Garbage, all of it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

I would agree that paying attention is a skill, a skill that can be developed by anyone who chooses to do so. I would also like to add, many books describe being able to think a certain way, again which is available to all, who choose to do so...

In case I am being misunderstood ...... yes, I agree with you.

In the same way, I believe that just about everyone can learn to appreciate music ..... or solve maths equations ...... or get on well with others ..... or be very good in a language.

This does not alter the fact that some people naturally are musically gifted; or have a prodigious talent for maths; or have high interpersonal intelligence; or have the gift of the gab or a natural flair for writing ...

... and therefore hold natural advantages in the respective areas.

Gardener even once proposed a 'spiritual intelligence' - he withdrew it citing a lack of evidence, but you can see why there may be other reasons (the far of controversy).

The proposal of a `spiritual intelligence' naturally implies that some people are naturally predisposed to be able to connect with ... whatever ... God / gods / spirits / entities/ demons etc. If we accept that there is such a thing as spiritual intelligence, and we accept that Steve Pavlina's wife, Erin, is not an utter liar, then we would say that she is one of those individuals who were born with a naturally high spiritual intelligence.

From what I can make of it, this certain way of thinking is to think in images, not in words...

I was going to mention that as well. As far as the ability to visualise is concerned, people with high visuo-spatial intelligence are going to hold the natural advantage.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I tend to put LoA in that vien, where I have felt or sensed oneness and everything was exactly as it is, perfectly unfolding as divine light was seeing through me the direct experience of "LoA" was very tangiable. However, I'm not sitting around trying to make the universe give me "things".

You're mixing up two things -

your peak experience, and the Law of Attraction.

The peak experience gives you profound insights into the LOA, but the peak experience, unfortunately, passes. There are a few rare individuals for whom the peak experience does not pass, but settles into a more-or-less permanent state, but I'm betting that you're not one of the enlightened ones (as I said, they're pretty rare).

Once your peak experience passes, all you have left is the memory of your peak experience, which no doubt is a beautiful and precious memory, but still no more than a memory. Then you're back to plain old LOA again - every thought of yours contributing to your perception of reality.

(And since reality, to you, can never be more than what you perceive it to be, your reality IS whatever you perceive it to be ...... but that's a separate point, more for Mrs Cogan. If she believes that reality is objective, then that is how reality will appear to her. After all, reality is subjective.)

[Acting Like Godot]

If Mrs Cogan considers chicken stew recipes to be scientifically testable, then surely she must consider the LOA scientifically testable.

For the most part, I do not share this optimism. While chicken stew recipes and the LOA are testable, I do not consider them scientifically testable, save, in the case of LOA, under very limited circumstances.

There are of course PLENTY of scientific studies which investigate some aspect of how thought might affect reality:

(eg it has been discovered or alleged that the "healing energy" sent out by faith healers to water would weaken the hydrogen bonding in the water molecules;

that "positive thoughts" would alter the molecular structure of water molecules leading to observable differences in the formation of water crystals;

that a thinker's thoughts on the outcomes of a random event generator produces a statistically significant outcome;

that visualising gym workouts has the effect of increasing muscular strength;

that when meditators meditate on fruit fly larvae, the ratio of ATP/ADP hormone production in the fruit flies, after hatching, is sharply altered and this carries through to subsequent generations of fruit flies)

etc etc, but frankly, what use of all this is to you? Eg to know that fruit flies and their offspring live significantly longer and have better health, if experienced meditators have sent them positive thoughts when they were still eggs?

All this is very good and interesting, but I'd really rather have a good chicken stew recipe. Or use LOA for my own practical purposes.

Now while LOA is not generally testable in a scientific sense for practical purposes, LOA is eminently testable for practical purposes. Just try it and see. Record your intentions; record your IM attempts; record the events in your life as they unfold.

Simple as that.

For those who feel that this could be all utter nonsense and therefore do not want to waste their time and effort on that, then simply take it as an exercise in disciplining your thoughts, eg to break bad habits (smoking etc), or to cultivate good habits (exercise etc), increase self-motivation etc.

As you grow more experienced in controlling your thoughts .... try bigger; bolder; more ambitious; more bizarre; more unusual; more profound; weirder thoughts ...

.... and watch your reality change.

Record it all down in writing, as it happens .... Hang on tight, it's a wild ride, but it's fun.

[TonyRush]

Originally Posted by daveangeles

Hahaha, what angers me is the common response that I am creating "resistance" and that somewhere I secretly don't believe I deserve to be all right financially.

Trust me, there is no resistance. I would love to have prosperity in my life and I deserve it as much as the next guy. It just isn't coming. I would do a rain dance right now if I thought it would change anything.

Dave, I'm not sure how open you are about a dialogue. Perhaps you just came here to voice your decided opinion. And that's okay.

From your language, though, it seems that one of the previous posters has made a valid point: before worrying about LOA, you might want to explore the basic concept of personal responsibility. Forget the spirituality for a moment and really "get" that you are where you are right now because of your best thinking. You're where you are because this -- whatever "this" is -- is where you chose to be.

Either through action. Or inaction. Or decision. Or indecision. Or procrastination. Or setting goals. Or not setting goals. You are where you are right now because YOU chose this path.

If you can agree with that statement, you can move forward and find that LOA isn't about Esther Hicks or any other specific teacher or organization you may have a problem with or pre-conceived opinion about. The law of attraction simply says that you're responsible for your place in life in more than just what I covered in the paragraph above.

As for WHY you're struggling, it might not have anything to do with feeling like you don't deserve it. But "deservability" is not the only form of resistance that keeps people stuck in life.

There are lots of forms of resistance. For instance, some people believe that success should be triumphant. So, they manufacture dragons to slay and hurdles to jump and bills to pay. They believe success must come at a cost....so they're constantly paying a price.

Resistance takes many forms. It's not just about whether your deserve to be prosperous or not.

Tony

[TonyRush]

I just noticed something. Dave, you started this thread, "Garbage, all of it" only ONE day after posting this under "Enough Is Enough":

I want a financially abundant life, freedom from worry, etc. Bought "The Master Key System" today at Barnes & Noble. Good book, anyone who knows about it? It's supposed to be the early twentieth century inspiration for "Secret"-type new thought so I'm hoping it helps.

So....when you started this thread saying it's all garbage....were you just having a bad day? Or did you really expect that you were going to buy Haanel's book and become a millionaire overnight?

Tony Rush

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You're mixing up two things -

your peak experience, and the Law of Attraction.

The peak experience gives you profound insights into the LOA, but the peak experience, unfortunately, passes. There are a few rare individuals for whom the peak experience does not pass, but settles into a more-or-less permanent state, but I'm betting that you're not one of the enlightened ones (as I said, they're pretty rare).

Once your peak experience passes, all you have left is the memory of your peak experience, which no doubt is a beautiful and precious memory, but still no more than a memory. Then you're back to plain old LOA again - every thought of yours contributing to your perception of reality.

(And since reality, to you, can never be more than what you perceive it to be, your reality IS whatever you perceive it to be ...... but that's a separate point, more for Mrs Cogan. If she believes that reality is objective, then that is how reality will appear to her. After all, reality is subjective.)

Sounds like a contradiction what you wrote. Mixing up LoA and peak experience - and then saying peak experience gives profound insights to LoA. Can't be both mixing up and insightful. The memory of a peak experience is not just a memory. It's a life changing thing. It does stay with you in your bones. Just like falling in love changes you. I know there is more to life than our ego and habitual thoughts. If I was wanting to be Christian it would probably be like what they call a conversion.

I don't know what you mean by plain old LoA - what happened to the idea that LoA is always in effect? There are not degrees of LoA working or not.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In case I am being misunderstood ...... yes, I agree with you.

In the same way, I believe that just about everyone can learn to appreciate music ..... or solve maths equations ...... or get on well with others ..... or be very good in a language.

This does not alter the fact that some people naturally are musically gifted; or have a prodigious talent for maths; or have high interpersonal intelligence; or have the gift of the gab or a natural flair for writing ...

... and therefore hold natural advantages in the respective areas.

Gardener even once proposed a 'spiritual intelligence' - he withdrew it citing a lack of evidence, but you can see why there may be other reasons (the far of controversy).

The proposal of a `spiritual intelligence' naturally implies that some people are naturally predisposed to be able to connect with ... whatever ... God / gods / spirits / entities/ demons etc. If we accept that there is such a thing as spiritual intelligence, and we accept that Steve Pavlina's wife, Erin, is not an utter liar, then we would say that she is one of those individuals who were born with a naturally high spiritual intelligence.



I was going to mention that as well. As far as the ability to visualise is concerned, people with high visuo-spatial intelligence are going to hold the natural advantage.

I just have trouble with statements that say you can't become spiritual (which is what I consider LoA to be, a spiritual pursuit) because you aren't intelligent. This is applying judgement in spirituality. Aren't the keys to heaven available to all? Isn't spirituallity about acceptance and non-judgement?

[RT Wolf]

^ He's not saying that. You're falling prey to what I call "All or nothing" thinking. He's saying some people have natural advantages, just like in other pursuits, while other people have to work at it more. Intelligence can grow, of course. And neither is he talking about intelligence in general, but a specific kind of spiritual intelligence, which, like he said, was not really valid as a concept.

The other assumption you're making is that he's talking about a Judeo-Christian-Muslim idea of spirituality.

He is right about one thing, though, doing well with the LoA does require a lot of intrapersonal insight, whether you are predisposed to it or you develop it, doesn't really matter much.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

^ He's not saying that. You're falling prey to what I call "All or nothing" thinking. He's saying some people have natural advantages, just like in other pursuits, while other people have to work at it more. Intelligence can grow, of course. And neither is he talking about intelligence in general, but a specific kind of spiritual intelligence, which, like he said, was not really valid as a concept.

Natural advantages doesn't belong in the termology for manifestation, I think. What does it mean to have a natural advantage to manifest? Aren't we all perfectly manifesting what ever it is that we are attracting wheather we are conscious of it or not? Isn't each one of our lives exactly and perfectly unfolding and manifesting as to our unique expressions? Isn't that one of the precepts of manifestation - that we all are perfect and created equal in a spiritual sense?

I don't get what you say is my "all or nothing" thinking.

The other assumption you're making is that he's talking about a Judeo-Christian-Muslim idea of spirituality.

I don't see that assumption either, sorry. I likened the posts to Christains saying you are damned unless you believe what I do. Becuase to present information to the OP or MrsCogan that says maybe it's because you don't have the natural aptitude, is kind of what a Christain would tell a non-Christian. I just don't think that helps someone checking out LoA to say there's something that maybe you don't have that others do. Why put a comparison/judgement on it?

He is right about one thing, though, doing well with the LoA does require a lot of intrapersonal insight, whether you are predisposed to it or you develop it, doesn't really matter much.

Doing well with LoA is not up for judgement. How do you judge LoA if all it is doing is giving you what your vibe is? Maybe the way to address this idea is it's not LoA but how much someone "raises their vibration". But raising your vibration is not to be compared either or we are creating an us/them or a heirarchy. We should be trying to dispell heirarchies and exclusiveness thinking when going on about spiritual pursuits.

Anyway, I sound confused, I know that. I just don't like to hear LoA or manifesting is not going to "work" for some. Or maybe no one here said that and I'm just projecting something onto you guys.

[RT Wolf]

I think you're mixing two things there (and a third, because I seem to read a lot of Tolle in your post):

The Law of Attraction - Just the law. Always works.

Deliberately applying IM - This is where you choose which outcomes you want, by choosing your thoughts, emotions and viberation level. Hicks seperate all three of these, so it might be helpful to read their Law of Attraction book for more clarity on this. This is the thing I'm talking about: the ability to consciously create (rather than unconsciously or by default like you're saying), is varied and there could be a natural advantage to some people. That said, no sort of intelligence is fixed and can be improved. Just because you don't have a natural advantage, does not mean you cannot be a great manifester.

The issue of spirituality in general is ever bigger, so I'm not going to touch that, simply because I have not much experience or answers here.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Sounds like a contradiction what you wrote. Mixing up LoA and peak experience - and then saying peak experience gives profound insights to LoA. Can't be both mixing up and insightful.

As you prefer. If you insist that they are separate and distinct and shed no light on each other, then this only means that your earlier post is meaningless.

Personally I think that the peak experience does offer insights into LOA (although that is hardly the most important feature of a peak experience). The peak experience offers insight into LOA, because the peak experience gives you a sense of the interconnectedness of all things.

If you have that sense of the interconnectedness of all things (I believe you had used the word "oneness"), then you see experientially, how your thoughts can potentially affect anything (since all things are interconnected).

The memory of a peak experience is not just a memory. It's a life changing thing. It does stay with you in your bones. Just like falling in love changes you. I know there is more to life than our ego and habitual thoughts. If I was wanting to be Christian it would probably be like what they call a conversion.

Let me explain it by using the analogy of a near-death experience. The near-death experience is also "life-changing" and people who have had undergo personality changes for the better etc.

However, as they go about their daily lives, these people are no longer still having a near-death experience; their brain is not dead; they aren't lying on a hospital dead; they aren't seeing a bright light at the end of the tunnel; they do not feel that they are floating out of their bodies etc.

I don't know what you mean by plain old LoA - what happened to the idea that LoA is always in effect? There are not degrees of LoA working or not.

It is always in effect. Unlike a peak experience, or a near-death experience.

You have to understand that in my earlier post, I was drawing a distinct impression between conscious creation - such as the deliberate attempt to use the LOA to manifest certain effects - and unconscious creation (or what Abraham refers to as "creation by default")

My argument was that according by MI theory, some people will hold natural advantages over others in conscious creation. This essentially is no different from any other kind of activity. According to MI theory, for any kind of activity (whether solving crossword puzzles, or playing a musical instrument, or kicking a ball, or reading a map), there will be some people will hold natural advantages over others.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I just have trouble with statements that say you can't become spiritual (which is what I consider LoA to be, a spiritual pursuit) because you aren't intelligent. This is applying judgement in spirituality. Aren't the keys to heaven available to all? Isn't spirituallity about acceptance and non-judgement?

I have trouble with you saying that LOA is a spiritual pursuit.

While it certainly can be, it certainly need not be. And if you consider that everyone is using LOA all the time (and by this, I include unconscious creation), then it is indeed very problematic to say that LOA is a spiritual pursuit.

Eg suppose a person does not believe in any kind of god or spirit; is a liar and a cheat and a robber and a rapist and a violent person; does not see any need to change his ways; and would utterly scoff at the notion of a "Law of Attraction".

Nevertheless he would be creating his own reality through LOA. However, I would not say that the person is engaging in any "spiritual pursuit".

As a matter of fact, you'll also find that among people who believe in the LOA and try to use it, there are many whose IM attempts will have nothing to do with anything with an obviously spiritual theme. Instead they'll be manifesting for a empty parking lot; or a lottery win; or great sex; or a new job etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Natural advantages doesn't belong in the termology for manifestation, I think. What does it mean to have a natural advantage to manifest?

Imagine you are a career counselor. You talk to two kids. You ask them questions like:

"What do you want to be? What do you not want to be? What do you think are your strengths? What do you think are your weaknesses? What are your goals in life? What's your dream? What are your interests? Why are you interested in such things? Can you imagine what it would be like to have a job doing such things?"

The kid with the low intrapersonal intelligence is the one who's going to say:

"Uhhh, I don't know. I'm not really sure about what I like. I don't know what I'm good at, really. Why is it important to think about that? I don't get it. I never really thought about it. Aren't YOU supposed to tell me what I'm supposed to be? Am I supposed to figure out this for myself? Gee, this is tough."

The kid with the high intrapersonal intelligence is the one who's going to be much clearer on what he wants, why he wants it, why he thinks he can get it, what he needs to do to get it, what will give him a sense of achievement or fulfillment or satisfaction.

Because, as a kid with high intrapersonal intelligence, he is naturally more inclined to talk to himself, get to know himself, look inside himself, imagine himself in different situations, figure out his own goals, intentions and emotions about anything etc.

This is also why the kid with the high intrapersonal intelligence will have a natural advantage, if he seeks to consciously create with the LOA. He already knows what he wants; what makes him feel good; etc etc.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

As you prefer. If you insist that they are separate and distinct and shed no light on each other, then this only means that your earlier post is meaningless.

Personally I think that the peak experience does offer insights into LOA (although that is hardly the most important feature of a peak experience). The peak experience offers insight into LOA, because the peak experience gives you a sense of the interconnectedness of all things.

I thought you were telling me that I was mixing up peak experiences and LoA and my post was saying they are realted big time - and you are saying that too. We are both saying the oneness gives you the perspective to see LoA in operation. I am insisting this - not that they are sperate and distinct and shed no light on each other.

If you have that sense of the interconnectedness of all things (I believe you had used the word "oneness"), then you see experientially, how your thoughts can potentially affect anything (since all things are interconnected).

Let me explain it by using the analogy of a near-death experience. The near-death experience is also "life-changing" and people who have had undergo personality changes for the better etc.

However, as they go about their daily lives, these people are no longer still having a near-death experience; their brain is not dead; they aren't lying on a hospital dead; they aren't seeing a bright light at the end of the tunnel; they do not feel that they are floating out of their bodies etc.

No problem. The experience of oneness is not a state that easily sticks around. In a sense just a memory. But it's not the memory of the event that we take away from the experience. We are saying the same thing. Oneness does show how one's vibration is actually all that is - its not just a potential it is seeing/feeling manifestation/creation unfolding.

It is always in effect. Unlike a peak experience, or a near-death experience.

OK. LoA is always there. Viewing the LoA manifestations is not. A peak experience can show it to you but then that showing can go away but one is left with the feeling or faith that LoA is always there even if we don't see it all the time.

You have to understand that in my earlier post, I was drawing a distinct impression between conscious creation - such as the deliberate attempt to use the LOA to manifest certain effects - and unconscious creation (or what Abraham refers to as "creation by default")

My argument was that according by MI theory, some people will hold natural advantages over others in conscious creation. This essentially is no different from any other kind of activity. According to MI theory, for any kind of activity (whether solving crossword puzzles, or playing a musical instrument, or kicking a ball, or reading a map), there will be some people will hold natural advantages over others.

This is the issue I am trying to sort through. Deliberate attempts to use LoA to manifest certain effects versus unconsious creation. What you say is sounding like this: some people are built to be able to easily manifest deliberatly and others are not. I would say it's not an ability, it's an awareness. Deliberate manifestation is really just that you have awareness of what creation is. That awareness allows one to have goals that are aligned with the spiritual and you get to see them unfold. Unconcsious creation is being, well, unconscious of creation - being stuck in ego and habitual loops of perception. From there goals are not spiritual and may or may not unfold and you may not notice what it is that is being created around you.

ok, so then you can say it's the awareness that some have natural abilities for and other don't. But I still think that would be comparing and not something that helps anyone that is unconscious. Tell a mostly unconscious person that the problem is you don't have natural ability to become conscious or as much as someone else? Is that a empowering message? To make some special and someone else not?

Sometimes I wonder about natural ability all together. Someone who is gifted usually had a drive in that direction and spend lots of time in the field thay are gift in. It's the drive and motivation and awareness that is different, not the gift itself, perhaps. Mozart was brought up in an environment that allowed him to follow his drives that was music. What if he wasn't in that environment? Would have have been able to be a gifted composer in an isolated African dessert where no one played music?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I have trouble with you saying that LOA is a spiritual pursuit.

While it certainly can be, it certainly need not be. And if you consider that everyone is using LOA all the time (and by this, I include unconscious creation), then it is indeed very problematic to say that LOA is a spiritual pursuit.

Becoming aware in such a way to see LoA is exactly what is a spiritual pursuit. Unconscious creation is there to hopefully wake people up. The school of hard knocks.

Eg suppose a person does not believe in any kind of god or spirit; is a liar and a cheat and a robber and a rapist and a violent person; does not see any need to change his ways; and would utterly scoff at the notion of a "Law of Attraction".

Nevertheless he would be creating his own reality through LOA. However, I would not say that the person is engaging in any "spiritual pursuit".

The spiritual pursuit is not LoA itself - its the awareness and consciousness raising and alignment with spirit that is. I may have mixed term saying LoA when I should have been saying creation/manifestation awareness.

As a matter of fact, you'll also find that among people who believe in the LOA and try to use it, there are many whose IM attempts will have nothing to do with anything with an obviously spiritual theme. Instead they'll be manifesting for a empty parking lot; or a lottery win; or great sex; or a new job etc.

Whose to say having a parking spot is not a spiritual connection? I have alway read and thought deliberate manifestation is in context of for the greater good of all (which is a spiritual or connected to peace and harmony thing). I gues those that try to use LoA to manifest such and such are just attempts becuse these things are comming from low awareness of what is for the greater good of all. Until they can perceive that their goals are what the spirit is looking for they are attempts and don't pann out and then they conclude LoA isn't allways working.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Imagine you are a career counselor. You talk to two kids. You ask them questions like:

"What do you want to be? What do you not want to be? What do you think are your strengths? What do you think are your weaknesses? What are your goals in life? What's your dream? What are your interests? Why are you interested in such things? Can you imagine what it would be like to have a job doing such things?"

The kid with the low intrapersonal intelligence is the one who's going to say:

"Uhhh, I don't know. I'm not really sure about what I like. I don't know what I'm good at, really. Why is it important to think about that? I don't get it. I never really thought about it. Aren't YOU supposed to tell me what I'm supposed to be? Am I supposed to figure out this for myself? Gee, this is tough."

The kid with the high intrapersonal intelligence is the one who's going to be much clearer on what he wants, why he wants it, why he thinks he can get it, what he needs to do to get it, what will give him a sense of achievement or fulfillment or satisfaction.

Because, as a kid with high intrapersonal intelligence, he is naturally more inclined to talk to himself, get to know himself, look inside himself, imagine himself in different situations, figure out his own goals, intentions and emotions about anything etc.

This is also why the kid with the high intrapersonal intelligence will have a natural advantage, if he seeks to consciously create with the LOA. He already knows what he wants; what makes him feel good; etc etc.

I see what you are saying. Then what is this intrapersonal intelligence? Is it really something that is an ability that some have and other don't in varying degrees? Or is it just weather the individual is motivated or actually has desires or awareness of desires? And is having a desire or being motivated some kind of aptitude? Or something learned?

If someone is trying to "use LoA" to manifest and it's not working, is it because they are low in intrapersonal intelligence or that they have low awareness that their goals are not aligned with the greater good of all in mind?

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Just to pint out that the attraction of the LOA is more of a sympathetic resonance than magnetism.

Sympathetic resonance is when a string, like a guitar string, will vibrate it the same pitch is in the air.

The yin/yang is a mutually arising duality model - not what vibrations attracts other vibrations. Duality becomes a whole when looking at LoA as a spiritual path.

I don't have much problem with that--the resonating thing. What I think is garbage is "we create our own reality." Nonsense. No we don't. We live in reality and must learn how to work within that framework. It will not conform itself to our wishes.

Having said that, though, I'm not talking about submitting or becoming a slave to circumstances or letting the world push you around.

You see, we humans don't wish for houses, we build houses. We don't wish for money, we trade our labor for money.

If "manifesting intentions" means "I wanted it so I thought about it, figured out how to get it and then went after it" then I'm happy. If it means "I can make the world be any way I want just by crossing my fingers and wishing," I can't go there with you. I think it's important--in fact vital--to acknowledge the existence of an external reality that remains in place when you blink your eyes.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I tend to think this way too - can't deny the school of hard knock of the 3d world - but that there are two "things" happening. There is a comon field we are all one of oneness with but also we each have our own bounadaries and individualities. There is the ego and there is oneness - both exists or are not to be denied.

Einstein also said

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

so persistent that it existed for billions of years before you were born and will exist for billions of years after you die.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Angela

I agree with you that the context makes a difference. I do believe that "thoughts create reality," and I can see where someone might interpret that as "Reality for me is the belief that I can materialize the presence of a mazzerati out of thin air," when my context is actually: "Reality for me equals how my life occurs for me." I have all the power in the world to choose and change the actual reality of how my life occurs for me. I can generate a life I'm in love with, or I can generate a life of constant struggle. That is real power.

In that context, maybe even MrsCogan would agree with me -- maybe.

Yes, I would. You get a Maserati the way Maseratis get got. If "creating your own reality" means "In charge of my life as much as I can be." Then I'm with you 100%

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

I don't have much problem with that--the resonating thing. What I think is garbage is "we create our own reality." Nonsense. No we don't. We live in reality and must learn how to work within that framework. It will not conform itself to our wishes.

Having said that, though, I'm not talking about submitting or becoming a slave to circumstances or letting the world push you around.

You see, we humans don't wish for houses, we build houses. We don't wish for money, we trade our labor for money.

If "manifesting intentions" means "I wanted it so I thought about it, figured out how to get it and then went after it" then I'm happy. If it means "I can make the world be any way I want just by crossing my fingers and wishing," I can't go there with you. I think it's important--in fact vital--to acknowledge the existence of an external reality that remains in place when you blink your eyes.

To influence that external reality, to me is not what "using LoA" is about. "We create our reality" is blatantly preposterous to me too. I see it more as creation exists and we can see we are part of that or not. If we see it, then we can also have goals that are in alignement with spirit. Our free will is to either see our devine goals and merge with them (which incidently will feel like your own personal goals that do pan out), then creation and manifesting around you is done through you as you do the actions that build a house or find meaningful work that sustains you.

I think the "I wanted it so I thought about it, figured out how to get it and then went after it" is right on, the way I see this LoA or manifesting stuff. And when someone does this, decides and pursues a goal without forcing things, the universe does help you along. As long as your plan is part of the greater good of all. Things start to fall into place or opertunities open that are part of your plan, synchonicites and ease are on that path.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

If "manifesting intentions" means "I wanted it so I thought about it, figured out how to get it and then went after it" then I'm happy. If it means "I can make the world be any way I want just by crossing my fingers and wishing," I can't go there with you. I think it's important--in fact vital--to acknowledge the existence of an external reality that remains in place when you blink your eyes.

MrsCogan, it becomes more apparent to me that you and I think of "reality" in different ways, and yet one of our realities is no less real or vital than the other.

I don't think there are too many people here who consider "creating reality" and "wishing" to be synonyms -- although there are a few. From what I've seen of The Secret, it looks to me to be more wishful thinking and material gain. That's not at all what I consider to be creating reality. How I see it is: by trying on a new way of being, or consciously thinking thoughts that feel good when I think them, what is in front of me is actually transformed. Not in a magical, wishful way; the future I'm stepping into has actually been transformed.

I think it's vital in my life to let go of an attachment to an external reality that remains in place when I blink my eyes. Because for me, in each new moment, reality is recreated anew, and it will occur differently for me according to what I'm being. Presence is what's vital for me, not attachment.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

so persistent that it existed for billions of years before you were born and will exist for billions of years after you die.

Prove it...

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

Prove it...

oh no...

prove it wasn't - neither is provable.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

so persistent that it existed for billions of years before you were born and will exist for billions of years after you die.

Nearly every cell in the body has renews itself within eleven months. Every eleven months a person has a practically new body.

Even if the universe is billions of years old that doesn't mean its "persistent." Its always changing.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Even if the universe is billions of years old that doesn't mean its "persistent." Its always changing.

Exactly! And the universe is changed dramatically by the thoughts and actions of people (also without them). It was a different universe before Dan posted than after. Why not consciously think thoughts with the intention of creating a universe that works well for us and for others? The mere act of thinking those thoughts makes the world work better for me. (That doesn't mean I have to leave it at that -- I can also choose some of that massive action some people are always yammering about! )

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If Mrs Cogan considers chicken stew recipes to be scientifically testable, then surely she must consider the LOA scientifically testable.

The various qualities of chicken stew are testable scientifically. LOA is not.

For the most part, I do not share this optimism. While chicken stew recipes and the LOA are testable, I do not consider them scientifically testable, save, in the case of LOA, under very limited circumstances.

The scientific method consists of formulating a hypothesis and then making a prediction. The LOA hypothesis is that you can just think about what you want, concentrating carefully and it will be "attracted" to you in a sort of magical way. Magic isn't testable.

There are of course PLENTY of scientific studies which investigate some aspect of how thought might affect reality:

do you literally believe everything you read on the internet? Don't you have ANY bullshit filter at all?

All this is very good and interesting, but I'd really rather have a good chicken stew recipe. Or use LOA for my own practical purposes.

Now while LOA is not generally testable in a scientific sense

anything is testable if you fix the test so you can't get any result but the one you want. Other than that if it's not scientific testing, it's not testing.

for practical purposes, LOA is eminently testable for practical purposes. Just try it and see. Record your intentions; record your IM attempts; record the events in your life as they unfold.

I already know how to decide what I want, make a plan and go after it. No pseudoscientific magic pixie dust is required.

[Acting Like Godot]

Go away, Mrs Cogan. Try reading "The Intention Experiment" by Lynne McTaggart and then come back and discuss.

Even if you don't want to read the book, try checking the bibliography at the back. (It will give you the references to the various scientific papers / journals discussing the various thought-related phenomena discussed in the book).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I see what you are saying. Then what is this intrapersonal intelligence? Is it really something that is an ability that some have and other don't in varying degrees? Or is it just weather the individual is motivated or actually has desires or awareness of desires? And is having a desire or being motivated some kind of aptitude? Or something learned?

If someone is trying to "use LoA" to manifest and it's not working, is it because they are low in intrapersonal intelligence or that they have low awareness that their goals are not aligned with the greater good of all in mind?

In the pre-Howard Gardner days, natural mental ability was mostly measured in terms of a concept known as IQ.

Gardner wasn't satisfied with this - a single number, the Intelligence Quotient, seemed to him to be inadequate to describe / measure the wide range of mental abilities that human beings have.

Gardner did his research (beginning with brain-impaired children) to identify the different & distinct sorts of mental abilities that human beings have. For example, an idiot savant might be unable to speak or write properly, but might be hugely capable in mathematics / logic puzzles. This suggests that linguistic ability is a separate thing from mathematical / logical ability.

To identify distinct, different sorts of mental abilities, Gardner found it useful to work with young children. With adults, the extra difficulty that arises is that any "abilities" or "lack of abilities" they demonstrate may be due to cultural or environmental factors, rather than anything more intrinsic.

In the end, Gardner identified eight unique types of intelligences:

1. linguistic (relates to language, words)

2. logical/mathematical (concerns logic, cause-&-effect analysis)

3. visuo-spatial (relates to diagrams, images, pictures, sense of proportion)

4. musical (awareness of sounds, rhythms, pitch; how they combine)

5. interpersonal (understanding how other people think / feel / behave)

6. intrapersonal (understanding one's own thoughts / emotions / motivations)

7. bodily-kinesthetic (natural ability with one's own body; important, for example, in sports, dance and other physical activities).

8. naturalist (ability to interpret natural environment - animals, plants, weather etc - probably not much use for urban dwellers; but useful for people living close to nature)

And all this which leads to the idea that "intelligence" isn't a single concept. Instead people can be "smart" in different ways (and also "stupid" in different ways).

Let's take for example, the stereotypical high school nerd - someone who excels in maths and science, but is very bad in sports and poor in making friendss. In MI terms, he has high mathematical/logical intelligence; but is poor in bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and poor in interpersonal intelligence.

Now, of course, as you say, a person's ability in just about anything can be improved through practice, persistence, proper training etc. For example, if the high school nerd practised really, really hard, there's the possibility that he probably could become good in some sport. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that some people have more natural ability than others, in different things.

I'm suggesting that as far as conscious creation with LOA is concerned, intrapersonal intelligence is probably the most directly relevant intelligence. It doesn't mean that other intelligences are not relevant - there are very few human activities where only one kind of intelligence is relevant - but I'm suggesting that for conscious creation, intrapersonal intelligence is most relevant.

You are saying that if a person fails to manifest successfully, it could be due to their goals are not aligned with greater good for all; or they weren't motivated to use LOA properly; or didn't learn the right techniques etc.

HOWEVER - what we're talking about in this thread (before it got heavily sidetracked by Mrs Cogan) are people like Dave Angeles and Floridagal. They apparently did everything right, knew all the LOA theory, practised and persisted with LOA for a considerable time (Floridagal even attended classes or consulted psychics or professional LOA coaches or something ), visualised, thought positive, felt positive ..... and still fell completely flat on their faces.

At the other end of the spectrum, a few individuals who frequent this forum seem to manifest their intentions quite easily, quite successfully and quite regularly. Me, for instance - I started experimenting casually with LOA only in mid 2006, and by 2007, my monthly salary shot up so much that I'm in the 98.5th percentile of all income-tax paying citizens in my country (and I'm not yet 35 years old).

So I am suggesting that this difference (in results with conscious creation) possibly has something to do with the natural distribution of a particular intelligence (intrapersonal intelligence).

[RT Wolf]

Just a question Mrs Cogan, how do you think that LoA works? While I've heard it said that super-LoA masters have the ability to materialize things (sorta like Jesus or Sai Baba), for most normal people, LoA is supposed to manifest intentions through meaningful coincidences or synchronisities.

It seems to be a fairly simple experiment (it would have to be done personally, or through the self-reporting of a group of people, unfortunately, like conscious experience of emotions, etc, this is something we have to get self-reporting for): Yourself, and/or other people get together and set some intentions that you believe in, and then keep track of what might be a synchronsity, especially keeping track of those that seem subjectively amazing. You might just be able to establish some sort of correlation (of course correlation does not equal causation). Would this sort of thing establish that LoA works (ie that Intentions cause synchronsities, or that intentions cause causation)? No, but it is a step forward, because you are testing the mechanism of the workings of the LoA.

As an example of correlation might be that I set the intention to excersize daily (barring illness or pain) for a month, on December 22. That same day (I just checked the timestamp on this and this is kinda freaky), I won a fitness DVD in the Subway Greatest Contest Ever Contest (out of 5000 dvds). Yesterday, I won three free months of gym membership (I think this might be only if I buy a year's contract but an interesting example none-the-less). For reference, I don't enter many contests, prolly entered about four-five in the last three months. There were a few other minor things related to my intention to become healthier.

These are both related to my intention to become healthier. This is not my RAS filter, because these are things that are outside my own head (I'm assuming).

It is, however, still possible that these things are just coincidences, and I can't think of any way to establish a stastical baseline. However, it would seem clear to me that when one variable goes up (an intention is set), the other also goes up (synchronisities related to that intention go up, ie, I won play tickets before I set the intention). One thing you could do is count the number of somewhat objective snychronisities (like winning contests) for every person in a group and chart it. And then repeat with different intentions. This is a toughie, there's a lot of confounding variables, so I think the next possible experiment design might work better:

I've previous written a post on what might be the design of another experiment about three groups thinking about someone they haven't seen in a long time, imaging the person, and a control group. It'd be important not to stress this point too much, so it might be disguised as a study on memory and social encounters. All would be asked after a period whether they met that person, talked to them, or heard them mentioned and how many times. The control group would just be asked after the period ended if they met someone from say two years ago within the time period. Fairly simple to find correlations then.

Phew, long post. Generally, though, I don't care about the details or minutae. I'm testing it for myself, and if it don't work, it don't work. If it does, then hurrah! And it seems to be doing something so far, so even if I'm wrong and IM isn't actually the real cause of my recent good luck, I don't think it can hurt me much.

[cylon]

I have the intrapersonal intelligence on my side, and what I often think about regarding IM is the emotions I want to feel in life, and they way I want to experience life... I want that connection and sense that I'm at one with the universe. There are things that make me feel that way, friendships, especially writing music, so the things I work on manifesting relate to that. I haven't said "I want a new car!" (even though I do). Some of these material things seem very small to me (even though they are important, of course I want material things).

The other day I said "I am drawing things into my life to help improve my self image" and that is my main focus now. Today at work I stumbled across a public folder of a guy who left a long time ago. There was some mp3s in there with great music, but also "unknown artist"... I listened to unknown artist and it was a series of guided meditations on... improving self image. And a lot of the affirmations it had, were things I've been saying to myself already. Too "coincidental".

But anyway. Maybe I should manifest a mansion, a BMW, and a jet plane or something. Right now I'm manifesting a new job and healthy, positive co-workers, and my own apartment. But maybe I should be thinking "bigger".

Maybe I think too much. Because this post is basically about nothing.