Is The Secret aka LoA Offensive?

[Alvin]

Originally Posted by Radical

You are wrong. LoA is unprovable pseudoscience and is definately not equivalent to the law of gravity.

The law of gravity can be proved empirically, and the results are always the same. LoA however is based on unproven pseudoscience, and there is no way to test the theory empirically.

Ta-da! I think you've hit the nail on the head.

The LoA isn't hard science, even Steve never pushed it as such:

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...-for-dandruff/

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...-for-dandruff/

But then, the belief that all people are asses and would do anything to screw you over isn't provable and hard science either.

Instead of all this time and energy spent on arguing over 'truth', wouldn't it be more productive to just ask if the LoA would be a useful belief to have or not?

[Acting Like Godot]

Aha. My two cents' worth.

If you do not believe in the Law of Attraction, it will nevertheless operate in your life. That is because it is a universal law. It is like the law of gravity - whether or not you believe in it, it will keep you grounded.

However, if you do not believe in the Law of Attraction, you will be unable to perceive its workings in your life. This is because the Law of Attraction itself says that the nature of your reality is created by your thoughts. If your thoughts include a disbelief in the Law of Attraction, you will fail to see its operations in your life.

The Law of Attraction is nothing new. It has been known for eons, except that in different times and places, it has gone by different names and is applied in different ways.

One form of its application is called "prayer". You pray to God, and your prayers are answered - some change comes about in your external environment or circumstances - which is to say: you have just affected reality with your thoughts.

Another form of its application is called "hypnosis". You may be hypnotised to visualise your skin as normal and healthy - subsequently, your eczema / psoriasis / rashes just disappear. Which is to say: with your thoughts, you have just altered reality - epidermal growths on that physical layer which we call "skin" have just disappeared.

Another version of LOA is known as "karma". Karma results from deeds with intentions (thoughts). If you do good deeds (with positive intentions), you attract certain consequences into your life. If you do bad deeds (with negative intentions) you attract certain other kinds of consequences. In fact, if you do anything with any kind of intention at all, the universe must necessarily respond in one way or another.

---

What is science? It relates to things that can be established or proven within the parameters of a certain set of rules outlined by Karl Popper.

Many things cannot be established or proven within those parameters. For example, I love my children and I believe that they love me. This however is unscientific. Love cannot be detected, identified or measured by a thermometer, a Geiger counter or any other form of scientific device.

However, just because a thing cannot be scientifically proven does not mean that it does not exist.

(In fact, we can point to specific moments in human history when electricity, bacteria and genes were scientifically proven to exist. This does not mean that prior to such discoveries, electricity, bacteria and genes did not actually exist).

---

I ask you now to think.

I ask you to think of your mother, and what she would like for her next birthday present.

Next I ask you to close your eyes, and visualise the face of your favourite actor.

Next I ask you to calculate the answer to this: 4x15x2.

If you have done as I have told you, three very different thoughts would have flashed through your brain. You know that this indeed happened.

However, this is scientifically unprovable. The best scientist in the world, with the most sophisticated machine and wires attached to your head, would have been unable to prove that these three thoughts had passed through your brain.

It is therefore true, but completely unscientific, to assert that you just had thoughts about your mother, your favourite actor and a set of numbers.

This is how little science can tell us about the nature of thoughts. Each of us has about 60,000 thoughts a day (according to some unscientific estimates), but science is unable to find out what you were thinking. Only you know what you were thinking.

Do not expect science to tell you very much about how your thoughts can affect your reality. Science does not even know your thoughts - how could it know what effect those thoughts could have on your reality?

---

What can science tell you about thoughts?

We know that they are electrical impulses running around the synapses and neurons of your brain.

We know that you use different parts of your brain for different kinds of thinking. This much the scientists can tell, with their machines.

We also know that energy cannot be destroyed. At best it can change from one form to another.

We know that thoughts are electrical impulses, therefore thoughts are energy, therefore thoughts cannot be destroyed - at best they can change from one form to another.

We know that energy can affect matter; that all matter is in fact a form of energy (E=mc square).

Thoughts must therefore be able to affect matter.

How - is the interesting question.

Where did your thought go, after you thought it?

Remember - your thought is an electrical impulse, therefore it is energy, therefore it cannot ever be destroyed, it can only change from one form to another.

Where did your thought go, after you thought it? Wherever it went, how is it affecting the energy (or matter) around it, in that place, or in those places?

Remember - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect">the kinetic energy from one flap of a butterfly's wing could cause a tornado.</a>. What might a few electrical impulses from your brain?

[Ibanez]

LoA is interesting stuff no doubt. I mean some consider chiropractic medicine psuedoscience but others swear by it.

Also what should I make of general synchronicities not related to my goals? For example it was raining the other day and I thought of November Rain, just the phrase and then I turn on the radio and the Guns N' Roses song November Rain is playing. Similarly I was watching a football game on tv and I saw a commercial for the VW with John Mayer playing his guitar and I thought, "great guitar player, but he plays the girly grap" and later when I was heading home I turned on the radio and the second song I heard was a John Mayer song. Pretty weird stuff.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Radical

A Theory of everything (TOE) is a hypothetical theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena.

Therefore, it wouldn't matter whether two observers can agree upon what they thought happened in reality, because a TOE would explain what really happened in reality.

And yes such a theory has not been found, and is probably a long way off from being found.

It is proven by Gödel that such a theory can't exist.

Originally Posted by Radical

You are wrong. LoA is unprovable pseudoscience and is definately not equivalent to the law of gravity.

The law of gravity can be proved empirically, and the results are always the same. LoA however is based on unproven pseudoscience, and there is no way to test the theory empirically.

Unfortunatly the results aren't always the same for Newtions law because their are effects besides Gravitation that play into the equation. Thats pre- 1900 thinking to assume the law of Graviation is applicable to all phenomens.

LoA isn't based on anything besides Decartes "Cogito ergo sum", that proves a single consciousness.
If you don't add the unproven belief of an external world and the unproven belief of other consciousnesses you arive at the LoA.

You on the other hand belief in things that can't exist like an theory of everything and attack other people for pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Holistic Star

I still don't get Steve's post. I just don't understand why I (or part of my consciousness) would intend such a thing.
[...]
Lets just say that the child did have a negative vibration due to negative emotions, fear, shame, guilt, sadness etc that 'attracted' the perpetrator. It was still the perpertrator that decided to take that step and physically abuse the child. The perpetrator had a choice: To act, or not to act. To screw someone elses life up or to take respoinsibility for his own mental, emotional, spiritual state that 'attracted' him to the victim. I'm sure that the majority of people if they spent time with a vulnerable, troubled child would seek to be kind and thoughtful rather than abusive. Surely this underlines that it is the responsibility of the perpetrator, not the child.

It may even have been that the child was vibrating at such a pure vibration of love and innocence that this twisted the perpetrators mind that they wanted to own it/ possess it / destroy it. The child sure would be operating at a lower emotional level after this happened.

You are trying to analyse the situtation without an observer. But In the LoA the blame goes to the observer.

You have four choices of how to deal with responsibility:
a) Feel responsible for nothing.
b) Feel only responsible for the things which happened because you decided to make the happen.
c) Feel responsible for everything that happens to you.
d) Feel responsible for everything that happens in the world.

The Intention/Manifestion model proposes d) not c).
If you take only c) you get the problem that you illustrated.

What can science tell you about thoughts?

We know that they are electrical impulses running around the synapses and neurons of your brain.

We don't know that. We know that their are electrical impulses when someone thinks. Its the most popular explanation at the moment but it isn't backed up by direct evidence. It could also be some neat quantum effect or a combination of both..

We haven't solved the mind-body problem jet and thoughts are mind stuff.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It is proven by Gödel that such a theory can't exist.

Unfortunatly the results aren't always the same for Newtions law because their are effects besides Gravitation that play into the equation. Thats pre- 1900 thinking to assume the law of Graviation is applicable to all phenomens.

I don't care what Gödel thinks - who is he anyway?

Einstein spent most of his life trying to find a TOE, and although our current knowledge of the universe is not yet advanced enough to find a TOE, that doesn't discount the possibility of finding such a theory in the future.

Also, you say the results of gravity aren't always the same. Lets just say I've never heard of anyone defying the law of gravity, other than in works of science fiction.

[Richard_Todd]

Originally Posted by Radical

I don't care what Gödel thinks - who is he anyway?

LOL - maybe read on him a bit, he's an important figure in mathematics. But, I'm not sure the incompleteness theorems necessarily rule out a TOE, if by TOE we really just mean a single theory that unifies the known physical forces in a single framework. There are formal systems to which the incompleteness theorems do not apply, I think. I'm really not any kind of expert on it, though, so I may be missing something important.

[Acting Like Godot]

Heheh. Well, my two cents again.

We have before us some kind of IM theory. There are slightly different versions of it, depending on whether you read Steve Pavlina, or Jose Silva, or Napoleon Hill, or Deepak Chopra, or Gary Zukav, or Brian Tracy, or Buddhist teachings on karma, or Christian teachings on prayer.

We struggle with IM as a concept. We ask questions like "What about a victim of child abuse? How could the child have created this event for himself?" Then we ask questions like, "What if two people manifest the same competing intention, eg to win first prize in the same lottery?".

If we expand further, we could surely think of other interesting questions eg "What if a person is insane and truly believes that his mother is out to kill him, when she isn't? How come his thoughts don't manifest into reality?"

These are conceptual difficulties. The question is whether you need to resolve all the conceptual difficulties you can see, before you can accept LOA.

That is analogous to refusing to accept anything in life, unless you are 100% certain about it. Which, as you can probably see, is also not a particularly intelligent way of living.

The good thing about LOA is that it is perfectly possible to run your own experiments. All the resources you need to do your own experiments are immediately available to you. (In that sense, it is somewhat different from theories about genes or nuclear fission or the migratory paths of humpback whales).

So go run your own experiments.

You could even be very systematic about it. Set out your personal methodology; manifest your intentions; record what you've done, and then as time goes by, keep checking on the results (or lack thereof) and record those as well.

I have been using IM erratically and unsystematically for the past three years. I've found that the use of IM is itself a learning process, with twists and turns and obstacles. Nevertheless, in the past three years, I've achieved very excellent results in my personal life. My monthly salary has almost tripled, for instance.

When I first read stories of such incidents happening to other people (mainly from Brian Tracy's books), basically I thought it was hyperbole and nonsense, like multi-level marketing garbage. How could people's income double or triple in a year or two or three? I was skeptical. Brian Tracy's writing style (filled with endless suplerlatives like "amazing", "phenomenal", "outstanding", "absolutely incredible success") did not impress me.

Anyway I thought I'd give it a shot. Nothing to lose. Well, my monthly salary has really almost tripled (and let me tell you, to start with, three years ago I wasn't exactly earning peanuts). If you include bonuses, my annual income has more than tripled.

The thing is - it can't be conclusively proven that my early (and clumsy) IM attempts had actually caused, or contributed, to my salary increase. One might say that perhaps Godot is just a very clever guy, and would have made lots of money anyway, even if he had never heard of IM.

I accept that logically, this could be true.

So to investigate LOA in a more scientific way, I have decided to make 2007 my year of the Great Experiment. I am going to record my use of IM in writing (some in a private diary, and some on my blog), I am going to record the intentions that I manifest, and I will keep specific track of the results (or lack thereof) that occur in my life, over the next 13 months (till end of 2007).

You're all welcome to visit my blog and check in on me from time to time.

I am still learning to use IM. I know much more than I did three years ago, but I still have so much more to learn. One day, if I can walk on water, then I know that I probably have nothing left to learn about IM.

[Alvin]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

So to investigate LOA in a more scientific way, I have decided to make 2007 my year of the Great Experiment. I am going to record my use of IM in writing (some in a private diary, and some on my blog), I am going to record the intentions that I manifest, and I will keep specific track of the results (or lack thereof) that occur in my life, over the next 13 months (till end of 2007).

You're all welcome to visit my blog and check in on me from time to time.

I am still learning to use IM. I know much more than I did three years ago, but I still have so much more to learn. One day, if I can walk on water, then I know that I probably have nothing left to learn about IM.

I read about this on your blog. Very exciting, and very gutsy of you, Mr Godot

Kudos to your chutzpah! I look forward to 2007

[Dating Specialist]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Heheh. Well, my two cents again.

So go run your own experiments.

So to investigate LOA in a more scientific way, I have decided to make 2007 my year of the Great Experiment. I am going to record my use of IM in writing (some in a private diary, and some on my blog), I am going to record the intentions that I manifest, and I will keep specific track of the results (or lack thereof) that occur in my life, over the next 13 months (till end of 2007).

Yeah Godot. That's worth more than 2 cents.

I am amused by Radical's Question everything philosophy, for you're right, just run your own experiement and we'll have our own answers! But we know very well too that the way our mind thinks will be affecting the results we get!

Look forward to your 2007! Whoo ...

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Radical

I don't care what Gödel thinks - who is he anyway?

Yeah that proves the point, you don't care about scientific thinking. You belief in something that is proven wrong and you don't even care that it is proven wrong.
At the same moment you label the thing other people belief in as pseudoscience.

Gödel is someone who was crazy.
He died because his wife went to the hospital.
He thought that someone wanted to poison him so he didn't eat anything that wasn't made by his wife.
He showed that things that we think are common sense are wrong. Apart from the Incompletness Theorem he showed that the general relativity theory would allow time travel.

Einstein spent most of his life trying to find a TOE, and although our current knowledge of the universe is not yet advanced enough to find a TOE, that doesn't discount the possibility of finding such a theory in the future.

Einstein, who was by the way Gödels friend, searched in his active time after a ToE.
Gödel showed in 1931 that it can't be found, with was quite a blow for those people who searched for an ToE at the time.

Also, you say the results of gravity aren't always the same. Lets just say I've never heard of anyone defying the law of gravity, other than in works of science fiction.

Einstein is all about that Newton was wrong and that the law of gravitation is relativ.
If the law of gravitation would work everywhere the same way you wouldn't need Relativity.

But, I'm not sure the incompleteness theorems necessarily rule out a TOE, if by TOE we really just mean a single theory that unifies the known physical forces in a single framework.

What you mean is the Final Theory, the think that modern physicists search, because Gödel showed that they can't find a Theory of Everything.
The Final Theory is a theory of everything except the things we can't prove and the physicists hope that the laws of physics are part of the things they can prove.

But there are things that exist (or at least most people belief that they exist) but are not described by the laws of physics, Truth for example.
You can't study truth with physical laws. But saying that their is no truth (that truth isn't part of everything that exists) would be a huge problem for the physicists.

I am amused by Radical's Question everything philosophy

He doesn't follow that philosophy, he believes in a ToE and doesn't even question the belief if told that it is proved wrong.

In addition I would like to add that I am no believer of the LoA. (I even think primarily in the classic Obejective Reality model)
I think that the model for beliefs that Steve proposes in his http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...yond-religion/ is better.
Being a believer just limits your options.

So if you follow the "Question everything"-philosophy get as result neither "LoA works" nor "LoA does't work".
For pratical purposes one can think in both models and then make a decision. If you can't, you are as closeminded as over 99% percent of people on this planet.

[Radical]

Ok, so maybe there will never be a TOE, and to be honest I don't really care.

You obviously know more about this than me, so I will not bother arguing with you.

It is true that every theory is only a model of reality, and is not reality itself. (Just our best guess as to how the universe works.)

Anyway, we are getting a little bit off topic here. I started this discussion to find out whether or not people consider the claims of LoA offensive?

This follows my "question everything" philosophy, because films like The Secret, without heavy skepticism, could promote cult like thinking.

[Radical]

BTW lookup TOE on wikipedia, nowhere in the article does it say a TOE is impossible.

From wikipedia:

There have been numerous theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but as yet none have been able to stand up to experimental scrutiny as there is tremendous difficulty in getting the theories to produce experimentally testable results. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity propose radically different descriptions of the universe, and straightforward ways of combining the two lead quickly to the renormalization problem in which the theory does not give finite results for experimentally testable quantities.

Perhaps you should "question everything", including that Gödel bloke.

[dorothy hanna]

The Law of Atraction isn't about a blame game, nor is it about whether a victim truly wanted to be a victim.

It's about what a persons energy is highly focussed on.

A person could go about all basic daily activities as everyone else does, but undercurrently, and to varying degrees of conciouly/subconciously one may be a worrier of certain events.

Natalie wood, the movie star, was phobic about drowning. She was a good person. Highly successful in her chosen craft, and well loved and regarded by everyone who knew her. She had a very happy life, but also, everyone who knew her, also knew she had this persistant fear, and dread of water, as she knew she was going to drown.
This is exactly how her life, on this planet ended.

This is just one example. I have so many, many examples from my own life, and members of my family to testify to this phenomenon.

When I wayched the secret, I was completely aware of all the bad things I had dealt with in my life, and I am also, aware of what I used to fear, and focus on due to that fear, and worry. All my worst fears, and nightmares came to fruition, just as I had feared.

Do I blame myself? No! Preditors are also focusing, and putting out feelers for possable victims. We just need to stop offerring ourselves up.

Put our focus on love/forgiveness/mercy/kindness/strength/empowerment/abundance/peace/security/laughter/joy, and more. Strength in numbers, and intention.

Learn not to worry so much.

And no, the child didn't manifest it's abuse. We did.

We focus on violence, and we worry about it, and when we see it, what do we do? We ignore it. We do nothing to stop it. Not physically, when we know someone is being beaten next door, nor do we intend better things/outcomes for the situation. We just WORRY.

Haven't you heard it said? "She must like it, after all, she could leave, and she doesn't" DUH!
Or how about this one, "It's none of my business, why should I get involved. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT". DUH!

Why are you bothering to argue about the Law of Attraction?
I say, stop all this nonsense, and get down to the business of intending for the highest good of all.
Even the perpetrators of violence. After all. We created them.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Radical

BTW lookup TOE on wikipedia, nowhere in the article does it say a TOE is impossible.

Now it does, even through it wasn't me who edited it. (I have even a albi for the time )

From wikipedia:

[...]The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity propose radically different descriptions of the universe, and straightforward ways of combining the two lead quickly to the renormalization problem in which the theory does not give finite results for experimentally testable quantities.

The article seems to have the "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." longer than your post. Quoting a wikipedia article which that pretext is pointless.

Perhaps you should "question everything", including that Gödel bloke.

I do question. But that doesn't need to mean that I have to answer with no.

You proposed following scientific thinking.
Believing in mathematical proofs is essiential for scientific thinking.

So either I question the scientific thinking, which mean I question Gödel or I believe in it, which mean no ToE.
Either way there is no room for a scientific ToE.

In addition there is Gödel's thought experiment that shows that a computer can't be omniscient, which I can follow. From there it is comprehensible that you can go to the theorem with high mathematics.

Hopefully I will someday have the mathematical knowledge to understand the proof (~80 pages) myself, but till then the split does well.

[Markus74]

I think the LoA is very offensive. That's why I tend to think big parts of it are bogus.

Why would people with cancer have manifested it? And if they manifested it, why should we help them get rid of it?

Why would people that are suffering from hunger have manifested it? And if they manifested it, why should we get them food?

Why would people who get raped and killed have manifested it? And if they manifested it, why should we feel pity for them?

The LoA is a nice theory if you're living in a rather wealthy country and want to feel a little better, and to motivate yourself. But as a global theory it fails. Or at least has very sick consequences if you think it through.

[dorothy hanna]

Why would they manifest it? Did you read my other post on this thread? It's only a little ways up from this one.

Did you really watch the secret, at all?

The law of attraction works by ones focus.
Why would a person with cancer have manifested it?
Not on purpose, I assure you. It was done by what they persistantly focussed on. Through ignorance of the Law, and how it works.

They constantly focussed on (WHAT THEY DON'T WANT). By way of fear, and worry.
The Universe does not distinguish whether we percieve something as good, or as bad. It's energy flows where our attention goes.

If we hear about a rape, and the news plays the story over, and over again, and we are frightened by that story, and we start to worry about the possability of that happenning to us. Some worry more than others, and by this, they have begun the prossess of constantly putting this fear onto the main assembly line of the Universe for the tradgedy to take place.

Their focus was RAPE, RAPE, RAPE!!! Fear of rape, fear of rape, fear of rape.
No one is saying they sat back one day, and had a little fun fantasy they entertained, and said to themselves, "HMMM, that sounds nice. I'd like to have that happen to me".

The secret explained very simply that the LOA works by what we most focus on. This means whether the focus is through fear, and worry of a bad thing happenning, or the focus is of something wonderful, and great happenning.
It's the Focus.

Your interrpretting the word, INTEND, and applying it to only something a person conciously wants. Which implies that's what they meant to happen. Which is ussually understood to be good things.
But with the Universe, a person who is (UNCONCIOUSLY) intending, because they are ignorant of the LOA, and are unaware, they inadvertantly, due to their focus of worry, and fear of a bad thing happening, manifest their nightmares, instead of what they want. They manifested their dread.

Why should we help them?
Because we love. We are compassionate. We care. We believe in and we are pro-peace, and we are for freedom. Because we want to. Because we intend to.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

I think the LoA is very offensive. That's why I tend to think big parts of it are bogus.

I don't think it's offensive - I think you just don't understand it.

However, just to amuse you, I would ask you this: Why should something be bogus, just because it is very offensive?

If that were true, there would be NOTHING in the world that is authentically offensive.