Is The Secret aka LoA Offensive?

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by dorothy hanna

Good job. Your posts are so good, and explanations, and examples of the LOA are so helpful. I'm so glad they are available on this thread for those, that are truly seeking, for the answer.

Seems like Godot manifested himself a fan!

[dorothy hanna]

Oh yes, indeed, Him, and many others like him, are manifesting so many wonderful things into the world.

Things like hope, faith, charity, love, etc..., as opposed to the other.

And they, as well as I are succeeding.

[Markus74]

Ok, so now go tell the Africans and the people in the slums. So that they may also manifest good things for themselves. Their voodoo doesn't really do the trick it seems. Maybe the LoA can.

Or are you too selfish and only manifest things for yourself?

[Acting Like Godot]

What if I told you that I have been manifesting many good things for a particular children's charity in my country, which provides financial support for families with children stricken by serious chronic diseases.

And that I have truly seen many of those good things have come to pass?

Oh wait. I forgot. You will just say - "Oh it can't be proven that LOA caused this."

You see what I mean? In the end, it's only you who can convince you.

[Markus74]

Acting: could you actually be a bit more explicit? How could I judge from such a limited description of the events ... ?

However the important things is that the charity got these good things. Whether 'magically' or not. But I'm curious as to what you would describe as having been part of the LoA in this case.

[ABlix]

I believe a lot of the offensiveness in The Secret could be explained by overpopulation. What really helped me understand viruses is posing a challenging question to myself, Is there any possible good that could come from viruses? For the same reason some people hunt, AIDs can help bring population down. As the movie, "The Inconvenient Truth" puts it, population is growing exponentially at such a rate that it is very scary to see how much of an impact it has on the world.

Maybe, it is a scary thought that you are personally responsible for any diseases, but maybe it's also not. For example, at a very young age, I smoked cigarettes to the extreme while having bronchial issues when I was very young. This addiction caused violence. I would attempt to run away from home, while my mom was trying to help me stay put and I would not do this. Instead, I would cause my mom physical harm and run away from home during the process. Now, if I get lung cancer or bronchial cancer - I would fully accept this outcome due to my negative behaivor. However, I think it's fully interchangable, for example, if I take a happier path now and exercise and not smoke, I could definitely avoid lung cancer or bodily issues.

For the same aspect, people who overly indulge in sex, as in the "players," who don't care about girls - but only want sexual gratification "hump and dump," should accept full responsibility for attracting genetic diseases to them. If you read Gibran's classical book, "The Prophet," I'll directly quote:

Ay, and he falls for those ahead of him, who though faster and sureer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone.

And this also, the word lie heavy upon your hearts:
The murdered is not unaccountable for his own murder,
And the robbed is nto blameless in being robbed

The way I see it, perhaps the world operates on a bunch of natural laws. I am personally struggling with some karma right now, and have to endure being locked and in a nonpleasant environment which seems to be a reflection of my days of alcohol and nicotine addiction, along with my disobedience. It doesn't mean that I am getting what I deserve at the present moment, but it does mean that sometimes we have to endure hardships such as not being able to buy ourselves toys or driving vehicles because of the natural laws that operate the world we live in.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Acting: could you actually be a bit more explicit? How could I judge from such a limited description of the events ... ?

There is no point. I could give you a full description of events, but in the end if you choose not to believe, you will still say: "Oh, but it cannot be proven that his thoughts caused those events. It is just a coincidence, albeit a very unusual coincidence, that those events occurred."

That is why I keep saying that you have to run your own experiments. When you start getting tiny results, you will start to be convinced in a tiny way. When you start getting bigger results, you will start to be convinced in a bigger way.

I'm on that track myself, getting more and more convinced each day. But because deep down inside, there's still a large part of me that's just like you, I also run and track my experiments.

I write down the intentions I put out into the universe, so that I can refer to it on a later time. In that way, I can see whether those intentions did or did not really manifest. By keeping a written record, I prevent my own memory from fooling me about what I had or had not actually thought about. By keeping a written record, I can compare my "intention-manifestation success rate" with the probability that in a non-LOA universe, such events would have occurred anyway.

A lot of those records are on my blog. Some of the records - more private stuff, such as my sex life - are not on my blog, but recorded in an offline diary.

There are two further points of yours that I want to address:

(1) You wonder why IM'ers don't use their powers to help starving children in Africa etc.

Basically, human beings don't have a lot of control over their thoughts. We already discussed this when we discussed meditation. Inevitably, a person thinks most about his own circumstances. This is a consequence of the mind's need to attach (recall the pink elephant example).

My mind attaches most to what I see, hear, touch etc, what is immediately all around me. Just as I am not able to stop thinking of the pink elephant once it's mentioned to me, I am not able, in the general course of a day, to stop thinking about my own circumstances and my environment - what I see, hear, touch etc.

Therefore my mind attaches most of all to the circumstances of my life. Intellectually I can convince myself that the starving children in Africa are in dire need and that I should use LOA to help them. As a matter of practical fact, I will not be able to sustain any prolonged thinking about them. My thoughts will instead attach and revolve around my life.

Therefore it's much, much easier to use LOA to influence events in my own life. As opposed to starving children in Africa.


(2) Your point that basically the THINKER has to do something himself - that LOA is a motivational strategy - that nothing will happen if the thinker just thinks, and does nothing.

Most of the time, IM'ers end up doing something, sometimes a lot, sometimes just a little, which leads to the actual desired event occurring. For example, even if you were attempting to IM a lottery strike, apart from just thinking, you'd probably still have to go out and buy a lottery ticket.

This is very easy to understand. Don't forget - you are a part of reality too. In fact, you are the biggest participant in your own life, the life for which you're trying to manifest intentions.

Let's say you are trying to IM an event into existence, but you decide to do NOTHING with your physical body to help make that event happen. You won't say a word, write an email, buy a lottery ticket or drive to the carpark to look for a space. Basically what is happening is that you are effectively commanding a huge part of your reality NOT to cooperate with your intention. Then of course it is much more difficult for the intention to manifest.

In fact, if you did nothing with your own body to help facilitate the intention, it is doubtful that you have a genuine intention at all. Which person would genuinely have an intention to strike lottery, if he did not move his ass to go buy a lottery ticket?

You can think of your life as a soccer game. You are the star player and the team captain. But you can't win on your own. You can think of your thoughts as commanding your team players into existence. They pass the ball, they mark your opponents, they run up and down to support you. You don't "remote control" them, you can shout some instructions to them, but they have their own minds. They may have their own ideas on when to attack and when to defend, whether to dribble or to pass or to tackle or whatever. They appear on different parts of the field at different times. Often, because life is challenging, all you can do is concentrate on your play, and trust that the rest of the team will do what they need to do. But in the end they are all there to manifest your intention - to win the game.

What if you think your thoughts but personally refuse to do a thing? Your thoughts may still manifest. It becomes a lot harder, that's all. Basically, the team is one man down, and the guy not playing is you - the team captain. The paradoxical team captain, who wants to win but doesn't want to play.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by qiflow

Brutha,

Can you show me where Godel proved that a theory of everything can't exist? What I know of the incompleteness theorem is that Godel showed that for any formal axiomatic system, there are statements that are true, but are not provable.

Each theory is a formal axiomatic system.
Gödels theorem say that each of those theories has statements that can't be labeld true or false.
A complete theroy say for each of his statements whether they are true or false.

Originally Posted by qiflow

Furthermore, a theory of everything can exist. Let's say I write down that all reality is in the mind of God. This is a theory of everything. A theory does not have to be proven true to exist.

Let take the question: "Is God an old man with a beard."
I would think that your theory does neither say God is an old man with a beard nor say that he isn't. A theory of everything should provide an answer to that question (whether the answer is true or not is a different matter).


You need to explain what "All", "reality", "is", "in", "the", "mind", "of" and "God" mean.
Such are objects in your theory that need to be explained.

If you don't explain them the theory is incomplete.
But a theory of everything would be, by the definition of everything, complete.

[qiflow]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Each theory is a formal axiomatic system.
Gödels theorem say that each of those theories has statements that can't be labeld true or false.
A complete theroy say for each of his statements whether they are true or false.

What Godel proved is that each there are statements in a formal axiomatic system that are true but not proveable. A theory does not have to be proven true. That is why it is a theory. So even if you can't prove something about the theory, that doesn't mean the statement is not true.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Let take the question: "Is God an old man with a beard."
I would think that your theory does neither say God is an old man with a beard nor say that he isn't. A theory of everything should provide an answer to that question (whether the answer is true or not is a different matter).


You need to explain what "All", "reality", "is", "in", "the", "mind", "of" and "God" mean.
Such are objects in your theory that need to be explained.

If you don't explain them the theory is incomplete.
But a theory of everything would be, by the definition of everything, complete.

Good points. Are you saying that the theory can't exist because it would need an infinite number of statements? There are nonsensical and inconsistent theories of everything that don't need an infinite number of statements. The answer to any question would be "Yes".

[lazyFelix]

Originally Posted by Markus74

the consequences of such a 'law'

'heavier' positive thinking attracts better results
sound like gravity to me

what's offensive about gravity, it eliminates loneliness and forces you to team up, to help each other

now the bad part
the sum of all mass on earth makes the moon stay
no exceptions

so why is there war or rape in the world ?
i think it is because not everybody is pro-peace just like i am
why that ? cause nature likes diversity, it is a great tactic for survival
it could be the reason why you and I seem separated
so when you turn sceptic i the believer am your opposite (plan B)
just in case your plans do not work out

PS: support life, think positive

[dorothy hanna]

Great poat lazyfelix!
I choose life!

One of the sayings O idopted, that helped change my thoughts to be positive is to always say, in the face of all the negative things that people speak, and think, and act upon, is: LIFE IS GOOD!!!

And it has progresively gotten, and shown me more and more goodness, and sweetness, as this is my focus.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by lazyFelix

PS: support life, think positive

I've got no problem with positive thinking

It's just the magical claims that are ridiculous.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by qiflow

What Godel proved is that each there are statements in a formal axiomatic system that are true but not proveable. A theory does not have to be proven true. That is why it is a theory.

It isn't about whether you can prove the theory. It is about whether the theory says something about the statement.
Whether the theory says (Prove means the theory "says") the statement is true or false.
But every theory after Gödel has statement, with are inside the theory neither true or false (or the theory says that the statement is both true and false).
But outside the theory, in the "real world", the statement can be true or false.

So even if you can't prove something about the theory, that doesn't mean the statement is not true.

There are two things in a theory.
The "rules of the theory".
Then you take a statement and put it into the theory. The theory either the statement is true, it is false, that the statement is neither true or false or that the statement is both false and true.

Now you have for every theory a statement A that the theory either answers with both true and false or neither true nor false. But in reality the statement is true (Statements like: "This statement is false" are also in reality neither true or false).

So you would need an additional rule in your theory that says A is true or that says A is false. But that creates a new statement B that has the same problem.

Good points. Are you saying that the theory can't exist because it would need an infinite number of statements? There are nonsensical and inconsistent theories of everything that don't need an infinite number of statements. The answer to any question would be "Yes".

So the question "Does every question has to be answered with "No"" will be answered with "Yes".

That means that every Question is answered with "Yes" and "No" at the same time with conflicts with the concepts of logic. Something is either True, False or something in between but it can't be both True and False.

So your theory is false (by the definition of false).
So there are theories of everything that are false.
When I said their isn't a theory of everything, I meaned right theories or maybe right theories.

Maybe something like: "42" or " " could be a theory of everything but a meaning full theory that does actually say something is no true theory of everything.
At the moment you have an infinite amount of statements Gödels theorem comes into play.

Another question, which is a bit more on Topic:
Is Chaos Theroy offensive?
I mean the butterfly surely can't be made responsible for creating that hurricane, isn't Chaos theory unmoral when it makes the butterfly responsible?

[Ibanez]

Question: In the Secret it talks about how they have made money or something similar like that. I know Jack Canfield did the Chicken Soup for the Soul and has some other books, but what about the rest? Do they just sell law of attraction material?

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Ibanez

Question: In the Secret it talks about how they have made money or something similar like that. I know Jack Canfield did the Chicken Soup for the Soul and has some other books, but what about the rest? Do they just sell law of attraction material?

Yeah, because that's a sure way to manifest money!!!

People long for these kind of magical explanations and are willing to give money for them.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Yeah, because that's a sure way to manifest money!!!

People long for these kind of magical explanations and are willing to give money for them.

That is such a negative outlook to have on the self-development industry. Yes there are a few authors out there that try to sell crap, but out of the 350+ books I have in my library the vast majority (+98%) are worth every penny and a very large percentage of authors who write self-development material made their millions before ever producing self-development material.

I guess to a pessimist, there is no winning though. If someone is rich and won't share how he got there, he's considered greedy. If someone is rich and sells a book on how you too can be wealthy, it means he must be simply out to make money on the book, nothing else. However, pessimists will usually also agree that if someone published a self-development book and gave it away for free, the book must be crap because if it had any value, the author would be selling it, not giving it away for free.

I had a conversation with my wife today that really shined some light on the situation. My wife is currently studying to be a hair dresser. It has always been important to her to have good looking hair and she uses good quality hair products to achieve this, not just the cheapest shampoo you can buy. She used to tell some of her friends that they might want to try a different shampoo if she saw their hair looked fried for example, but they wouldn't listen and you could tell that they were thinking "What, are you a hair-dresser now? How would you know about hair products anyways?". So they didn't listen.

The funny thing is that now, she is studying to be a hairdresser and one of the things they go through extensively is identifying the proper products to use in people's hair depending on the type of hair they have. The thing is that now when she suggest a product, these same people now have a new way of looking at the same problem. Now they think "Oh, now she's a hair-dresser so she's just trying to sell me an expensive product."

It's like you can't win with people. I had the same thing in the financial service sector. I used to do a lot of my own research and when I would mention certain investments to people they wouldn't listen because I wasn't a financial advisor or anything like that so they would listen to their banker more than me. However, when I got into the financial services sector and actually took courses and got my licenses to sell financial products, they still wouldn't listen to me because "I'm just trying to sell them something."

This is the sad thing about our society. People won't listen to people who aren't "experts" because they don't have the qualifications. Then, even if you get qualified, they won't listen to you because "you're just trying to sell me something." so what do they do instead? They watch TV, and they listen to the "expert" on TV on the news who supposedly knows everything and isn't there to sell them anything because he doesn't know the viewer so how can he make a commission "off of them"?

It's pretty sad that most people trust their TV NEWS and commercials the most, because an author who wrote a book or someone who created a DVD can't be trusted because they supposedly only make their money selling these books and DVD's.

Oh well, at least some of us know better.

[Markus74]

I guess it's also a matter of trust. People maybe have been burned before by crooks and therefore tend to generalize ...

On the other hand there are also a lot of 'experts' who are telling the same things that have been told a zillion times ago. And it's also a fact that reading is way easier than applying. Therefore a lot of people, myself included, read more than they apply. Reading these books is also comforting and interesting. Seriously though a few good books should be enough, but don't we all have bookshelves who are nearly breaking?

[Nicketas]

Originally Posted by Radical

Maybe we should stop wasting our time helping out impoverished nations and their starving children? Maybe we should stop funding research for cancer and other incurable diseases? Maybe we should stop fighting terrorism, let the terrorists kill our citizens and turn our country into a pile of dust?

Instead lets all think 'happy thoughts' and sprinkle fairy dust over our heads.

PS I'm being sarcastic.

A couple of things you need to keep in mind here that you're missing, and that were covered in the secret (as well as think and grow rich, and countless other books)...

1] Physiological stress/health issues of any kind can make it more difficult to manifest your intentions, particularly if you are new at practicing the law of attraction. As such, healing yourself BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY is important. This may even include removing yourself from whatever harmful environment you are in, which brings me to my next point...

2] The phenomena/concept known as "Dominant reality." Whoever has the strongest beliefs/intentions in a given situation (particularly in a conflict) will have thier intentions manifested. You can look around and think of countless examples, I don't need to iterate or list any here. This is not to say 'dominant' in a negative way, but basically whoever has the firmest grasp upon their intentions; the more leadership, whatever you want to call it. This is counterbalanced by the unlimited abundance principle; we don't need to conflict (whether peacefully or not) over everything all the time to achieve a given desire. Dominant reality also explains why children, despite whatever intentions they have, can still be abused by adults because they have not matured in their personal power.

3] If someone is new at their understanding of the law of attraction, and hasn't had much practice manifesting thier desires, it may take them more effort to overcome whatever harsh circumstances are in thier environment. The solution is often to just move and "start over".

4] EMOTIONS are also a HUGE part of the law of attraction.

5] Some people secretly want the suffering they are enduring in thier lives. This may sound terrible, but it IS true. Its a bizarre facet of the human psyche. Such people will continue to manifest more suffering unless a change is made.

6] Some people, also, are so conditioned by thier suffering that to think or do otherwise is almost completely outside of thier realm of understanding. Such people will continue to manifest more suffering unless a change is made.

7] Everyone who practices the law of attraction has a slightly different take on it depending on thier belief system, but there is a lot of common ground. Not unlike how there are many sects/denominations of Christianity, but the core beliefs are the same.
My view of the law of attraction is faithful, but moderate. I still believe that other people are responsible for thier actions, but I can attest to many times where simply changing my energy levels/emotional state, even without using words, completely altered how people reacted around me. In fact, it happens to me to this very day. So my thoughts/views are such that you can influence other people, but you are not God. I hold people accountable for thier actions BUT STILL look for ways I can help influence/change the situation for the better with my emotional projections and intentions.

8] You're still using the law of attraction with this very post you made that I am now replying to. By focusing on something you perceive as horrible and negative, you completely disregard the enormous benefits of the law of attraction.



Its called personal responsibility for your emotional state. Use it.

The answers I just gave neatly explain practically every problem in the world.

Yes every thought is a creation, but since we're dealing with ENERGY here, the STRENGTH and FOCUS, and EMOTIONAL SIGNAL of that thought is what truly counts.

Enjoy.