea right now and there is a pod of dolphins frolicking out there in the surf. That sight never fails to fill my heart with joy.

[cylon]

I was waiting for my dad in the waiting room, wondering where the dolphin would show up. Someone placed a magazine next to me. I figured, hell maybe it's there. Flipped maybe four pages, ad with a drawn dolphin logo (sort of sparkly as it was loose, freehand drawing. I think it had a star for an eye).

Man I hope my leg heals soon (hamstring injury). For awhile there every morning I was walking to pier and watching the dolphins in the ocean, I miss that.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I knew something like this would happen today -- I use plastic bags from the local supermarket's recycling bin for box packing (way cheaper than buying bubble wrap!) and somebody hadn't taken their receipt from an Old Navy bag. The receipt is for:

LR 16" DLPHN P

Lol

[cylon]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I beg to differ. You don't want to debate with me because your arguments are flawed and you don't know how to debate. Now you are resorting to accusations of hatred instead. I have some affection for you, actually, and pity and amusement and irritation, but I don't hate you.

feel the love.

[Wax Frog]

Somebody please tell me why skeptics need to preach beyond their choirs? I'm not stupid or ignorant, I *choose* to suspend my disbelief. Even if only 1/100 of IM/LoA is valid, I want to be free to identify that part without anyone, intentionally or not, trying to depress and discourage me. The critical voices will always be available, but I honestly hope I leave them far, far behind, laughing at the time I used to give them regard at all.

[cylon]

I'm much happier now than I was taking life too seriously. Doesn't mean I still don't get down on myself, but the practice of deliberately deciding that I'm going to feel good has made a large difference. If that's all you get from this than it's worth it.

[moonrambler]

After reading your recent postings, cylon & Angela, I was thinking of responding that where I live, I'm not likely to see any actual dolphins. They aren't in the river here or anything

I have a habit of getting behind on newspapers. I toss what's not been read into a pile and go through them whenever I get around to it. Today at lunch I picked up the ones on top, which were for June 19th. Apparently I had read Section A & B because those sections were gone. Section C's main story has a subheading that reads "Trade for Dolphins' disgruntled DE can't be ruled out"

No actual dolphins, but there are football players

Also, just to mention about the tendency of most people to not notice this sort of thing, I was halfway through the article before it even registered that this was about Dolphins.

[cylon]

And I bet some of those football players have a sparkling personality.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by cylon

And I bet some of those football players have a sparkling personality.

Ha! You funny, cylon!

I just got a call from Seller Development. She said she'd send me an e-mail with further details. "My name will be on the e-mail," she says, " . . . my name is Angela."

Now, you know this is going to go on all day long.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Ha! You funny, cylon!

I admit I'm being silly in this thread. I don't care. As soon as I sense I'm taking the subject too seriously I back off, for my own peace of mind. Doesn't matter if it's this, religion, politics, the gender wars... after so much I'm like "I'm going to die one day."

That's how you get ulcers. My ego isn't as invested as it would have been in the past.

I just really love all these synkro stories we're coming up with.
(another dolphin just came my way)

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

Somebody please tell me why skeptics need to preach beyond their choirs? I'm not stupid or ignorant, I *choose* to suspend my disbelief. Even if only 1/100 of IM/LoA is valid, I want to be free to identify that part without anyone, intentionally or not, trying to depress and discourage me. The critical voices will always be available, but I honestly hope I leave them far, far behind, laughing at the time I used to give them regard at all.

I hear ya!

I am also not as invested in all of this as I may have been in the past... I just.......... I find it funny because a lot of what skeptics about me (us) I feel for them. I pity them for they know not what they are missing.

I am not a debator. I won't sit here and debate back and forth and back and forth....... I guess I don't NEED to and I am just in awe of those who need explanations and documentation for everything in their life. I have had many questions myself about life. I guess I find my answers in my heart and soul.

No skeptic can tell me what I experience is a "lie" or "garbage." But I sure see they don't stop trying!

But, that's okay. It's interesting. I sure am not swayed by those long posts, though. I have had too much happen to me, personally, that all I can do is shake my head and think, "they just don't get it and they never will." Not my worry!!

BUT... all of my experiences would be deduced down to dust from a skeptic. I find that a little sad, but oh well. I DO find life magical and wonderful and beautiful. I am so thankful for that!

[cylon]

Good post jawillie. I've been on both sides of the fence.... I like this side, I prefer feeling good and letting life's mysteries unfold for me. I can't prove that to you, but I know you'll take my word for it.

[Wax Frog]

The fact that nobody has tried to sell anything to me yet, or even exhibited anything other than what I might awkwardly call an "amiable and sane semi-indifference" toward me, goes a long way toward building my trust and confidence.

As far as I'm concerned, I may still be on the bench, but I'm on the right team!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

The way you put it it sounds like there is no path to enlightenment. We are doomed to local mind because we don't have real evidence of enlightenment, and without evidence there's no way to bring it on because to try to believe it is actually another version of not being open?

You've got some really good points here wolfgang. Making me think. I mean, yeah, of course I'm not saying we should disregard religious messages or meditation or the goal of Enlightenment that some people promise is there through meditation etc. I've spent some time searching, and at the moment I feel that most likely the truth of it is that no, there is no enlightenment, probably no god, and no realm where your consciousness melts beautifully into the cosmic consciousness. I hold this prefered theory as lightly as I can, knowing that it may not be true, but that's uppermost in my feelings about it now.

I'm all for not following gurus. Jesus was one of those reluctant gurus that kept trying to get people to not need him. the kingdom of heaven is in you - or something like that.

Yeah, maybe, although there seems to be quite a lot to the contrary, him saying that the only way to God was through him. Whether he meant that in some kind of crazy egotistical way, or one of his beloved parables, I don't know. Anyway, I know what you mean.

Daring to try to believe the opposite of the defended opinion - well I try to not defend opinions. At least as soon as I defend something I think I want to believe, I have regressed and am not on my path anymore, probably.

I'm glad to hear it. That's what I meant. Keep an open mind - how often do people just say that to you because they want you to take on their beliefs and stick with the program?

And what is your aim? I mean you tell me to not be closed minded and not follow the orange-robed gurus, to consider and compare things - but are you doing that? Or is your path not interested in enlightenment? I think you are interested.

It goes in phases, but yeah, overall I'm interested in it. I can't be bothered with it at the moment and feel that it may be false, that's all, but I'm not saying that I won't come back to the subject from a different angle.

A few months ago I got really serious about it and looked for Buddhist groups and meditation teachers online, and I found it very disappointing. I mean, one teacher was very nice and ready to help, but it was during our email conversations that I firmed up my feeling that she was duping herself on a number of matters. Enlightenment was one of them, of course. I mean, I wanted to know if there was really such a thing, if she knew that or just assumed it - was she enlightened, or was her guru, or his/her guru, did she think? She seemed to flounder, like she'd never actually considered the question of whether enlightenment was real, whether she actually had ever met anyone she considered a fully enlightened being.

One of my concerns was that if I meditate on certain principles, they might not be real, but I might hypnotise myself into belief in them. If I take just one example, in the meditation being taught in this centre, the practice involves deciding whether an experience is nama or rupa, which means a subjective impression (nama) or an external objective phenomenon (rupa). I had been thinking that, philosophically, if I am seeking Enlightenment, for one thing I do not want to begin by making assumptions that things fit into these two categories, and for another, I was concerned that if I kept doing so I could convince myself of it. For all I knew, there might not be any physical reality out there at all. Indeed, when I consider my experience, it seems like it should all be nama. I can only deduce the existence of objective reality through my sense impressions.

Several other meetings with Buddhists online were disastrous. I mean, really, they were some of the most arrogant, closed-minded idiots I have ever had the misfortune to try holding a rational conversation with. I shared as humbly as I could with them my doubts about Buddhism, saying that I was struggling to understand (and this was me coming from a position of trying to keep the faith - I had been much more into it before). One place (I won't name it) just deleted my post outright, with no explanation, no warning, no PM, nothing. I posted to ask what had happened, saying that if it was a mistake, fair enough, but I was begining to wonder if I had been censored, and that post got deleted, no mention of it. I PMed the moderator. No reply. You either bow and scrape to their beloved abbots and agree with all the transcripts of what the Buddha is supposed to have said, or you shut the bleep up. Great religion, Buddhism, I thought. Yeah, I'm really glad I spent twenty years of my life believing that meditation leads to enlightenment, rather than to being an ignorant, relgious fascist.

However, I still hope that I might find a new direction. I found my readings of Zen Buddhism interesting. Still, I do wonder, after my discussions with materialists, whether I had discounted that philosophy too early, and now that's what seems quite promising to me. It's easy to discount materialism, as it has got a bad name! It doesn't, of course, mean that you have to be cold and heartless, or greedy. You can still take old dogs home and love them. Strangely, it is here at this forum where I heard of darkworkers, and one of them delighted in telling me he kicks puppies. So you can't read a book without breaking eggs. (Cylon will probably reply to that bit).

But also you are not interested in paths that dead end and appreciate that you seem to know what dead ends are. However, how does one compare things without trying what it is that is being said to the point of experiencing? It can't be done with endless thought experiments that lets the mind declare, something that needs to have experience to feel, it bugus.

You're quite right, of course. I'm sorry to dismiss it out of hand. Certainly if people don't try things out they won't know if it's for them or not. But for me, it's a dead end, the magical belief in LoA. I've tried enough of it, and I believe I know enough about how it appears to work not to be fooled and think that it does work (I mean magically: positive thinking is wonderful for helping you get where you want to be, don't get me wrong). But maybe I should go away and let the converted get on with preaching to each other (sceptical voices are being got at for their dissent here again recently). I just fear for those who might get sucked in, because it is a lovely promise, like enlightenment. And like that, I've yet to find anyone who actually has mastered it. Please God don't let anyone tell me Steve Pavlina!

You write some good stuff wolfgang. Thanks for helping me think more about these issues.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

(Cylon will probably reply to that bit).

Ok. I'm not following you though, what I was supposed to respond to. Kicking dogs?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

The fact that nobody has tried to sell anything to me yet, or even exhibited anything other than what I might awkwardly call an "amiable and sane semi-indifference" toward me

Dude. There's part of your problem. I've seen several people here respond to you with much more than semi-indifference. Is that really all you're perceiving?

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Dude. There's part of your problem. I've seen several people here respond to you with much more than semi-indifference. Is that really all you're perceiving?

That's why I copped out and used "awkward" as a disclaimer. What I posted doesn't quite convey what I meant. I'm getting attention, but it's laid-back, which tells me that I'm *not* dealing with fanatics.

Still, there could be some "Freudian slippage" there too. I posted a "peacemaking" statement in my recent pain thread, where I mention the humanity-is-against-me mode I spent most of my life in. That stuff won't evaporate overnight.

[cylon]

Yeah don't stress wax.

But, if someone makes personal attacks against you (which could happen) you probably should stop interacting with them.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by cylon

I admit I'm being silly in this thread. I don't care. As soon as I sense I'm taking the subject too seriously I back off, for my own peace of mind. Doesn't matter if it's this, religion, politics, the gender wars... after so much I'm like "I'm going to die one day."

That's how you get ulcers. My ego isn't as invested as it would have been in the past.

I just really love all these synkro stories we're coming up with.
(another dolphin just came my way)

See now, for me it just took a cool turn weirder. I went to town and back, and one thought I had (always trying to decide whether a synkro "counts" or not), was that although even in June there are lots of football headlines around here (typically personality features, that sort of thing), it's unusual to see a headline involving Dolphins. In fall sometimes obviously, but not in the off-season. I got home and found an e-mail that an off-topic thread I started on a music forum on March 4 was updated this afternoon. That thread was called "Brett's retiring" and all the responses previous to this were on March 4. You know how unusual it is when somebody updates a thread that's months old (uh . . . and weren't some of you just talking about this? ) and especially this being about football, and real old news, well, it just was weird.

Man. Now there's another response. If somebody mentions Dolphins, I'm going to freak.

This is how I was trying to explain about how sometimes it sticks to one theme and sometimes it takes off rather strangely after a related theme. Like one person spontaneously smiling at another, and the smiles continue on throughout the day.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

Ok. I'm not following you though, what I was supposed to respond to. Kicking dogs?

Nah. I've given up supposing.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

That's why I copped out and used "awkward" as a disclaimer. What I posted doesn't quite convey what I meant. I'm getting attention, but it's laid-back, which tells me that I'm *not* dealing with fanatics. Still, this may also be a reflection of still more inner junk, so maybe it's just as well that I posted what I did.

Well, how about laid-back friendly attention then? Semi-indifference sounds, well, not so friendly. Like you don't feel too sure that people are actually being friendly to you here so you didn't want to proclaim it out loud.

Like Angela recently told me, clearing out inner gunk (or junk) is an ongoing process.

[Wax Frog]

Another flaw of mine perhaps. I've always had an affinity for words, even though writing isn't my passion. Sometimes I try to get too cute with them, expressing complex ideas badly

I just had a mini-revelation. Everything I post that is presented as express or implied fact is itself an "intention". Funny how one can be blind to the obvious...

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Like Angela recently told me, clearing out inner gunk (or junk) is an ongoing process.

Yes it is. Probably why I'm in here posting. Do I REALLY care what someone else thinks of me? Or my beliefs? Apparently so. I thought I was over that, but maybe not.

Only one way to find out.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

You write some good stuff wolfgang. Thanks for helping me think more about these issues.

likewise

kudos for your dedication of looking into Buddhism to the depth you did, not many seekers (or previously had been seekers) do/have done that much. I never got too formal with any of this. Sometimes I just like a good meditation and the buzz that last from it. And I don't think much about it other than, damn I feel lots better.

One thing I find interesting with looking into LoA is I keep running into how there's the idea of blocking what you are intending. Now if we just look at that concept and work on that, it is a common idea, don't you think? The integration of our denied self that we project outside of ourselves (psychologically) onto others is also this idea. Or that being so identified with our egos, is also this kind of idea. And the Buddhist take that attachment is suffering is this again, yeah? Jesus probably had something along these lines too, but I can't recall a good quote. Or other stuff I've read talked of embracing your dark side, that if we reject that which we don't like about what we are we never can heal it. Or that to approach that oneness realm is really about finding yourself in everything and that what we are normally habitually doing is being in denial of aspects of our true self and being fragmented by keeping our sense of self so close and defended.

Then I think those issues of baggage and conditioned mindless minds (and even choosing prejudice unwittingly) is what makes us not feel whole. That not feeling whole makes us look for a solution. It's like those existential issues puts a bug in us and won't let us rest. Then we wouldn't feel a need for a solution if we were whole. And to me it seems a lot of these ideas are saying: get whole somehow. Not chase something you might think will make you happy - including trying to be whole! lol.

[wolfgang]

Somebody please tell me why skeptics need to preach beyond their choirs?

Not sure. I don't think it's just skeptics. I think it's identity and wanting to defend something that is taken as self. That if it's wrong what you are saying, it will be like losing your hand or something. But I usually see curiosity in the skeptics sermons. And also, I imagine if something is really actually true or experience-able it would stand up to it all, or fit together somehow.

Originally Posted by Wax Frog

The fact that nobody has tried to sell anything to me yet, or even exhibited anything other than what I might awkwardly call an "amiable and sane semi-indifference" toward me, goes a long way toward building my trust and confidence.

As far as I'm concerned, I may still be on the bench, but I'm on the right team!

Hey man, get off that bench your up!

Are you saying since no one has tried to tell you you are flat out wrong and have to believe this - that you are heading in the right direction?

Maybe you wish you had a stronger view that produced reactions in others with different views? I'm not sure that's what you want.

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Are you saying since no one has tried to tell you you are flat out wrong and have to believe this - that you are heading in the right direction?

Maybe you wish you had a stronger view that produced reactions in others with different views? I'm not sure that's what you want.

I don't understand the questions. I do know that I have always had a deeply-rooted sense of how the world "should work", and the pro-IMers are posting things that line up with it. If they ever proved to be wrong, I'd be no worse off than before. In a sense I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

To be blunt - in a proven-to-be-material-only world there would truly be nothing for me, and so I would be eager to die, to end the cruel illusion. I could do a whole thread just on that, but it's not why I'm here, so I will continue to see if I can purge that part of my psyche along with all the unwanted, unneeded rest.

[alegro]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I think that this question is the source of a great deal of misunderstanding and antagonism. If someone argues against LoA, meaning the magical variety, they might get shot down by someone who sees the LoA as working through thought and its influence on action. I have absolutely no problem with the latter explanation (normality), but see a great deal of the former type (superstitious magic).

Thanks for pointing this out. When following this thread, I noticed that most (?) people were very polarized about the LoA - either they are in the "it works" category or in the "it doesn't work" category.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

You sound like a sceptic, and I would agree with this. I do think you perhaps dismiss the middle-ground, however, the people who believe that thought is very influential, perhaps even has a magical power, but they know they still need to take action in the world.

Well, the thing is that I *am* sceptical. But scepticism does not mean dismissing an idea "just because", but asking questions that force people to come up with proof that is undeniable.

Just as I pointed out in my previous thread - many (most?) ideas in modern science have been outright rejected by the established community. But it was often the most devoted critics who came up with crucial ideas to investigate a phenomenon. And only when carefully designed experiments yielded reproducible evidence confirming the idea, everybody was convinced.


Now, I am aware that being sceptical *may* prevent me from testing the LoA by myself since - as has been pointed out by many people in this thread - my subconscious disbelief would manifest its failure.

Now, if someone who "believes" in the LoA can get it to work, *they* might test it. But then - as has also been pointed out - my disbelief may cause the experiment to fail, nonetheless. Which is why the idea of subjective reality has come up. Interestingly, nobody has addressed my other questions about the conflict of history with the hypothesis of LoA and subjective reality. How can the Earth be round if nobody believed it? How can someone discover a new continent if he didn't detach himself from the outcome and wanted to manifest something entirely different? How would - assuming the hypothesis of subjective reality - someone who still beliefs the Earth is flat experience a trip around the Earth?

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I also agree completely with the observation that the pysical, active intermediate cause of 'manifestations' (changes) happen unconsciously - a much greater effect than is commonly known. [...] This is one reason why scientific rigour is so important - the sceptic is as prone to unconsciously fixing the results as the believer, but the scientific method is designed to eliminate these biases as far as possible, and often completely (depending on circumstances).

Interestingly, there have been "scientific" studies posted in this thread. However, the references ALG posted were not "scientific" in the manner an experiment that could convince a devoted critic were. The problem with these "scientific" studies was that they were not proper double-blind experiments on par with the standards required and ALG apparently did not understand the difference between what constitutes a proper scientific study and what does not.

If someone asks for a cat and someone else brings a bird along, claiming that it's a cat, it doesn't help anyone. It just shows that the one poster does not understand the difference between cats and birds. In this case a poster did not understand the difference between a flawed study and one that is not flawed. It is hard to argue in such a case.

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I would just say that it could be meaningfully defined to include external action in some way, but I agree with your implication - it won't be possible to tell whether it has anything to get weirded out about, go off to study in a course in miracles to develop, or that can be proven to be any different from normality (oh that boring n-word again, sorry).

Exactly, the problem is that it is unprovable.

Just consider an experiment: One group would think about manifesting something and take action, the other group would think about not manifesting it and take similar action. But this would not distinguish between "programming the unconscious" and the LoA. If the first group does better than the second, it doesn't prove the LoA.

Similarly, I don't imagine any experiment could distinguish the two explanations if it involves taking action. However, if it does not involve taking action, then one could distinguish if one's thoughts have influence on the Universe or not.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by alegro

Just consider an experiment: One group would think about manifesting something and take action, the other group would think about not manifesting it and take similar action. But this would not distinguish between "programming the unconscious" and the LoA. If the first group does better than the second, it doesn't prove the LoA.

Similarly, I don't imagine any experiment could distinguish the two explanations if it involves taking action. However, if it does not involve taking action, then one could distinguish if one's thoughts have influence on the Universe or not.

Well, there is this:

Improve Sports Performance and Strength Through Mental Visualization | World Fitness Network

Individuals were divided into 3 groups. Each group was tested to see how many free throws they could successfully shoot with a basketball at the beginning and the end of the study.

Group A: Practiced free throws for 20 minutes
Group B: Did not practice free throws at all
Group C: Practiced mental free throws every night for 20 minutes. No real free throws were done, only a mental rehearsal and visualization of each free throw.

The results were as follows:

Group A: Increased their free-throw percentages by 24%.
Group B: Saw no increase in free-throw averages.
Group C: Increased their free-throw percentages by 23%. Remember, this is only using mental practice and visualization.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Well, there is this:

Improve Sports Performance and Strength Through Mental Visualization | World Fitness Network

Individuals were divided into 3 groups. Each group was tested to see how many free throws they could successfully shoot with a basketball at the beginning and the end of the study.

Group A: Practiced free throws for 20 minutes
Group B: Did not practice free throws at all
Group C: Practiced mental free throws every night for 20 minutes. No real free throws were done, only a mental rehearsal and visualization of each free throw.

The results were as follows:

Group A: Increased their free-throw percentages by 24%.
Group B: Saw no increase in free-throw averages.
Group C: Increased their free-throw percentages by 23%. Remember, this is only using mental practice and visualization.

The usual take on why that works is that they are training their own local mind to perform. That there is no need to think of it as operating in the infinite mind or some sort of mystical response of the universe to their imagination exercises.

In other words how do we call this the law of attraction, in that they got more free-throw by sending out a vibe that the universe then provided this state to them. As opposed to just normal brain training?

It's sort of like the mind/body connection. That ideas seems to be very acceptable to science with repeatable statistically sound objective results. Enough that it can be thought of as "real". But then do we know why? Why does the mind effect our bodies? Is that the law of attraction? Does putting yourself into a happy state of mind just communicate with our cells to be healthy as part of how we are built or is it some grander vibe sending thing that the universe listens to and responds by generating a healthy state for your body? Or both?


oh no, I'm a skeptic. lol. I've seen the light and am converted. jut kidding. I keep understanding LoA in different ways and am not here to tell you it's garbage, all of it.