Garbage, all of it.

[John Freestone]

Did you miss this earlier, cylon (I'm never quite sure if you want to engage with the philosophical bits or not): BTW, you said "It's not magic. It just feels that way...", and there you're right. I just don't see you explaining how it isn't magical. You seem to actually be saying that it is. Have I misunderstood?

Geiger and ALG would seem to say something similar. I'm still open to having it explained if anyone wants to. Let me guess, it'll have something to do with the Universe being holographic.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Let me guess, it'll have something to do with the Universe being holographic.

I was going to answer your question.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by alegro

I think that's a possible, simplified way to phrase it.

I like how JF formulated it - I do not dispute that there are presents under the Christmas tree. I just don't think it is necessary to believe that Santa Claus put them there.

To stay with that analogy:
i) A "believer" in the LoA will insist that it was Santa Claus who put them there and that he will always do so no matter what.

ii) A believer in the "action-booster" principle will also insist that Santa Claus put them there, but only if you have been a good boy and enough friends.

iii) A skeptic would say that they will be there if you have enough friends. And she would observe that this criterion is a necessity and make up a theory that her friends put them there. Unless she is willing to check on her friends the two possibilities ii) and iii) are indistinguishable, so she goes with iii) since it somehow feels "simpler" and since she doesn't understand why Santa Claus would worry about her having friends. A true skeptic would be ready, however, to reconsider the position once somebody comes up with a methodologically clean way to distinguish between i), ii), and iii).


Most people "believing" in the LoA would happily agree with everybody who propagandizes i). Then yell out that they "actually" meant number ii) as soon as i) becomes untenable by observation. They would reject iii) because it doesn't fit into their world view ... and, of course, because it is in contradiction with i).

The problem with this analogy and with reducing everything into logical terms is that it fails to recognize metaphor. By metaphor I mean that there are multiple interpretations to the same event that can exist simultaneously. To run with your example, Santa Claus is the spirit of Christmas or goodwill or giving in itself. Believing in this spirit would lead you to act in accordance with it, such as giving gifts to your friends. If your friends also believe in the same, they will give gifts to you leading to presents under the Christmas tree. If you or your friends do not believe in Santa, no presents.

Your thinking starts with the assumption of what people believe and you take their beliefs at face value. Like an LOA 'true believer' thinks that Santa is a big guy in a red suit who lives at the North Pole. Or, to step out of this analogy, that I can just sit around thinking about money and it will come to me.

In my opinion, LOA is part of the larger concept that is 'you create your own reality'. As I've stated it previously, what you believe you will summon the evidence to prove. Oddly enough, I think that skepticism would not counter this idea. Any line of reason leads back to an assertion accepted as self-evident. That assertion can be questioned or countered with other assertions, which is skepticism in a nutshell.

Where I would differ with skepticism is in the assertion that logic and empirical data are the true basis of reality. A skeptic accepts this assertion a priori just like everyone else accepts their beliefs in the same manner. There is no human being that sees things as they are, they project a belief onto it and skeptics is not an exception. That being the case, what this is all about is consciously choosing what we believe. For most people, they take what they are given in terms of belief. They question it when it no longer serves them or (in the case of skepticism) when inquiry itself serves them better. That's why so many people come on this forum wondering how this works. It's also why people like you and John come here berating people for it not working.

I would bet that any skeptic on close inspection began by question her own beliefs because they were no longer 'working' for her. Being unable to find a new belief system, she opts for the questioning of all belief systems. In the end though, this is also a belief system.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I would bet that any skeptic on close inspection began by question her own beliefs because they were no longer 'working' for her. Being unable to find a new belief system, she opts for the questioning of all belief systems. In the end though, this is also a belief system.

Very true, I'm sure it never stops either. If you have an insatiable desire to understand, you'll always be on this path. Nothing wrong with that. As soon as I think I have it figured out, my desire to know even more expands.

But knowing all the ins and outs of a belief system, and experiencing your life are two different things.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

I was going to answer your question.

And are you still, or do you mean that my guessing has made you decide not to?

[cylon]

Holographic Universe.

This is one of my favorite bands.

[John Freestone]

I'm struggling with this:

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Your thinking starts with the assumption of what people believe and you take their beliefs at face value. Like an LOA 'true believer' thinks that Santa is a big guy in a red suit who lives at the North Pole. Or, to step out of this analogy, that I can just sit around thinking about money and it will come to me.

So that sounds like you aren't such a 'true believer', you don't believe we can just sit around, think about money and it will come to us...but

In my opinion, LOA is part of the larger concept that is 'you create your own reality'. As I've stated it previously, what you believe you will summon the evidence to prove.

Why wouldn't that include sitting around thinking about money and making it come to us (assuming you believe it); why would the belief that I can manifest money not summon the evidence to prove it? What you seem to have done is present (in the first quote) a view that manifestation of intention works by affecting behaviour - then (in the second quote) a view of Magical LoA: belief creates reality. Is it one or the other, both, or have I misunderstood?

Oddly enough, I think that skepticism would not counter this idea. Any line of reason leads back to an assertion accepted as self-evident. That assertion can be questioned or countered with other assertions, which is skepticism in a nutshell.

That's quite an astute observation, and I think it may be approximately right. But that is taking thinking out of life where it can happily go round in circles without bumping into anything. The point I have been trying to make is that science is the process of testing those assertions - where they bump up against reality and get repeatedly chucked out. While I take your point that santa claus can be believed in metaphorically, the fact that you (presumably) don't believe in him physically is a good example. Children do science when they stay awake to catch their parents putting presents under the tree, and only foolish, dim or badly misguided ones still believe the big fat man in red and white comes down the chimney at xmas by the time they're at uni.

Where I would differ with skepticism is in the assertion that logic and empirical data are the true basis of reality. A skeptic accepts this assertion a priori just like everyone else accepts their beliefs in the same manner. There is no human being that sees things as they are, they project a belief onto it and skeptics is not an exception.

Most of that is very astute too - few thinkers get as far as recognising that reason and logic may be doubted just as everything else may be. But I think you make a bit of a mistake when that leads you to

That being the case, what this is all about is consciously choosing what we believe.

...I'll have to put this better - I mean, yes, philosophically speaking, maybe all theories about life are equally doubt-able, none absolutely certain, and even reason may be a foul knave, but the question is how are we going to choose our beliefs. You could as easily imply that we should just choose them at random, or choose whatever beliefs make us happy, ignoring all testing and thinking because testing and thinking are not 100% rock solid. Sure, you're aware of the danger of becoming obsessively rationalistic and never settling anywhere (although I personally feel that is quite a good way to be if one can take the strain - didn't someone once say belief is the worst enemy of knowledge?) - but choosing to believe that whatever you believe will be (or tend to create) reality seems a rather unecessary flight in the opposite direction.

For most people, they take what they are given in terms of belief. They question it when it no longer serves them or (in the case of skepticism) when inquiry itself serves them better. That's why so many people come on this forum wondering how this works. It's also why people like you and John come here berating people for it not working.

That's right, I'm concerned because I see it as very unlikely to be true, being popularized as the truth by certain folk, and I see some people "taking what they are given in terms of belief" - from people like Steve.

I would bet that any skeptic on close inspection began by question her own beliefs because they were no longer 'working' for her. Being unable to find a new belief system, she opts for the questioning of all belief systems. In the end though, this is also a belief system.

Again, that is only if someone becomes obessed with not sitting with a favorite theory and saying "That'll do for a while" or "That's my best guess at the moment". That isn't necessarily the definition of a sceptic, just an obsessive one. I think you can be sceptic to different degrees, at one end never trusting any assumption, believing nothing, at the other being almost fixed, but just keeping a little bit of an open mind. Another interesting observation from that is that if you do what cylon's linked page said "Don't doubt", you are quite clearly closed minded; that little chink of healthy scepticism has sealed shut (for now, it could open again). That's another insidious thing about the LoA. Like a lot of religions, it tells you it is the truth and the more you stop trying to worry about whether it might or might not be the truth and just accept it as the truth, the more it will become the truth. In that sense, sure, you get what you believe.

LoAers often seem deeply critical of religion, especially christianity, and I'm afraid I can't help but see enormous similarities. The details are mostly quite different, although even some of them are the same. Become like little children. Blessed is the one who believes and does not know. Just stop thinking critically; read the texts. Having a crisis of faith? - pray harder. We'll all pray for you. Signs and portents. It's magic, but it only seems like magic. Its the secret hidden reality behind normal (illusory) reality; come, join the special ones who seeeee.

[alegro]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

In my opinion, LOA is part of the larger concept that is 'you create your own reality'. As I've stated it previously, what you believe you will summon the evidence to prove.

I have covered this point in one of my first posts on this board. Since it has been brought up before I thought it is worthwhile addressing it.

I basically got very little feedback to it - except that a factual error was pointed out for which I am very grateful. But nobody has yet explained to me how the concept of subjective reality is compatible with our experience of the world.

How would someone who believes the Earth is flat experience a trip round the globe? How come that Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity (or other bizarre things about Nature) were manifested if nobody believed in them even after the first experiments came out?

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

Holographic Universe.

This is one of my favorite bands.

Oh, you seem to have left the discussion again.

See what I was getting at, Angela? At one point I was having a conversation with him (her? - no, it's a him, I'm sure) but he then ducked out and just posted videos with dolphins and ****, so then you became wrong by the time you said I was discussing it with him. I was trying to continue to have a discussion with other people then, despite him, as I said. Recently he seemed to join in again and address some points, so I replied to them and asked some more questions, and now he's ****ed off again. I can only assume he can't answer the questions I've asked him. I don't think I'm going to bother with him. Maybe just talk about him, like he started doing with me earlier. Yeah. I'll do that. Never speak to him again.

Hey, cylon, how you doin? here's my favourite website figjam.com

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

....but choosing to believe that whatever you believe will be (or tend to create) reality seems a rather unecessary flight in the opposite direction.

It's like this. Let's say I'm wondering if my boyfriend really loves me. There is all kinds of evidence one way and the other, what he says, what he does, etc., but ultimately I can't know for certain what he thinks and feels. I can choose a belief, though, based on whatever evidence I find and also based on nothing but my desire to choose. I can choose:

-- Yes, he loves me
-- No, he doesn't love
-- All men are alike; they pretend they love me but they're really just out for what they can get
-- All men are alike; adorable creatures who are delighted to please me
-- Love doesn't exist in any real way
-- It doesn't matter if he loves me or not; our relationship is working well
-- etc. etc.

They are only thoughts, and whatever thoughts I deliberately or by habit choose will determine how my relationship, and in fact my whole life, occurs for me. It determines if I'm supple, bitter, comfortable, frightened, etc. etc.

I think the Law of Attraction is the same as love. We can't know for sure what it is and how it works, but we can experience it, and the deliberate thoughts we have about it actually create our experience of it. If I habitually think worried thoughts about my husband "cheating", I'm actually creating our relationship as a world in which it's possible to "cheat" -- that is, that him having sex with another person would be wrong, bad, harmful and evil. And, incidentally, I'm creating that relationship world as a space of no-freedom for him. He'll feel my worry, and he'll feel my sense of wishing constriction upon him and may even act out -- by having sex with another person! D'oh!

It's the same thing as the LoA, or anything else you're creating in your life with your thoughts -- what you think is what you get. But what you think you think is not always what you think!

[cylon]

Angela's pretty sharp. I'm sure she can figure out what's going on.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by alegro

I have covered this point in one of my first posts on this board. Since it has been brought up before I thought it is worthwhile addressing it.

I basically got very little feedback to it - except that a factual error was pointed out for which I am very grateful. But nobody has yet explained to me how the concept of subjective reality is compatible with our experience of the world.

How would someone who believes the Earth is flat experience a trip round the globe?

I'm not sure there's a problem there exactly. I mean, I think that SR is all-encompassing enough to take care of little details like being compatible with 'our reality'. The believer would just say "What's 'our reality' mean?". You could have the delusion that you (or we) have 'a reality', and puuoouuufff, the problem disappears. A flat-earth believer, taken for a trip round the world, would presumably make up some kind of internal fiction to deal with the cognitive dissonance, or do what we generally do - deny one of the sets of data (either readjusting belief and learning, or denying or even actually not perceiving the visual facts). She would go dizzy, kind of, probably. I'm trying to think of examples, but can't at the moment, but there are those situations where you know one thing is true, but your eyes are telling you another - oh yes, it's when I get up and look in the mirror. There's a good experiment (or set of them) where people have their field of view limited sitting at a desk, someone puts a rubber hand on the desk in the position that their own hand might naturally be, then their hand and the rubber hand are both stroked at the same time. It is very common for people to report that the rubber hand belongs to them and is actually their hand, being stroked as they can clearly see. They don't believe they have a rubber hand, but they can't stop perceiving that they have a rubber hand - something like that, don't quote me till one of us looks it up eh?

How come that Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity (or other bizarre things about Nature) were manifested if nobody believed in them even after the first experiments came out?

That's a brilliant question. Actually, does LoA only relate to humans? Higher animals? I'll lay even money some loon will have written something about his pet dog manifesting something. Anyway, it's kind of funny that reality got started without us at all, the things some people say about it. I think the explanations will be vague - it'll be quantum mechanical effects, holographic realities, mind all the way down, that kind of stuff. Some of it is no doubt internally logical, but seems to bear very little relation to measured facts about the world (indeed the world seems often to be left as a rather arbitrary mess just coincidental with the great secret of Universal Consciousness or whatever). Start, like Deepak Chopra, by proposing a field of infinite potential and the world is, literally or metaphorically (it no longer matters which), your oyster!

[cylon]

Originally Posted by cylon

But knowing all the ins and outs of a belief system, and experiencing your life are two different things.

Originally Posted by Angela

I think the Law of Attraction is the same as love. We can't know for sure what it is and how it works, but we can experience it, and the deliberate thoughts we have about it actually create our experience of it.

Angela and I have disagreed on stuff before, really getting in heated discussions. But we respect and like each other just the same.

There's a lesson in that.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Oh, you seem to have left the discussion again.

See what I was getting at, Angela?

Yes, I completely get that you see it that way. Also, I see very clearly that cylon is communicating something, in a way that you're not seeing but he is. It's easy for me to see that he is sending a message, not leaving the discussion; and also that the more mathematical way you send and receive messages is incompatible with cylon's more poetical methods. It's as if your communication styles make you invisible to one another, and it looks to me like yours is more *set* or *extreme* -- I'm trying to find a word that doesn't sound judgemental, because it's not. There's nothing wrong with it, and I wouldn't change you.

And.... my intuition tells me that there's a part of you, perhaps way, way down deep, that recognizes that that is true, that cylon has not left the building; he's not just flinging non-sequiturs at you. What do you think?

[Angela]

Cylon, I don't (I choose not to) even remember our disagreements! I only remember that I love you.

And you don't have to remind me.

[cylon]

[Jonathan Browne]

Okay, you can't test the law of attraction on some grand scale, but refusing to test it in your own life means your discounting the idea because of the cognitive dissonance it makes you feel.

Is there anything to be lost by trying out beliefs which your not entirely sure to be true?

Your saying that you would need to clone yourself to get anything meaningful from the experiment I proposed. You can't prove a lot of things, but you certainly can find convincing evidence for it.

If you put very specific visions down in writing of what you want in your life and find it manifest in your life, what do you think are the odds of that happening?

The fact that humans are able to accomplish anything significant is actually quite extraordinary if you think about it. I actually believe without the law of attraction we could have never advanced remotely close to this point.

What is it that gives people the ability to do things which everyone says are impossible? When the wright brothers decided they were going to fly, there's no doubt in my mind they had close to no inkling of how they were going to accomplish the task.

Flying wasn't a gradual process of development over many years and thousands of people working out a complex problem. It was inspired actions of experimentation and imagination by men who had an intuition that they could do something that everyone else believed to be impossible. They worked out a solution to the problem. Where did that solution come from? The mind. Now what exactly gives our mind the ability to work our problems like this? Where do the creative leaps of innovation come from? Suddenly solutions and form appear into the mind of the inspired man.

Start researching the great innovations and feats accomplished throughout history. The biggest component of their accomplishment is always one thing: faith.

"Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions" - Albert Einstein

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

It's like this. [<snip>] D'oh!

Well you've saved the day, Ange, that's really helpful. You sound like you have a fairly reasonable grasp of reality and probably understand the realms in which different kinds of action work. What you have written is helpful because it shows some of the powerful and, to many people, surprising ways that "Weak LoA" (as I'll call it) works. I don't think it is at odds with my view as far as you've gone with it. I certainly agree that worrying about being cheated on could cause the cheating to happen as well as cause you possible unecessary worry, and, even more interesting, that you can transcend the idea "cheating", redefine it, or recategorize certain physical behaviours and improve life. We would all do well socially, imho, to do this kind of thing with crime, mental illness, etc., etc. (and murdering swine who perpetrate illegal wars might be punished instead of getting away scot free - oops, I am in a ranting mood tonight).

It's the same thing as the LoA, or anything else you're creating in your life with your thoughts -- what you think is what you get. But what you think you think is not always what you think!

Be careful though - "it's the same thing as the LoA"? What is? Do you just mean that what you have described about love is an example of the LoA, because it doesn't resemble a lot of other stuff that it's supposed to be? "The same as...anything else you're creating in your life with your thoughts"? But the LoA doesn't seem to limit what you are creating or can create with your thoughts, does it, from what many of its proponents seem to be saying? I don't know whether you see it as just - or particularly - influencing people's relationships, or, say, whether you could create a thunder storm with your thoughts, or a DeLorean. That's not "just the same as" at all. The first propositions about love you'd find a great many material scientists would agree with, but not the magical bit. That's what I'm interested in clarifying. What do you think?

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Browne

The fact that humans are able to accomplish anything significant is actually quite extraordinary if you think about it.

My thoughts exactly.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yes, I completely get that you see it that way. Also, I see very clearly that cylon is communicating something, in a way that you're not seeing but he is. It's easy for me to see that he is sending a message, not leaving the discussion; and also that the more mathematical way you send and receive messages is incompatible with cylon's more poetical methods. It's as if your communication styles make you invisible to one another, and it looks to me like yours is more *set* or *extreme* -- I'm trying to find a word that doesn't sound judgemental, because it's not. There's nothing wrong with it, and I wouldn't change you.

And.... my intuition tells me that there's a part of you, perhaps way, way down deep, that recognizes that that is true, that cylon has not left the building; he's not just flinging non-sequiturs at you. What do you think?

Grrr - yes ok. I see that. I don't have a right to force this space to be a rational discussion if you as moderator decide that petulance, evasion and snidely talking behind participants backs is 'poetic'. But it did seem to be posed as an invitation to rational discussion by daveangeles, even though that person then seems not to have contributed since, and I do think that maybe 'being poetic' could be considered off-topic, therefore. I'm pleased you can understand my frustration, anyway. Thanks. I thought I would have been warned at least by now, so fair play to you. As you can see, I started being 'poetic' back.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

~~><::> ><;;>

[cylon]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

petulance, evasion and snidely talking behind participants backs is 'poetic'.

You don't hold back, do you?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

"The same as...anything else you're creating in your life with your thoughts"? But the LoA doesn't seem to limit what you are creating or can create with your thoughts, does it, from what many of its proponents seem to be saying? I don't know whether you see it as just - or particularly - influencing people's relationships, or, say, whether you could create a thunder storm with your thoughts, or a DeLorean. That's not "just the same as" at all. The first propositions about love you'd find a great many material scientists would agree with, but not the magical bit. That's what I'm interested in clarifying. What do you think?

I mean: Love and the Law of Attraction are the same as each other, and anything else you're creating in your life with your thoughts. Not in every way, but in the context I was speaking of: what can we really know for sure? To me, relationship is a "magical" thing, by which I mean it doesn't live in the realm of anything that needs proving, and it is magnificently joyful. And it's easy for me to take that a step further: physical reality (thunderstorms, gravity, mazerrati's) also doesn't live in the realm of anything that needs to be proven, and they are also magnificently joyful. It's helpful, sure, especially for people such as yourself, to use provability, but not necessary. Although it's harder for me to wrap my mind around the notion that my expanded self creates the physical reality (easier = experiential reality), it's still easy for me to see that it's possible that physical reality (towels, parking spaces, dolphins) could conceivably every bit as malleable as experiential reality. Not *possible* like you normally talk about possible e.g., dwelling within the rules of science. But Big Possible as in: the more I recognize less and less that is Absolutely True, the more I recognize that there is very little -- maybe nothing! -- that is Absolutely Not Possible.

I'm not currently using a perspective of *poofing* things 'n stuff into my experience, but as powerful as I've experienced myself at *poofing* love, freedom, connection, and joy into my experience, dolphins and parking spots seem like small potatoes to me. I can imagine it might be absurdly easy for some. I wouldn't doubt that others are successfully doing it, and I wish them well with trying it, not least because it seems to feel good and cost nothing I can't spare.

In other words: the way I see it is: it's ALL magic, even the science.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

~~><::> ><;;>

I was talking to angela.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm not currently using a perspective of *poofing* things 'n stuff into my experience, but as powerful as I've experienced myself at *poofing* love, freedom, connection, and joy into my experience, dolphins and parking spots seem like small potatoes to me. I can imagine it might be absurdly easy for some. I wouldn't doubt that others are successfully doing it, and I wish them well with trying it, not least because it seems to feel good and cost nothing I can't spare.

Originally Posted by cylon

It's not about dolphins or huey lewis and the news or michael j. fox, it's noticing how your thoughts affect reality.... it's pretty easy to extrapolate on that and see how it could help you achieve your goals.

Originally Posted by Angela

In other words: the way I see it is: it's ALL magic, even the science.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Grrr - yes ok. I see that. I don't have a right to force this space to be a rational discussion if you as moderator decide that petulance, evasion and snidely talking behind participants backs is 'poetic'.

I'm sorry, John, I don't see cylon being petulant or evasive or snide, particularly not his post I think you were referring to, the one with the music link. I see light-hearted playfulness and kind of a joke, not even a rib-nudging one, just sweet. I think there is room for that in rational discussion. It's not so much off-topic as just cryptic to someone who is holding tightly to his perspective.

Other than guiding folks to follow Steve's posted rules, I can't and don't want to control how people express themselves. That would only limit me.

So, what do you mean by telling me "~~><::> ><;;>"? I'm not sure I understand, unless you're expressing petulance or snideness. Is there something else in there?

[cylon]

I was going to answer you John, I was actually typing my reply when I noticed you had already answered for me.

I'm not really familiar with the term Holographic Universe other than it made me think of one of my favorite bands, so I put the song up so the people here could hear some of the music that really inspires and relaxes me. Maybe someday someone will think of my music somewhere and do the same.

Then Angela and Jonathan came along and answered your question for me, probably better than I could. And even though it wasn't the answer you wanted (holographic universe) it was close enough to what I was going to say, so I thought I'd share it.

So you got your answer, and I got to make a music post. We both win.

I'm not just playing with you. I'm having fun, but there's a lot of learning behind it for me, and yes the posts I make at least in my mind are on topic. We're both learning from this. I think of all the posts that have been made from others that have clarified my views and they wouldn't even be here if I hadn't previously made fun little cryptic responses at all.

BTW you should go back and see where my first dolphin post came from.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

You don't hold back, do you?

No, I've always preferred active aggression to passive.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by cylon

I was talking to angela.

I wasn't talking.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

In other words: the way I see it is: it's ALL magic, even the science.

I see. Thanks.