Can You Convert Me To I.m. ???

[nightdiamond]

Hello Stephen and Acting Like Godot.....

Actually I really understand Stephen's feelings and skepticism on the subject, because I've been there too once. If I'm right, I don't think it's based on hostility, but perhaps on continiously seeing either fraud, or just being let down too many times by methods that may make so many grand claims.

For example take a subliminal that says all you have to do is listen to it for 30 days and you will manifest prosperity...the testimonials have examples of people saying, 'I only just listened to it for 3 days, and I received a check for $30,000 in the mail!' .... being open minded it motivates you and you give it a try...

You listen for 60 days and do not receive anything... you write the sellers of the subliminal asking for help, and they may say, you have a blockage, or you have to clear a blockage to receiving it... or, ' You haven't relaxed and allowed it to come, you're pushing it away by wanting it too much'...

And while there may be some good truth to this, after spending money and time listening to it regularly all day long, that explaination probably won't make you feel any better, maybe even more frustrated..the explanation sounds "fluffy".... you feel let down ... the ad and testimonials didn't mention 'blockages' and 'pushing it away' ........

Still I'm also skeptical of too much skepticism too...skeptics have jumped the gun a lot and even been caught in fraud themselves.. they too can suffer from the same problems as the cult mentality or extreme beliefs in something.

That's why I consider skepticism a tool and not a life style...to use it to wade through anything that sounds too suspicious or silly; to protect myself and others hopefully from being exploited; and to get to the bottom of things a little more accurately. For both the metaphysical, and skepticism.

So I tend move down the middle and agree with Acting Like Godot and if one wants to, try it out, see if it works, if it's free, you lose no money after all, and if it works great!

Stephen just wants to remove the "fluff" as some may call it, and get to the details and manifest a win ... and then who knows he may be louder pro opponent of this stuff than all of us! lol

My idea... first to size up the real world situation and then find the appropriate I.M technique for it, if there is one.

For example if you're talking about wanting to remove a big rock blocking your backyard fence, better off just calling someone to do it! lol

But if you want to I.M a simple car just to get to work and go places then you can; try remote influencing to reach the right person who has a car maybe even will give you one cheap...
Brainwave entrainment, it's been said I.M during this state can be very effective;

Ok, sorry guys I've got to go and I'm tired of typing again! Chime in with your opinions I like this posts, and if anyone is interested I'll continue to list the techniques I've learned and some instructions, but Acting Like Godot may have better experience with this one.. see what he has to offers.....

Take care...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by nightdiamond

Hello Stephen and Acting Like Godot.....

Actually I really understand Stephen's feelings and skepticism on the subject, because I've been there too once.

Haven't we all been there?

I used to be a conventional PD guy. Time management, goal setting, effective communication. My two PD heroes were Brian Tracy and Steve Pavlina. They talked a lot of sense, gave a lot of good advice & suggestions about personal effectiveness etc.

Alas. BOTH of them had that weird, terrible tendency to lapse into temporary insanity .... After Tracy set out a very logical, sensible plan for identifying the top priorities within your goals, suddenly he would say that your thoughts will magically attract corresponding events, circumstances into your life!

After Pavlina wrote about how to motivate yourself to tackle unpleasant or difficult tasks, suddenly he would say that the entire universe is one big illusion created by his own mind .... and that you and I don't exist ... or are part of him .... or are created by him .... whatever!

Of course, it seems crazy. So I do sympathise with Stephen. These are not easy concepts to grasp, and they can be a little frightening. So I understand why he will now run into the safety of the "Personal Effectiveness" forum ....

.... yes, ironically, the one set up by Steve, Mr Subjective Reality and Intention-Manifestation himself.

[ZHereford]

Acting Like Godot, are you saying that personal effectiveness, time management goal setting, etc. are unnecessary with IM?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by nightdiamond

For example take a subliminal that says all you have to do is listen to it for 30 days and you will manifest prosperity...the testimonials have examples of people saying, 'I only just listened to it for 3 days, and I received a check for $30,000 in the mail!' .... being open minded it motivates you and you give it a try.

You listen for 60 days and do not receive anything... you write the sellers of the subliminal asking for help, and they may say, you have a blockage, or you have to clear a blockage to receiving it... or, ' You haven't relaxed and allowed it to come, you're pushing it away by wanting it too much'...

I'm going to tell you a little story about how and why I began to take LOA seriously, and when I started seeing that it was not craziness / foolishness. It's a bit of a long story, please bear with the details.

To show you the evidence of my story, I will provide links to relevant posts in my personal blogs at the relevant time.

Once upon a time, and not very long ago, I was, as I said, a very conventional PD guy. I set extremely big goals, to be sure, but there was nothing hocus-pocus or magical about my approach. Instead I would write down my goals clearly, work out an action plan, set deadlines to finish tasks etc etc.

This post, from March 2006, illustrates my mentality then:

Step One - Decide Exactly What You Want.
Step Two - Write it Down.
Step Three - Set A Deadline.
Step Four - Make A List of Every Task You Can Think Of That You Need To Do to Achieve your Goal.
Step Five - Organise Your List Into A Plan.
Step Six - Take Action on Your Plan.
Step Seven - Do Something Every Day That Moves You Towards The Goal.

In early 2006, I had a certain career goal, and a certain money goal.

The Career Goal

In early 2006, I worked in a certain big company, one of the world's giant corporates. I set the goal to be promoted in February 2007.

Why Feb 2007? Because the company had a very standard, bureaucratic appraisal system. The employee works the whole year, his performance is appraised at the end of the year.

The employee will be evaluated against all other candidates for promotion, and if the employee is to be promoted, he will be promoted in Feb the following year. The salary increase + usual annual increment will also take effect from Feb the following year.

Hence I set Feb 2007 as the deadline for my goal.

Money Goal

At the end of January 2006, I had $113,127,06 in my investment account. See here.

I set the goal to reach $200,000 by the end of 2006. Yes, very ambitious.

Impending Failure, And A Small Bit of Insanity

By the 2nd half of the year, I was in mini-despair. I was doing ok at work, but not shining, relative to my peers. Therefore no reason to think that I would be promoted.

It became quite obvious that I was also going to fall flat on my goal to double the size of my investment portfolio, in one year.

Then, quite by accident, I departed from my usual rational, action-oriented self. For some inexplicable reason, I just decided to PRETEND to myself that I would achieve both goals. I would just BELIEVE it to be so. I would just ACT as if both goals will CERTAINLY come true.

I didn't know that this was a "LOA" technique. I had hardly heard of it, at that time. In truth, I was just tired and frustrated and I didn't want to work on my goals anymore, since failure seemed so likely. Anyway, on 28 August 2006, I wrote this on my blog:

I’ll assume that I will be promoted in Feb 2007. Thus I don’t need to focus on this anymore. That frees me to think what else I can do, to build a more successful and fulfilling career.

I’ll assume that my investments will hit $200,000 by end 2006 - it really IS on track and I shouldn’t be surprised if it happens. I don’t have to waste time & energy fretting about this goal. I free myself to think about other ways to make money or to utilise it more efficiently.

What Happened Next?

Well, based on LOA principles, you know what will happen next. Since you believe it to be so, it will be so. The universe simply makes it so.

20 days later, my bosses suddenly told me that they would promote me in Feb 2007. This was despite the fact that the annual appraisal had not even been done yet.

The "rational" reason why this happened was that someone in my team, L, suddenly tendered her resignation and left. L was a very good employee. The boss suddenly became afraid that I might leave too. Also they needed me to take over L's workload.

Then in October, someone else in my team, SC, threatened to leave.

And at the same time, somehow, some rumours started circulating, that a rival firm was in final negotiations with me, to poach me, and bring me over. The rumours were entirely false, by the way. (That firm's recruiter had called me, but I never told them that I was interested in discussing any further).

My boss questioned me about the whole matter, and I said, "That's entirely untrue, I have no plans to leave". However he didn't seem to believe me.

In early October, my bosses broke every rule in the HR Policy book:

(a) They again assured me that I would be promoted in Feb 2007, no matter what;

(b) They said that they had tried to give me an immediate promotion, but Global HR Policies forbade them;

(c) But they gave me an immediate salary increase, even though this was also against HR rules

(d) The salary increase was 82%. (Have any of you EVER heard of a 82% salary increase?)

Link here.

With the extra savings from my salary increase, I was able to meet my mony goal (to have my portfolio double from $100,000+ to $200,000+ by 31 Dec 2006). As a matter of fact, I comfortably crossed the $200,000 mark with a month to spare.

Further Comments

You can take all the actions you want. But LOA is more than your actions.

I could not have made L resign. I could not have made SC threaten to resign. I do not know how false rumours started spreading that i was planning to leave too. None of these had anything to do with my own actions.

Yet all these incidents suddenly made me a much more valued person, within the department. Leading to my unprecedentedly large salary increase, coming at an totally unexpected time of year.

I did not ask my bosses to give me an instant salary increase (I did not know that anyone could get an increase, outside of the traditional February season). In fact, they could not give me the increase, without first fighting through a wade of HR and Finance red tape. They might have failed. They did not. I guess the universe would not let them fail.

So, suddenly, 31 days after I decided to PRETEND that all my goals would come true, they did. (I say 31 days, because the salary increase was backdated to take effect from 1st october, and it was on 28 August that I decided to start PRETENDING).

The AfterMath

These incidents did not lead me to wholeheartedly believe in the LOA. (After all they could still be a bizarre, yet meaningless coincidence).

These incidents did lead me to start exploring the LOA more seriously, to see if it was indeed true. So it was a beginning.

Hence, the following month after I received my 82% salary increase, I officially commenced my serious investigation of the LOA. In November 2006, I wrote this:

Acting Like Godot: The Great Experiment

Haven't looked back since. See, a couple of months later (Feb 2007), I received what was, at that time, already by faaaaaar the biggest bonus in my life:

Acting Like Godot: Fierce - $104,000

But one full year of LOA later, what has my bonus grown into? See for yourself -

Oh My Gawd! « A Little Magic Everyday

$244,200. It doubled again.

And this was against seemingly impossible odds. Just two months earlier, I'd been told, at my official performance appraisal, that I would probably be getting ZERO bonuses. See here:

Creation & Other Adventures: I Permit Myself Some Negativity

Instead I received almost a quarter of a million dollars. Why? Heheh.

FINAL COMMENT

All of the above, I stress, are just a FEW examples of what I've explored, and what I've done, with LOA. Just a few .......

..... there is sooooo much more, my friends. You should start exploring your mind and reality, for yourself. It's a brilliant, beautiful, fascinating universe.

[hkalchemy]

Personally, I don't believe you are likely to win the lottery by any mental process (such as imagining the outcome), though I won't say it's impossible. The power of your mind lies in its ability to orchestrate situations at a subconscious level so that things appear to work out 'as if by magic.' It isn't magic. It isn't some esoteric 'secret' teaching. It's your own subconscious self image and beliefs about yourself being played out in the world. winning the lottery by the 'power of attraction' seems a bit far fetched to me.

I'm also very concerned that the 'law of attraction' is something you can choose to believe in or not. Either it works or it doesn't.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I dont think it would to much of a understatement to say that I am pretty skeptical about the whole Intention Manifestation thing.

However, I have an open mind and I have noticed a couple of regulars on this site who I respect from their other posts who are solid adherents of I.M.

What I have a problem with is calling something a result of I.M. when it has been clearly just as a result of the person taking action.


Example: I focus on wanting to see a 25% increase in sales this month. I focus and take action to make it happen. It happens. This is a result of the actions I took; not as a result of some ethereal phenomena.

Now, if as I believe many of you think, I.M. is acheiveable without physical action, then let me give you a real life situation which I cannot physically alter, but yet I would like to see manifested.

- I hold 100 individually serialed UK government bonds (prize bonds): and have done so for the past decade. Each month there is a prize draw and prizes are won from 1m down to 50 pounds sterling. I have held these bonds as I have said for over a decade without a single win. I cannot influence physically the situation to increase the chances of these 100 bonds winning a prize.

If I.M. is genuine, then I should be able to use it to generate a win. If not, then my theory is correct that I.M. means nothing. It is simply taking action that makes the difference.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the above.

Can I IM a win?

However, what you've said many times in your post is that the law of attraction and intention manifestation is not for real and that you are skeptical about it all.

ABRACADABRA!!! POOF!!!

Your wish is my command!

If you believe it isn't real, then LOA & IM will make that happen in your life.
It doesn't matter that you believe in it or not, it is real and these laws create the reality you live in today. But go ahead and disregard it all and be skeptical, it doesn't matter to you anyway.

If you have to see to believe, you will have a hard time with IM & LOA.
If you believe you will see, IM & LOA will work considerably easier for you.

Your mind is your barrier & limiting factor.

I don't know what else I can say to get this point across to you.

You either get it or you don't.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by hkalchemy

The power of your mind lies in its ability to orchestrate situations at a subconscious level so that things appear to work out 'as if by magic.' It isn't magic. It isn't some esoteric 'secret' teaching. It's your own subconscious self image and beliefs about yourself being played out in the world.

I actually wouldn't disagree with you outright. Because in a certain sense, I accept your words as quite correct. However, I just suspect that I interpret some of the words you've used, in a different way from how you interpret them. For example, I may well agree with your statement that the LOA is just nothing more than :

"your own subconscious self image and beliefs about yourself being played out in the world."

Where I suspect we would disagree is the extent to which a person's self-image and beliefs play out in his world. See, I think that self-image and beliefs play out to a very, very great extent in the world. In fact, to such a great extent that effectively, your self-image and beliefs effectively create yur entire reality.

Whereas I suspect that you think that they play out to a much lesser extent.

I'm just going to give you one example. Here is an article that appeared on CBS News today. Hypnosis, No Anesthetic, For Man's Surgery, Professional Hypnotizes Self, Is Fully Awake, Pain-Free During Hand Operation - CBS News

Basically this man had a bone problem and needed hand surgery. The doctor needed to cut open his hand, break and saw off a bone, and reattach one tendon to a thumb, and fuse a few joints together. It is a surgery which would typically require general anaesthetic (ie the patient needs to be made unconscious, otherwise the pain is too great to bear).

Anyway, this patient happens to be a hypnotherapist. He doesn't like general anaesthetic, so he tells the doctors that he won't need it. Instead he hypnotises himself to feel no pain. He takes just half a minute to hypnotise himself.

Then the doctors cut his hand open. They get the medical saw, they cut off the bone, they reattach the tendon, they fuse a few joints in his hand. The man experiences no pain, and stays fully conscious throughout the entire surgery. Lasting more than one hour.

Is this extraordinary? Actually, no. If you do some research into hypnosis, you'll see that many stranger things are possible with hypnosis.

But what is hypnosis? It's just a way to get deep into your own head, skip the logical mind, and alter your beliefs directly, at a deeper level of your consciousness. This man basically knew how to do it - so he did it. He went into his own head, and effectively he told himself:

"They will cut open my hand. But I believe that there is no pain. I will be numb. There will be absolutely no pain during this surgery. I believe this. I believe this completely."

If you know how to do it - really alter your beliefs - then the belief becomes reality. They cut open his hand with a medical saw, and he feels no pain. It's not that he feels pain, but he tries his best to bear the pain, and be a brave hero, or whatever. No. The truth is that he simply feels no pain whatsoever.

According to conventional logic, this is ... IMPOSSIBLE. It is as impossible as trying to manifest a lottery strike or prize bond win. In fact, according to my conventional logic, winning the lottery/prize bond SHOULD be easier.

Still, the thought becomes reality. Simple as that. If you believe there is no pain, there is no pain.

[seanner689]

I really don't think that Stephen is being illogical at all. He is simply saying that if IM is true, then he should be able to manifest a particular event. This has been asked many times on the board, in fact, it's one of the most common questions with IM: Can I manifest ___?

I don't think that Stephen disagrees that people have different mental abilities when it comes to calculating numbers. In this case, you have an external stimulus, it is processed in your mind, and you come up with an answer or lack thereof.

Running is similar ... you control your muscles by firing neurons, your brain and CNS cause each individual to move at their own rates.

These examples are typical objective reality, which nobody is debating. We have physical and biological models to study which give us at least a superficial understanding of how this works.

One main issue with IM is that it is illogical on a fundamental level for many people. For example, I would have a hard time going through my life if I was under the reality that someone could manifest cancer in my body.

I like the concept of IM in the sense that if you set goals, it can put you in the right mindframe to actually get off your butt and achieve them, and give you confidence, but I draw the line when I start thinking that all the worlds outcomes (911, iraq) are somehow able to be infulenced by my thought, or may have even been completely manifested by me. Because if I truly believed in IM (esp. if I also believed in subjective reality), I would really have to look at these terrible occurances and figure out why I may have manifested them so that I can stop these things from happening in the future.

Personal opinion, using LOA to give you confidence and help you take ACTION is useful, and can help you become a faster runner or improve your mental math skills. Using LOA to try to influence events that occur independant from your control (winning a lottery in this case), I think is a total farce, and for LOA people to say that people with enough brain power can influence which ticket is picked out of a barrel 100 miles away just sounds rediculous IMO. Plus, if that was the case, you'd see more personal development types winning lotteries, and winning them multiple times.

My view is, IM gives a perspective, much like religion. A ton of people thank the Lord (or allah, or Tom Cruise, etc) for their success and prosperity, and although I'm not religious, I have no doubt that their faith has helped them along their path to success. Same with LOA ... if it works for you, use it. If it doesn't, don't.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by seanner689

One main issue with IM is that it is illogical on a fundamental level for many people. For example, I would have a hard time going through my life if I was under the reality that someone could manifest cancer in my body.

Someone else manifests cancer in your body?

According to LOA as explained by Abraham Hicks, this would not be possible. Do read the books, if you wish to understand this better. This has got to do with the principle that no one can create in another person's reality.

There are a couple of subtleties around that idea. But basically, your concern is unfounded.

However, your comment does illustrate a common difficulty I notice that many people have, in these forums. They have a mistaken or inadequate understanding of what LOA is supposed to be, and then they feel that LOA is illogical.

But actually what's illogical is their own mistaken understanding of LOA.

This is why my advice to Stephen was that he should begin by reading several different books about LOA, all approachng the topic from different sorts of perspectives. That would provide a more well-rounded and holistic idea of what LOA is all about.

Personal opinion, using LOA to give you confidence and help you take ACTION is useful, and can help you become a faster runner or improve your mental math skills.

As usual, I will say that I have nothing against taking action.

Action is an extremely powerful kind of thought. (Of course how powerful your action is, depends on the quality and nature of the thought that is expressing itself as action).

I think is a total farce, and for LOA people to say that people with enough brain power can influence which ticket is picked out of a barrel 100 miles away just sounds rediculous IMO.

I could walk you through the possible theories, but it would take too long. I could suggest a good starting point for your inquiry, though - it could be the principle of nonlocality.

This particular principle is very well-accepted and very well-known, among physicists. The essential idea is that if two subatomic particles have ever collided in the past (the technical term is quantum entanglement), then for the rest of eternity:

the behaviour of one particle will instantly affect the behaviour of the other particle, regardless of the distance between the two particles

(that is, one particle could be, say, an electron in my brain that's moving as I think; and the other particle could be on the other side of the solar system. Or perhaps in the mechanisms of a lottery machine).

Technical points:

1. When I say that the behaviour of one particle will instantly affect the other particle, I mean "must". It must affect the other particle. It is a law of physics.

2. When I say "instantly", I must clarify that I actually mean "at the speed of light". Some physicists insist that this process cannot happen faster than the speed of light.

I stress again that the principle of nonlocality is extremely well-accepted among mainstream physicists. The early discoverers of this idea were Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

(If this is new, no doubt you will find it hard to believe. Einstein himself was very upset by it. He called it "spooky action as a distance". In fact, he remained upset by this disturbing idea, for several decades of his life)

Once you have grasped this idea that:

one particle can instantly affect another particle, regardless of the distance between them

you can slowly make the transition to the idea that:

one event in a certain place can instantly affect another event in another place, regardless of the distance between them.

and once you see that thinking is brain activity,

and brain activity is electrical impulses moving among your neurons

and electrical impulses is the movement of electrons

and electrons are subatomic particles

and the movement of a subatomic particle instantly affects every other subatomic particle in the universe that it has ever collided with, since the beginning of time,

and every such other subatomic particle, upon being affected, will then affect every other subatomic particle with which it has collided since the beginning of time ...

... well, you may see that your thoughts affect pretty much the enture universe.

I'm giving you a conservation explanation, by the way.

Some interesting links to explore:

Nonlocality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality? -- Seife 309 (5731): 98 -- Science
The Roots of Consciousness: Theory, Consciousness and the New Physics
Quantum Nocality - Cramer

[Acting Like Godot]

I really should get in the habit of writing shorter posts. Seanner689, I wrote a long reply to your post, but it was too long, hence it won't appear until a moderator has approved it. Be patient ...

[Cantando]

I’ve had a bit of a love-hate relationship with LoA over the last year. I sincerely wished it was true, and I did all the exercises, but nothing significant emerged.

The only thing that made sense after reading 'Ask and It is Given' several times, was something I already knew anyway. If you ask for something and it is in accordance with God’s/Source’s will, then it will be granted, but maybe not in the way you expected! If your will is united with God’s will, then it doesn’t really matter what you receive or don’t receive, it is all for your general good.

In a general sense, we could say LoA works – if you have a happy, positive outlook on life, then you tend to attract happy, positive people and events into your experience. Nothing new there. However, negative experiences can and do still happen. Just as nice things may come unexpectedly into your life, for no apparent reason whatsoever (thus validating your belief in LoA), so can the more unsavoury experiences.

When we come to the level of LoA, which everyone is really interested in (getting lots of money through doing next to nothing, except ask for it) then we have serious problems with the teaching. We are told that as soon as we desire something, it is immediately manifested and we just have to allow it in. But, where exactly is it manifested? How, exactly, is a desire immediately converted into a reality, without following through with intention, action and determination?

If I sat and did nothing for 5 days, except think about having a holiday home in the sun, would it manifest? Perhaps, if I died first, then experienced it in the afterlife!

[RT Wolf]

Originally Posted by seanner689

These examples are typical objective reality, which nobody is debating.

Why not?

Here's the problem: IM is not illogical (depends on what you define as logic) as far as I've been able to discover, it may or may not be an accurate model of reality (which I'm still trying to discover), what it is is incongruent with common sense and custom. Just because objective reality is the generally accepted model of reality doesn't make it necessarily true, nor does most of the proof for an objective reality make IM untrue. The translator for Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy said: "What is called 'common sense' in any age frequently turns out to be the half-digested remains of earlier philosophical theories." And I tend to agree. What we now call skepticism (depending on how far back you go), was really codified by David Hume a few hundred years ago. More recently, Ayer codified logical positivism (something has to have positive proof for it to be believed). Both of those ideas have seeped into our culture and IM is an affront to those. I have a feeling that because most people are not aware of the underpinnings of their own thought, they react emotionally and defensively to ideas like IM. I'm not saying that IM is correct or incorrect, simply that people react to ideas like IM with a variety of emotions rather than simply Accepting it as is. Some people act with a sense of indignation or superiority, as in, "I know something they don't". Alternatively, as in my case, they may have been criticized for "illogical" thought and vowed never to be in that position again and thus went for the most conservative form of thought and that which carried the most authority, "the scientific one".

Reminds me of a post by Paul:
You have a choice

And here:
Subjective Reality?

Here's the other thing: Most of us haven't taken the time to critically examine the way we think and examine how we stand on a lot of philosophical issues so we trust the authority of society/other people/a few important people. For example, Descartes' dualism has seeped very deeply into our culture and for a long time I went around as if the mind and body are separate. Hell, I still feel like I"m just living in my head a lot of the time, and just not integrated body and mind.

Since I'm simply trusting authority either way (I don't have the judgment, time or expertise to truly understand the major philosophical arguments), I'll be frank and say that the only reason I decided to test IM was because I trust Steve and he says there's something to it. I've had a number of interesting and meaningful manifestations but nothing conclusive. Over the period I have been into IM, I have grown a lot, found out a lot of interesting things and gone through periods of frustration. I've also improved my income.

One of the things I had to learn to do was to let go and trust. This is something I still need to do, and its really hard to do. I'd imagine it would be easier for people who are already believers in a god or religion or something.

Anyhoo, that's enough ranting from me. I just wanted to raise awareness about the thing not many people pay much attention to: That if they were raised in a society or group which believed in something seemingly ridiculous, such as unicorns, witches, monsters, god, etc, they would believe it, too, and accept it as common sense. Cheers!

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by seanner689

I really don't think that Stephen is being illogical at all .....

.... Plus, if that was the case, you'd see more personal development types winning lotteries, and winning them multiple times.

Basically you committed one of the same logical flaws as Stephen did. Let me illustrate with these statements:

1. "If a woman can actually have the necessary qualities to be a top business executive, we'd see more women in the senior management ranks of MNCs. Women just don't have what it takes."

2. "If black Americans were as smart as white Americans, we'd see more black Americans in universities. Blacks are just genetically inferior, as far as IQ is concerned."

Statements 1 and 2 would be considered inoffensive and politically incorrect today. As a matter of fact, today, there are many women who are in the senior management of MNCs, and there are many highly-educated black people.

However, there was a time in history when indeed, there were hardly any women who were significant business figures. And a time in history when very, very few blacks received higher education. And when Statements 1 and 2 would have been widely accepted and believed, in mainstream society (and even among blacks and women).

(And actually, there was a time in history, really not that long ago, when women didn't even work outside their own homes and kitchens. And a time in history when black people were slaves - so higher education indeed was definitely out of the question).

Nevertheless this doesn't make either Statement 1 or Statement 2 correct. There is a logical flaw - I'll leave you to figure it out. Once you figure it out, you'll see that it is the same logical flaw as in this statement:

"3. If it was possible to manifest lottery wins, you'd see more personal development types winning lotteries, and winning them multiple times."

Essentially this is as false as Stephen's argument:

"4. If LOA is true, I can manifest a prize bond. If I cannot manifest a prize bond, LOA is false."

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

When we come to the level of LoA, which everyone is really interested in (getting lots of money through doing next to nothing, except ask for it) then we have serious problems with the teaching. We are told that as soon as we desire something, it is immediately manifested and we just have to allow it in. But, where exactly is it manifested? How, exactly, is a desire immediately converted into a reality, without following through with intention, action and determination?

If I sat and did nothing for 5 days, except think about having a holiday home in the sun, would it manifest? Perhaps, if I died first, then experienced it in the afterlife!

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, once made an interesting reply to this sort of comment.

(Scott, by the way, is a LOA practitioner. Despite being very bad at art - by his own admission, he cannot really draw 3D cartoons and was the only student in the art course he signed up who flunked the course - he manifested himself into becoming a world-famous internationally syndicated cartoonist, by writing the sentence "I am a world-famous internationally syndicated cartoonist" one hundred times every day).

Anyway, Scott's comment goes something like this. Suppose you see your friend at the casino jackpot machines. Every time before he pulls the handle, he will pull his ears twice and do a 360 degrees turn. Then when he pulls the handle, he wins money! He does this again and again, and he wins again and again. Soon he has a million dollars in winnings.

You then ask your friend, "How do you keep winning?". He says, "Oh, if I pull my ears twice and do a 360 degrees turn, I just will win money!". You say, "How could that be possible?!". Your friend says, "I don't know. It just works!".

Scott then poses the question: what would you do? Would you also pull your ears twice, do a 360 degrees turn, and pull the jackpot machine handle, and see if you win money?

Or would you say, "This can't possibly work. It is [fraud] / [insanity] /[coincidence]/[superstition]/insert other reason[/i]]. I'm not going to pull my ears and do a 360 degrees turn."

Scott Adam's example, absurd as it sounds, offers interesting insights into the nature of human psychology. Faced with clear, direct evidence of the impossible, that something really odd actually works, even though you can't see HOW it works .....

1. Do you accept that it works? And start exploring it further, so that perhaps you can eventually understand better how it works, and what it can be used for?

OR

2. Do you just desperately start defending reality as you currently know it, and just insisting that the odd thing you saw so clearly working, was just [fraud] / [insanity] /[coincidence]/[superstition]/insert other reason[/i]] ...?

Suppose, Cantando, you are in pain, due to some illness, and painkillers etc have not helped you. I then say, "Cantando, there's a trick you can do with your mind to stop your pain, and I can help you do it. This trick is so powerful in relieving pain that even if I were to cut your hand with a saw, down to the bone, you would feel no pain."

Would you say:

"Thank you, ALG, please show me how."

Or at least:

"That sounds interesting, ALG, please tell me more about this. I want to know more about whether this really works, and what are the possible side effects etc ".

Or would you say:

"That's impossible, ALG. You're [mad] / [lying] / [superstitious] / [a cult member] / [unscientific]."

The odd thing about you, Cantando, is that you seem very religious, and yet you are "materialist-deterministic" in your outlook. It seems to me that you would probably believe that Jesus walked on water, and yet, if extensively interrogated for your final views on this matter, you'd eventually conclude that Jesus must have had a surfboard, or some special anti-gravity footwear designed by NASA.

(I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong about this, by the way. I'm just making a general observation about you and your way of thinking, based on what I've seen of your posts).

So for instance, you say that in your opinion, LOA works, but only if it is not against God's will. Proceeding from this basis, the question then arises - what would not be against God's will for you? Would God have any violent objections to you "magically" manifesting, say, a red hat? A blue feather? Empty parking lots? A prize bond win? Good health? Self-improvement? Psychic powers? Job opportunities? World peace? A new pet dog?

Where does your God draw the line? And based on what criteria?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Cantando

If I sat and did nothing for 5 days, except think about having a holiday home in the sun, would it manifest? Perhaps, if I died first, then experienced it in the afterlife!

Hmmm, 5 days would be quite awesome. Closest examples I can think of are from John Asharraf (I think that's his name) and Brian Tracy, and Uplift (a forummer who used to hang around here).

John's Story

John's story (as related in "The Secret") goes something like this. He's flipping through some "Home & Decor" magazines, he sees a house he likes very much. He cuts out the photo, sticks it on his vision board, presumably did some IM/LOA and forgot all about it.

In the next few years, he moves house a couple of times, due to work commitments, all around the country. The vision board and the photo has long been packed away in a box and forgotten.

One day, John and family move into a new house, a gorgeous one. They have dozens and dozens of boxes to unpack. John's young son helps with the unpacking. The boy opens a box, finds the vision board and says, "Daddy, what is this?"

John looks at the vision board, sees the photo of his long-forgotten "dream house". Suddenly, he realises that he and his family has just moved into it. The same exact house.

Took quite a bit longer than 5 days, but there you go.

Brian Tracy's House Story

This is related in Brian Tracy's book, "Goals!".

Long, long ago, when he and his wife were both broke and silly. Although they had no money, they dreamed of living in a very beautiful & luxurious house. They dreamed so much that they wrote down a detailed description of what their dream house would look like. They listed 43 very specific points in total -

"1. The garden should be like this; 2. The windows should be like that; 3. The bedroom view should be like this; 4. The fireplace should be over there; 5. The flooring should be made of XYZ material; ........." Etc.

As usual, they forgot all about the list, and just tucked it away somewhere. Years later, they were much, much richer and moved into a very grand new house. Then