Whats with LOA extremists?

[responsibility]

here are some arguments against LOA extremism:

1. To his suprise, David Schirmer got accused of stealing on national TV. Now how did he attract that? (YouTube - The Secret's David Schirmer Exposed - PART TWO).

2. How was the Earth discovered as round if 99.9% of people believed it was flat?

3. Santa Clause doesn't exist despite millions of children imagining and believing he does.

4. A 6 year old girl can not attract rape.

5. Bad singers on American Idol were still bad singers despite believing they were not.

7. People have free will, LOA extremism implies that everything someone does to you is a result of your thinking. But since our thoughts determine our actions, this would also imply that someone's thinking is the result of another's thinking. Now how does that work out?

8. LOA extremism implies that nothing you do will have any consequences if you believe it doesn't, yet a clear look at reality will contradict this, as well as a clear look at Steve's past.

Don't get me wrong though, I believe in the Law of Attraction, just not the extremist view.

[Akashic_Librarian]

No, you don't believe in the LoA. So don't say you do and patronize those who REALLY do.

I have two words for you:

Subjective Reality.

You have misunderstood the concept of Intention manifestion, the principle of attraction, whatever you want to call it.

A lot of people do, don't worry. Just look at subjective reality, and you'll see that those questions you asked are totally pointless.

[responsibility]

In that case, you and you're post are just illusions created by my subconscious. Isn't that what subjective reality seems to imply? Not to be sounding rude or anything lol.

But are you open to the possibility that your beliefs could be incorrect or that there is something you don't yet know? Or do you see your current belief's as infallible?

[dave marshall]

Hi Responsibility.

However hard it may be for you to hear, Akashic Librarian is right on the button here.

please go off for some time with an open mind. read some books, ask some questions, read some more and come back then and you will see that your questions caanot help you understand subjective reality at this point, the answers simply would not make sense to you. That is not because you in any way backward or untilleigent, you just need some more experiences under your belt and some conscious effort to understand what is being said.

dave

[Angela]

You have given me a fun picture in my head: roving mobs of LoA Extremists wandering the streets with pyramids on their heads, dressed in bright colors, willfully manifesting, shamelessly desiring and allowing, carrying signs and bellowing on megaphones: "You are 100% responsible for your life! -- What are you going to create?" Blowing up old paradigms and feeling good on purpose. Oh my god! What is this world coming to?!? It will be just like the 60's again!

Here's a useful way to look at the Law of Attraction, subjective reality, religion, or any other belief system or internal software:

If it works for you, run with it.
If it doesn't work for you, don't.

[Jennihul]

The Law of Attraction is only one tool in an arsenal of Universal Laws/Truths.


Just because it's the only one you have heard of, to date, and certainly the one garnering the most popular attention currently, doesn't meant that the others aren't in full effect for all of humanity.

You raised excellent questions. The first part of "question" is "quest."

Feel free to begin your own, with your questions as your basis.

Let us know how you do.

Jennifer

[cylon]

What I find interesting is the huge amount of vitriol thrown at people who are into IM. Noticed this at another forum, every name you can imagine, snake-oil salesment, stupid sheep, etc.

Now, that's kind of the stuff I used to say to religious people when I debated them so I guess I can relate. But I've noticed the pro is usually "hey, take it easy, if it works for you go for it, if not try something else, just be happy"

and the response is often "you're a retarded idiot!"

[JMononoetoe]

It seems like you are conceiving LOA as a religion, since you are saying you don't believe in LOA 'extremism', which really doesn't exist. There are no degrees in LOA. There is just LOA. You can't 'apply' a little bit of law of attraction, you are always living the law of attraction to it's fullest.

And yes, I think it would be wise to gain more knowledge. Read books. Read Steve's blog posts. Read a lot about subjective reality. Most of all, open your mind

And if it doesn't work for you, that's perfectly fine. If this feels upstream for you, that's okay, just go with the flow and do what's right for you All roads lead to Rome.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by responsibility

here are some arguments against LOA extremism:

1. To his suprise, David Schirmer got accused of stealing on national TV. Now how did he attract that? (YouTube - The Secret's David Schirmer Exposed - PART TWO).

Neither of us know what was going on in David's head -- we aren't in there, so this a moot example to debate.

Originally Posted by responsibility

2. How was the Earth discovered as round if 99.9% of people believed it was flat?

People who believed otherwise, would repel experience that resulted in them being exposed to evidence of it's roundness, unless they didn't care or were curious to see how it "really is". There is such a thing as attraction by default. Furthermore, do you think most of these people believed their thoughts had any sort of bearing on their experience? I'm sure most of them figured the world was wholly objective and "out there". Also, you assume that the consensus reality we live in is only being focussed on by us humans, and, additionally, that we are in the majority.

Originally Posted by responsibility

3. Santa Clause doesn't exist despite millions of children imagining and believing he does.

You see it in one light, children see it in quite another. Many people see the same evidence and draw different conclusions. Who is to judge their reality as less real than yours? Logic in certain circumstances is not necessarily a means of ordering our thoughts to discover the truth, but rather, an after the fact rationalization that starts with a preordained conclusion, and reconstructs all the premises necessary to support it.

Originally Posted by responsibility

4. A 6 year old girl can not attract rape.

Why not? Do you think her understanding of what "rape" is has any bearing on her ability to attract negative experiences? Also, this information is constantly being broad casted through our media. Obviously, we would never have "new" experiences if our ability to attract certain events was completely dependent on how much we knew about said event.

Originally Posted by responsibility

5. Bad singers on American Idol were still bad singers despite believing they were not.

Again, we are not in their heads. I contend that they had doubt, or expected an unfavorable reaction. How are you going to prove me wrong?

Originally Posted by responsibility

7. People have free will, LOA extremism implies that everything someone does to you is a result of your thinking. But since our thoughts determine our actions, this would also imply that someone's thinking is the result of another's thinking. Now how does that work out?

Wrong. We attract our own experiences, not others. If someone comes into your experience its because their attraction equaled your attraction. You manifested each other.

Originally Posted by responsibility

8. LOA extremism implies that nothing you do will have any consequences if you believe it doesn't, yet a clear look at reality will contradict this, as well as a clear look at Steve's past.
[B]

That form of extremism is tantamount to believing you occupy your own universe, which I don't agree with. But maybe I'm wrong. We live in a consensus reality in my opinion, so there is such a thing as constructive and deconstructive interference from others in certain special circumstances.

But, if I am wrong, then your arguments have even easier explanations, and my words -- and your examples -- are yet another manifestation of your own confusion regarding the reality of the LoA.

[Acting Like Godot]

Good answers, Anagogy, but I would like to offer further perspectives.

David Schirmer example. Implicit in this question is the original poster's assumption that if you're a LOA "expert", nothing negative or unpleasant would ever enter your reality, and if it did, this proves that LOA is false.

Of course, the above reasoning is as false as saying "No doctor would smoke cigarettes or fail to exercise regularly - if he did, he wouldn't be a doctor". Or perhaps a more direct example would be "no doctor would ever fall ill, and if he did, this shows that medical theory is false."

Santa Clause example. Santa Clause does exist, in many young children's reality. His existence becomes more doubtful, as they grow up and have doubts about Santa's existence. When they are fully convinced that Santa Claus does not exist, then Santa Claus ceases to exist in their reality.

As Anagogy has pointed out, as this process unfolds, the children are in the continual parallel process of mentally reconstructing their past. By the time they conclude that Santa Clause does not exist, they would have reconstructed a past with all the necessary premises to support their present conclusion that Santa does not exist.

This process is not unique to children - all of us do it. For example, (1) a staunch atheist becomes a fervent religious believer; or (2) a fervent religious believer becomes a staunch atheist. In both cases, a mental reconstruction of the past occurs. In the first case, it goes like this:

"In the past, I was an atheist. I absolutely believed that God did not exist, because of X, Y and Z. Now I see that I was so wrong. And the reasons why I was wrong are A, B and C ......".

In the second case, the mental reconstruction goes like this:

"In the past, I was a fervent believer. I absolutely believed in God, because of P, Q and R. Now I see that I was so wrong. And the reasons why I was wrong are E, F and G ......".

Similarly, for Santa Clause. In a nutshell

(a) whatever you believe will be your reality;
(b) your beliefs may change
(c) your reality will change correspondingly
(d) if so required, your past will change as well (and in fact, so will your future).

To elaborate on (d), your past and future will change, because both are essentially illusions. The past is always memory, and the future is always fantasy; and since memory and fantasy are subjective mental processes, they are quite mutable.

Bad Singers on American Idol Who Believe They're Not. Quite likely, many of them are indeed not bad singers - in their subjective realities. Currently, in their respective subjective realities, they are probably just great singers who have been grossly misunderstood and unappreciated.

Of course, in your reality, they are just bad singers. Period. And within your reality, you are right. Just as they are, in theirs.

"LOA extremism implies that nothing you do will have any consequences if you believe it doesn't, yet a clear look at reality will contradict this." Clearly this statement shows the original poster's fundamental misunderstanding of the LOA.

In my reality, EVERYTHING I do will have consequences. For every action I take is an expression of my thought. And my thought definitely affects my reality - in fact, it creates my entire reality.

[Acting Like Godot]

The problem is the original poster's insistence that LOA not be "extreme".

Alas, any theory that purports to explain the ultimate nature of reality has to be "extreme" - whether the theory is based on "God", "LOA" and "quantum physics".

What kind of "mild" theory did you expect?

"The subatomic particles of which I am comprised are not really blinking in and out of existence at rapid speeds. They only do so on Mondays, Thursdays and sometimes Sunday evening."

"Actually, God did not really create the entire universe. Only 12 galaxies and 4,567 planets in total, and on earth, there were 23,567 species of plants and animals whose creation He delegated to a couple of amateur angels. That's why things occasionally screw up."

Sorry, folks. If you really stop to think about it, the "middle ground" theories cannot hold up.

[RT Wolf]

For a more mainstream authority on some of the stuff the above two posters are saying, try phenomenology:

Phenomenology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your reality is not my reality, even within an objective reality framework. Since we're limited in our ability to consciously notice things, we maek choices about what to notice. If I'm hungry i'll notice something different than you. If you're looking for clothes nad i'm hungry and we're in a mall, I'll be able to tell you the names of at least three differnet places to eat food and maybe one of clothes. while you could probably tell three places for clothes and none for food.

We all have different frames, other than just that basic goal-driven one. If you're a building contractor you'll notice different things in a restaurant than me who is a health board employee. We are all locked into our own realities, whatever they might be. The strength of your conviction of your own version of reality means nothing; I feel that the real test comes from switching your version of realities and seeing which is most accurate.

[The David]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

No, you don't believe in the LoA. So don't say you do and patronize those who REALLY do.

I have two words for you:

Subjective Reality.

You have misunderstood the concept of Intention manifestion, the principle of attraction, whatever you want to call it.

A lot of people do, don't worry. Just look at subjective reality, and you'll see that those questions you asked are totally pointless.

The majority of those who believe in the Law of Attraction do not claim to believe in Steve Pavlina's Subjective Reality theory. The original poster raised some very good questions that Steve himself has asked, thus leading him to believe in SR.

[responsibility]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The problem is the original poster's insistence that LOA not be "extreme".

Alas, any theory that purports to explain the ultimate nature of reality has to be "extreme" - whether the theory is based on "God", "LOA" and "quantum physics".

What kind of "mild" theory did you expect?

"The subatomic particles of which I am comprised are not really blinking in and out of existence at rapid speeds. They only do so on Mondays, Thursdays and sometimes Sunday evening."

"Actually, God did not really create the entire universe. Only 12 galaxies and 4,567 planets in total, and on earth, there were 23,567 species of plants and animals whose creation He delegated to a couple of amateur angels. That's why things occasionally screw up."

Sorry, folks. If you really stop to think about it, the "middle ground" theories cannot hold up.

I'm not saying that LOA switches on and off depending on the context, I'm just saying that there's a possibility that there is much more than just the LOA alone. Everyone here has accepted Subjective Reality as infallible and unquestionable truth. People don't seem to be open up to the possibility that the LOA could be working in polarity with other universal laws. Law of Karma anyone?

Also, you assume that the consensus reality we live in is only being focussed on by us humans, and, additionally, that we are in the majority.

No, I assume that the majority on these forums believe that everything that is, is the result of their thoughts alone. Believing that the universe is the result of everyone's collective thoughts is objective, not subjective. But it does make sense to believe that the universe is being put stable by God's thoughts. It would also make more sense to say we are co-creators than saying that each individual is living in a different illusion. Some of the people here have an overactive imagination.

The Law of Attraction is only one tool in an arsenal of Universal Laws/Truths.


Just because it's the only one you have heard of, to date, and certainly the one garnering the most popular attention currently, doesn't meant that the others aren't in full effect for all of humanity.

You raised excellent questions. The first part of "question" is "quest."

Feel free to begin your own, with your questions as your basis.

Let us know how you do.

Jennifer

I've begun my quest long ago, and Subjective Reality is just one of the many false paths that I've had to overcome in this 'quest'.

Everyone here is misinterpreting the main point.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by responsibility

People don't seem to be open up to the possibility that the LOA could be working in polarity with other universal laws. Law of Karma anyone?

Actually, I see both the "Law of Attraction" and the "law of karma" as different descriptions of the same thing. Inherently there are no contradictions.

In a nutshell, the law of karma simply says that you create all of your experiences through your own deeds. Your present experiences are caused by your past deeds, and your future experiences will be caused by your present and past deeds.

Delving further into Buddhist studies, we see that karma is created not merely by deeds, but by the intention behind the deed, and furthermore intention alone accumulates karma, even if the deed is not performed, or not performed successfully. To illustrate, karma is created in all three of the following situations:

1. X intentionally kills Y;
2. X accidentally kills Y (eg in a traffic accident)
3. X intends to kill Y, but fails, eg because Y disappeared..

.... but the kind of karma that X accumulates differs in each situation.

The IM aspect of LOA (or what I like to call "conscious creation") may be viewed as a deliberate attempt to manipulate reality by manipulating thought. In other words, a deliberate karmic manipulation.

That is, since every thought has karmic consequences and therefore attracts certain types of experiences, events or circumstances, then we, by deliberately thinking certain kinds of thoughts or thinking in certain ways, can seek to attract those kinds of experiences, events or circumstances that we would like to have.

One difference between the Buddha and I is the vastness of his LOA ambitions. Whereas I currently merely manifest wealth, health and the like, the Buddha sought to manifest enlightenment - which among other things, is a state of such complete, continuous bliss that he experiences no further desire.

Finally, the law of karma, taken to the "extreme" ends of its logic, necessarily entails the concept of reincarnation. Once again, it should be noted that this is completely consistent with LOA, as explained by its most eminent metaphysical teachers - Abraham, Seth, Ramtha and the like.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by responsibility

It would also make more sense to say we are co-creators than saying that each individual is living in a different illusion.

Either model is entirely reconciliable with the other. It depends on which level of mind you prefer to use, to interpret your reality.

In Buddhist teachings, for example, the traditional view is that karma is personal, yet there are Buddhists who subscribe to some notion of collective karma, which may positively or negatively impact the realities of, say, an entire nation, community or other societal notion of a group of people.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by responsibility

3. Santa Clause doesn't exist despite millions of children imagining and believing he does.

This is one of those things where I think millions of believing children may indeed have created Santa Claus. They didn't create a jolly old man in a red suit, but if you walk into a building where the Salvation Army is getting ready to distribute toys before Christmastime . . . well, when I went to volunteer at one of those events, I was staggered by the generosity of people. This event was held in a convention hall and the place was PACKED with brand new items to become gifts for kids from babies to teenagers. It was like walking into Toyland.

Santa Claus does exist.

[cylon]

You know, pretty soon they'll try to force this LOA stuff into the schools and replace the science classes with "intelligent LOA theory of reality" or something.

THIS WILL NOT STAND!

[Akashic_Librarian]

Cylon, are you being serious?

[cylon]

I'm only serious when absolutely necessary. I'm not sure if this is one of those moments.

All I know, is that I didn't come from no monkey, and I didn't come from no quauntum particle thingy!

[Akashic_Librarian]

OK hank you for that Cylon, however it was incredibly off topic. Do you have something productive to the conversation?

Or...are you just...stirring?

[cylonalternate]

Sorry, didn't know every post had to be serious.

I like to have fun now and then. My bad.

[Rose of Cairo]

This thread reminds me of the Law of Gravitation extremists. They try to explain every falling object with it! Seriously, one shouldn't exaggerate...



Sorry Akashic

[Angela]

You know who I hate? The Murphy's Law Extremists. They always go so wrong!

[cylon]

Well wait till you get a load of the anti-murphey's law extremists.