Garbage, all of it.

[RT Wolf]

Money is a toughie for people. Partially because of the number of beliefs you have preexisting about them, and partially becase it is hard to find what works. Here are some resources that might help:

The Mental Virus That’s Keeping You Broke | Inspired Money Maker - How To Make Money Doing What You Love

I Will Teach You To Be Rich » Some people think there’s only a limited amount of money

Mind-Manual » “Some people think there’s only a limited amount of money”

The Little Money Bible by Stuart Wilde
The Trick to money is having some by stuart wilde
No BS Wealth Attraction for Entrepreneurs

Steve's posts on this sort of this, especially this one:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...herently-evil/
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...l-achievement/

When all is said and done, the thing that becomes most important is, do you really feel like you deserve x amount of money that you are asking for? You can create that feeling of deserving by working in exchange for the money, or feeling like crap in exchange for the money (which is what I felt was true a while ago, that money required personal sacrifice and I would not allow money to come easily from utilizing my strengths).

HTH.

[robertanthony]

Hi Dave

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it” Quote Adolf Hitler

There are highly intelligent people out there who follow this formula who pretend that they believe in The Secret when they dont. They know if a person in authority or a person who is rich recommends a product or service that all the poor or dumb people will buy that product or service so they can be like the person they admire and have the things that the rich person has. Also lots of buisness people jump on the bandwagon as it's a hot ticket for a fast buck.The fact that the movie doesn't make people super rich is even better in that they ask for help which means they spend even more on books,videos, seminars,c.d.s.

[RT Wolf]

HAHAHHAHAHAHA. Godwin's Law has been invoked. This thread has gone to hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

[cylon]

LOL. Yeah Hitler is often used to shut people up.

Of course, I'm not sure how much Hitler was into people taking responsibility for their own lives.

[wolfgang]

Using LoA doesn't work. I can say that because of the connotation that "using" has. If you are "using" LoA to better only yourself or that your desires contain only vibes that are for your ego and seperation - it won't pan out. If you want a car so that you can get attention or think that will get chicks - I don't think that gets answered. So using LoA can mean trying to get something only for yourself and actually hurting/hindering other people. I don't see that as being how it "works".

It really should be about allowing LoA. That you find goals that fit your higher good which will also fit people around you in beneficial ways.

Or if you are after a goal that is for yourself it will work easier if you feel how that goal will be for the greater good.

If you want money just so you can get more stuff that vibe doesn't get any flow, if you want money so you can give it away and help a bunch of people, that would get a response. Then the trick is to be able to feel the vibe that comes with that - that it is for the higher good of a bunch of people.

However maybe this doesn't explain evil doers in the the world, except the evil doers usually have convinced a bunch of people that it is for their greater good too.

[moonrambler]

RT Wolf -- in my case, I think it is something very, very fundamental. I read through each of the links you posted, and the one that strikes me most is the last link, where Steve speaks of needing to make a shift in identity.

It is like I have an alternate subconscious personality that is thwarting me. This personality even has the power to affect the outside world so that I find fewer opportunities. It's bizarre. This personality is intent on keeping a certain identity, which has to do with how money is unimportant. In the meantime, I know money is very important because the money situation is spiralling out of control.

Identity shift conflict -- for instance, much of my income comes from eBay. For years I avoided taking on the 'power seller' designation because it looked pretentious to me, the way all the obsession with 'teams' does at corporations, the way employees are no longer employees but 'associates' even if they have no say in anything, secretaries are 'administrative assistants,' store clerks are now 'team members,' and for Pete's sake, the local supermarket is insisting on calling its customers 'guests.' Finally this fall, a couple friends convinced me to accept the 'power seller' designation because buyers find it to be impressive. I said, "ah geez. I'm an old hippie." One said, "You're a businesswoman." Ok. Fine. I accepted the title.

Since then I have steadily been accomplishing having low enough sales figures that soon I won't qualify to be a power seller anymore. I'm not doing this by goofing off and not working. It seems to be 'just happening.' Yet I don't buy that, because I know somehow I am responsible.

There is a code here I need to crack.

[mochamajesty]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Using LoA doesn't work. I can say that because of the connotation that "using" has. If you are "using" LoA to better only yourself or that your desires contain only vibes that are for your ego and seperation - it won't pan out. If you want a car so that you can get attention or think that will get chicks - I don't think that gets answered. So using LoA can mean trying to get something only for yourself and actually hurting/hindering other people. I don't see that as being how it "works".

It really should be about allowing LoA. That you find goals that fit your higher good which will also fit people around you in beneficial ways.

Or if you are after a goal that is for yourself it will work easier if you feel how that goal will be for the greater good.

If you want money just so you can get more stuff that vibe doesn't get any flow, if you want money so you can give it away and help a bunch of people, that would get a response. Then the trick is to be able to feel the vibe that comes with that - that it is for the higher good of a bunch of people.

However maybe this doesn't explain evil doers in the the world, except the evil doers usually have convinced a bunch of people that it is for their greater good too.

But I thought that it was all the same to the Universe. Why should I have to want money for someone else in order for the Universe to bring it to me? That means that the Universe is judgemental and I thought that the opposite was true. The Universe does not care if you want a million dollars to give to the poor or to buy a jet. The Universe cares if you are lined up with what you are asking for.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Well, Mrs Cogan, let me put it this way.

Further discussion is rather pointless because your current perceptions won't allow you to see what I am saying. That's just the way the LOA works for you.

I see what you are saying very well. I just don't buy it.

For example, you claim to be a scientific person, yet when I say:

"refer to this book "The Intention Expeirment" and see the bibliography which will give you a few hundred references to scientific papers and scientific journals and scientific experiments done by different scientists all over the world over the past 30 years, each touching on some aspect of how thought affects reality"

none of what I say can be received by your mind. Instead you start referring to some experiment on some website which is not what I was talking about at all and of which neither you or I know enough to comment about.

I went to a website put up by the authors of the book describing their "experiments" and their "results." What I end up seeing is nothing. They don't bother to explain their experimental design or actually present their data. Real scientists are very eager to do both. Scam artists are not. You make it pretty clear you are not the slightest bit interested in science. You just want some authoritative backing for your magical thinking. Our culture admires science so you want to use science. If our culture admired religion you'd claim God whispered it to you. If our culture was preChristian, you'd claim a great mamma-jamma Guru taught it to you.

You say that you believe only in science. Yet when I mention a few examples of science experiments relating to thought/reality, which have been done at leading universities such as Harvard, Stanford and Princeton,

again this eludes your perception.

I work for a university so an experiment done on university property doesn't impress me. Only the experimental design and the data produced will impress me. So far I haven't seen any of that.

You say that unlike science or chicken stew recipes, LOA is not testable. I then give many examples of how LOA is testable. I offer examples of experiments that have already been done, and I offer examples of experiments that could be done;

and once again this eludes your perception.

I haven't thoroughly investigated each of the references you have given me but it all looks like pseudoscience. When someone isn't upfront about their experimental design or their actual data that usually means their experimental design was such that you could not possibly get any results but the ones desired. Saying data was "significant" but avoiding explaining how significant or what that might mean means the data was just barely above chance.

If you flip a coin 100 times you will not get exactly 50/50 heads and tails. You'll get (for example) 48 heads and 52 tails. For a pseudoscientist that's a significant result. If you do the 100-flip trial again you might get 52 heads and 48 tails. If you do the 100-flip trial a dozen times eventually you're going to get 25 heads and 75 tails. Now we're talking! That's when you build a website, write a book and start having seminars at $700 a pop. It's easy. There are hundreds of thousands of people who will NOT ask for your data and will NOT question your experimental design. If you're lazy you don't even have to do the coin flips. Yes, James Randi or Michael Shermer will expose you as a cynical fraud. But nobody who matters is going to care as long as the people with the cash in their pockets are hearing what they want to hear.

Effectively, if there are any points which challenge or threaten the way you currently perceive reality, you will either:

(1) simply fail to perceive them; or
(2) succeed in bringing yourself to ignore them

you forgot (3) laugh at your sheep-like credulity

So further discussion is basically pointless, you see? For those whose minds are closed, nothing further will happen until they succeed in opening their minds a little.

I'm open to evidence, not "we did something I'm not going to tell you about and got results I'm not going to share. Trust me, the results were significant so buy my book and take my seminar."

I've asked you twice now for the paper on the water experiment. I've read several versions of it on the web and none of them were double blinded. Nothing but evidence is going to "attract my attention." How about coming up with some?

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I've done my own experiments - I've drawn my own conclusions.

you've counted your own hits and ignored your own misses

You can start the experiment at any time. You can quit it at any time. You can restart it at any time. It costs no money, not very much of your time, and (if you do not consider thought to be action), you don't even need to take any action over and above what you would do anyway, if you had never heard of LOA.

you can think about what you want and work to get it without all the magic pixie dust. Oddly the luckiest people tend to be the people who work the hardest toward their goals.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by mochamajesty

But I thought that it was all the same to the Universe. Why should I have to want money for someone else in order for the Universe to bring it to me? That means that the Universe is judgemental and I thought that the opposite was true. The Universe does not care if you want a million dollars to give to the poor or to buy a jet. The Universe cares if you are lined up with what you are asking for.

Maybe it depends on how one feels about it. If one feels that it's for personal gain, that's a different vibe than feeling like it's for the good of all. It's not the universe judging you, just responding to a vibe. The vibe of personal gain for hording is different than the vibe of gain for the good of all.

The universe does care if you want to give $$ to the poor to make this a better place and does care if the jet you buy is going to help others.

I don't think the universe is able to respond to just you being lined up with what you are asking for, it also has to be a clean vibe that helps this place be better. For some they are able to feel the clean vibe about buying a jet and for other's it more coming from ego and seperating.

Anyway, I am trying to understand it all too and wanted to bring up some points I've thought about. The points of not forcing what you are desiring and desiring what is for the good of all and being able to feel all that.

I am coming from LoA from the angle of acceptance and not forcing and allowing. I don't sit around wishing for a bunch of stuff I don't really need right now.

[RT Wolf]

In the words of Scott Adams, "“I agree with your analysis of your hallucination.”"

You can get a better context for that here:
The Dilbert Blog: My New Favorite Response

I have never said any of those excuses you mentioned, nor do I believe them. However, I realize that you are trying to ridicule the arguments for IM using hyperbole.

You might also enjoy reading this, which does offer some more ammo for you:
The Dilbert Blog: On the Other Hand

On the other hand (, I've studied economics, too), you do have a good point about hit counting. I thought about that a while ago, too, that I would start making note of the things that I wanted to manifest (and for the sake of keeping things relatively simple, I would only track things that I intended during my meditation sessions). Never did get around to, so perhaps I shall start to do that now and see my results over this year.

There is also a state that supposedly garuntees easy manifestation, and if you're in that state, life is super easy. It is an easy, relaxed state, open to all possibilities and light hearted, with easy detachment. A deep sense of faith and trust in yourself and your ability to do get what you want (whether through LoA or convential action). It is a place where no one can hurt you, but you are open to all. You are free of the "good opinions of other people" as Maslow said. Peak experience, really.

On the other, other hand, Acting like godot has almost two and half years of blog entries where he does keep track of what things he intends, and manifests, especially through non-direct means.

On the other, other, other hand, you've demonstrated that you're no longer interested in seeking any sort of truth, but rather asserting your version of the truth, especially by ignoring anything inconvenient. Therefore, I'm going to spend the rest of this post arguing for your side.

A position is not just a position, it is in fact a chain of links, starting from the person and ending with the position, and it includes things like the person themself, the person's perceptions, the person's interpretation of those perceptions, the context and environment that the person is in, the contexts that certain assumptions that make the position true for that person, the assumptions that person has (including beliefs), the arguments for the position, the evidence for the argument (the perception or interpretation of which can also be attacked), and the various aspects of the position itself (such as truth, scientific testability, and so on).

Now, we reach some problems here. Without an understanding of the other person's position, you can't actually argue against the position. Without a thorough understanding of science (especially the philosophy of science), you can't really argue the scientific testability. Without an understanding of philosophy, you can't really argue for the assumptions that people make about the nature of their reality. You can however, do what you can to expose the other person as a liar, or severely damage the credibility of another person, by questioning the other person's ABILITY to perceive and/or interpret.

And that is the game you've started and it is a good one, probably your best bet. Hit counting is a good start, but that isn't going far enough. You're still doing a good job of ignoring things which are inconvenient to your argument, which works a lot better than trying to answer them, reasoning here. Have a look at this:

24 Standard Causes of Human Misjudgment

You might also like to read Influence by Dr. Robert Cialdini and Quirkology by Dr. Robert Wiseman. Both are psychologists. The first book is on how people are influenced, which you can find here:
Robert Cialdini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can find a number of these among IM circles.

Wiseman used to be a magician, and talks about how people work, sometimes in contradictory ways. He also makes a case that common superstitions are not as harmless as people think.

For example, some biases you can easily find among IMers are:

- A misunderstanding of the laws of probabilty. You can also talk about how humans perceive what is "likely" or "unlikely" in patently wrong ways.
- Many, if not all of the 24 causes of human misjudgement Munger there puts forward, including pavlovian conditioning and social proof.
- Confirmation bias:
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Correlation does not = causation
- Might like to read Fooled by Randomness, as well, which also talks about how human beings routinely misjudge odds.
- Overinfluence by "big" events. The more clearly a person can imagine an event, the more likely they think it is to happen.
- Other problem with the experimentation idea is that the "scientific observer" in this case is also a member in the experiment, leaving the door open for both the observer expectancy effect as well as the subject expectancy effect (where a subject or observer expects a certain result and unconsciously manipulate the experiment, especially an experiment of this nature. Of course, thare are experiments done by psychologists that were just done on themselves, so it is still empirically valid form of experimentation, just perhaps not in this case.
- In any sample large enough, there will be anomolies, such as with investors that beat hte market over a long period of time. The laws of probability virtually garuntee that there will be some people like that, and you can simply write off people like Peter Lynch, Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger and the like as simply being "lucky" and an inevitable consequence of the large number of players on the market. You could try the same approach with ALG and Paul, who's anecdotal (which is not a very rigourous form of scientific testing, although self-reporting is indeed useful). Of course, the argument against that is:
The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville
Essentially, the argument is about concentrations. Such as this:
"A concentration of winners that simply cannot be explained by chance can be traced to this particular intellectual village."

Of course, the people who do better will self-select themselves to be champions of IM.
- Another thing to keep in mind is the group dynamics on these forums. Dissenters are routinely banned (although usually for reasons other than just disagreeing with the popular opinion on these forums), and that can lead to a very strong groupthink and incestuous thinking patterns, similar to the situation surrounding the bay of pigs disaster.
- There is also Littlewood's Law, which says that you can expect a miracle a day:
Littlewood's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Law of Truly Large Numbers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Let's not forget the perception of control IM creates.
- Let's not also forget that people think that good things are more likely to happen to them than bad things, so when good things happen, they focus on them and simply ignore the bad things.
- Pretty much everything here:
List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Make sure no one mentions that the idea that reality is "objective" has simply become naturalized in our society, and that there is a very strong divide (and irrational) created between the physical world and the mental world, probably influenced heavily by Descartes. Nor let anyone mention that an objective world view is simply a position and has to be proven, not taken as granted simply because it has become super-naturalized in our society and simply seems "common sense".

The denumont would be that given that human beings suffer from so many critical errors, and because it is nearly practically impossible to be sure that all of these biases have been removed, and given Occam's Razor (which I don't agree with) which is probably the right answer?
1. Thoughts affect reality, and thus everything almost the entire population of the world (except for a surprising number of successful people, including olympic gold medalists, revered scientists, celebrities, etc--ie concentrations) know is wrong.
2. Everybody is simply mistaken and simply human.

Now that is an argument to be proud of.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I am coming from LoA from the angle of acceptance and not forcing and allowing. I don't sit around wishing for a bunch of stuff I don't really need right now.

Bingo.

As for Mrs. Doubtfire or whatever her name is, she obviously was inspired to come in here and insult your (y'all's?) intelligence for a reason. Anything that makes you question and re-evaluate is a good thing.

But it's sad to think of a washerwoman who furtively gains access to a university computer and, in between toilet washings and floor moppings, tries to discover a way to better herself. And when she finds it, she can't believe it could ever be so simple; and so she desperately does her best to convince herself, through insults and sophomoric attempts at "logic" directed at you (y'all), that there's no way anyone could have such power at their fingertips. If she can't do it, no one can.

There can be no other explanation for her continued posting, since if she has half a brain she already knows that her posturing isn't going to change anyone's mind (which further begs the question of why she would even want to).

As for her "science"...ask her "what is thought"? Scientists can tell you what they think it is, they can say it's caused by electrochemical processes, etc...but they can't tell you what it is. And if they can't tell you that, what the hell do they know otherwise?

But remember, we are one....even Mrs. Doubtfire. If you show kindness to the least of these you show kindness to me as well.

[mochamajesty]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Maybe it depends on how one feels about it. If one feels that it's for personal gain, that's a different vibe than feeling like it's for the good of all. It's not the universe judging you, just responding to a vibe. The vibe of personal gain for hording is different than the vibe of gain for the good of all.

The universe does care if you want to give $$ to the poor to make this a better place and does care if the jet you buy is going to help others.

How is this not judgement?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

I don't think the universe is able to respond to just you being lined up with what you are asking for, it also has to be a clean vibe that helps this place be better. For some they are able to feel the clean vibe about buying a jet and for other's it more coming from ego and seperating.

Who decides if a vibe is "clean"? If I want to move from an apartment into a home, the Universe can say no because it is not for the good of all, just for my good, right?

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Anyway, I am trying to understand it all too and wanted to bring up some points I've thought about. The points of not forcing what you are desiring and desiring what is for the good of all and being able to feel all that.

I am coming from LoA from the angle of acceptance and not forcing and allowing. I don't sit around wishing for a bunch of stuff I don't really need right now.

I agree with your point about not forcing, just allowing. But what is wrong with wishing for stuff? If you don't mind me asking, where did you read about LOA?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by mochamajesty

How is this not judgement?

Just my theory of my own thinking that the universe is aboue harmony more than disharmony. Or the signal is stronger when you involve results that are for greater good. It not a judging, it is how the universe responds with LoA.

Who decides if a vibe is "clean"? If I want to move from an apartment into a home, the Universe can say no because it is not for the good of all, just for my good, right?

Clean, as in not all over the place, or not unfocused is my idea. And the strength of your vibe is also about what it feels like for benefiting humanity or the world. I don't think there is someone deciding if the vibe is clean or not. It's like if you pluck a dirty guitar string that is out of tune with the rest it vibrates less and doesn't generate anyother sympathetic vibrations.

I agree with your point about not forcing, just allowing. But what is wrong with wishing for stuff? If you don't mind me asking, where did you read about LOA?

Wishing for stuff that builds up an ego life is not what the LoA is, I think. Maybe I'm off base or take LoA differently than most but I hope most take it as a spiritual thing not something to "use". Although it dose seem to eb that way, that people look at LoA and think, "oh good there's the answer to my ego problems, I am going to 'use' that to be more something (important, wealthy, attractive)". I hope some see it as "cool, if I recognize my true self my goals will be easier and I will be more fullfilled". The bigger self, our spiritual self is where most of our vibes are and how out of touch most are from our spiritual side is what is failing, I think.

I also think when we wish for stuff in a way that it pans out, is is actually our spiritual side letting it come through us, not our ego wanting to be more comfortable or more important. We start to have goals that feel like stuff but is really what the spiritual side of us is looking for.


Mostly googling around, people's blogs
Picked up vaious links from this forum
Listened to the free audios of Abraham-Hicks
centerpointe.com
UniverseofPower.com
manifestlife.com
*************.com
goodvibecoach.com
*******.com (probably banned)
Listened to some audio subscriptions "masters of the secret"
fieldcenter.org

what the bleep do we know

plus it seems like people have been writing about LoA for a while, just not calling it that. Choprah, Dyer, Wilde...

[mochamajesty]

I was introduced to LOA from Abraham-Hicks, and one thing that always struck me about their message was how non-judgemental it was. I think that is why it resonated with me. I don't think that anyone's desires are better or worse than anyone else's. If someone wants money to donate to the poor, more power to them. And if someone wants money to blow it on designer purses, more power to them, too. Who am I (or anyone?) to decide that one is better than another? Isn't there enough money to go around?

Saying the signal is stronger when what you want is for the better good....
that may not be true for everyone. LOA can be spiritual, but I don't think it has to be. And I just don't find anything wrong with it if it isn't.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

As for you, Mrs Cogan, since you seem to have some difficulty understanding what a bibliography is, I've decided to scan two pages from the bibliography of the book I mentioned - "The Intention Experiment". Hopefully the scanned image will give you some idea of the kind of scientific experiments and discoveries that are discussed in the book.

Click to see:

IMG_0001.jpg (image)

thank you. I went to the first journal mentioned at the top of the left-hand page and clicked on the first review of the journal itself. Here is what the reviewer said "In fact, experimental data of any kind hardly figure in the first four issues." No kidding. The journal is almost entirely speculation. The referenced article is 7 years old and not on line.

Then I looked up the author of the first 9 articles on the left hand page. Stanley Krippner is into shamanism and how shamans do psychic healing. One of his articles was on Ramtha, a famous fraud, for the Journal of the American Society of Psychical Research

I moved down to the next author, Dr. Krucoff, who had an article on intercessory prayer. I looked up that paper and this was the first sentence of the abstract "Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials." This is the study where they let people know they were being prayed for. The control studies had no difference above chance but the people who knew they were being prayed for got worse, not better. This paper basically disproves the thesis of "The Intention Experiment."

The next paper, also by Krucoff is even more interesting. This was an intercessory prayer study called MANTRA. This is what Krucoff said about his results:
"Adverse outcomes in the prayer group were 50 percent to 100 percent fewer than in the standard therapy group. In the patients who received any of the noetic therapies, including prayer, we found a 30 percent reduction for every adverse outcome we measured."

He knew his target audience would not actually look at the evidence. Other scientists did:
“If one takes the trouble to read the MANTRA I study,” says Skolnick, “one can see that the prayed-for group of patients had one more death than the patients in the group who received only standard care. Contrary to what Dr. Krucoff told the news media, there was no difference, impressive or otherwise, in the number of patients who suffered congestive heart failure.”

So this reference also contradicts the thesis of "The Intention Experiment."

That's enough. I have a life. The rest are articles on new age "alternative medicine" (If it worked they'd just call it "medicine"), parapsychology, Akashic fields, Negative/Positive ions, etc. All the usual suspects.

This is not a bibliography, it's a rogues gallery of con artists and pseudoscientists.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

There is also a state that supposedly garuntees easy manifestation, and if you're in that state, life is super easy. It is an easy, relaxed state, open to all possibilities and light hearted, with easy detachment. A deep sense of faith and trust in yourself and your ability to do get what you want (whether through LoA or convential action). It is a place where no one can hurt you, but you are open to all. You are free of the "good opinions of other people" as Maslow said. Peak experience, really.

That's it. And I bet 90% if the posts here are about that state, or remembering that state, but not actually written in that state. That is the state where all doubt ceases. Afterwards is when all the analysis comes from. While it's happening, there is no need to ask questions because you already know the answers.