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

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

LOL, poor Stephen, still at it. I suspect he even suspects that he's making a big point by attacking "The Secret".

Quite unknown to him, no real practitioner of the LOA would take Rhonda's "The Secret" very seriously. I certainly do not take Rhonda's "The Secret" very seriously. And I'm not merely this now, in order to argue with Stephen. I've already expressed my view about "The Secret" in the past - see here, for example.

"The Secret" is at best an introduction to the LOA. As far as marketing is concerned, it is certainly a very well-marketed product. However, it does not follow that the LOA therefore doesn't exist. To draw such a conclusion would be as illogical as saying that BMW is very good at marketing, therefore their cars do not actually exist or work.

ANYWAY .... while Stephen sulks angrily to himself, I'll just share another LOA story from my personal life. I notice that earlier on in this thread, I had written the following words:



Well, since then, the intention has manifested, and I have written about it elsewhere on this forum:

LoA inspirational stories please!

.... as well as, of course, on my personal blog diary. Basically, it's another case of manifesting money out of thin air. On 4th February, I had asked for $5,000 to come out of thin air. The very next day, 5th February, the universe sent the relevant circumstances straight into my life - no action required on my part.

The rest of the delay was due mostly to myself hemming and hawing - even as I sought to manifest other options. Yes, all those options appeared in a big hurry as well - six or seven in total. I'll spare you the details - I don't think any of you are really interested - but if anyone is, you can plough through my long & tedious blog entries through Feb, Mar, April up to today.


------

ANYWAY ..... I may have another interesting manifestation to report soon. This time it's about my intention to get my book published. A small personal dream for me.

I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch, but things are indeed moving rapidly since I did my intention last week. The publisher has now said "yes" in principle, we don't have a contract yet, but I will be going to their office tomorrow evening to sort things out. I'll keep you guys updated ....

(Oh before anyone asks, the book has absolutely nothing to do with the LOA)

I was thinking more of what Joe Vitale said....and I know he is well thought of round these parts........

paraphrased..Bad things, including natural disasters (earthquakes, typhoons etc) which kill people, are as a result of negative thoughts they have created...

oh please

not only is it idiocy but its downright offensive to the memories of so many people lost

[Acting Like Godot]

I'd share a couple of perspectives with you on that, but then by now I doubt your sincerity in this discussion.

Vitale is ok on techniques, practical applications etc. His major LOA contribution lies in bringing the traditional Hawaiian LOA methods (known as ho'oponopono) to a more general audience.

But on the kind of questions you raised, the better sources are Abraham Hicks; and Ramtha; or the earlier books of Gary Zukav (eg "The Seat of the Soul"). Or even Buddhism.

If you are intuitive enough, you'll glean insights on these sorts of questions from non-LOA sources like Brian Weiss and Raymond Moody.

The argument that "Starving children wouldn't attract starvation to themselves. The fact that there ARE starving children shows that LOA is false ...."

is essentially a similar argument to:

"If God exists and is good, He wouldn't let any children starve. The fact that there are starving children proves that God does not exist, or that God is bad."

which in turn is a cousin of the following argument:

"Bad things should not happen to good people"

which is a logical error known as the just-world fallacy, of which you are a victim.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I'd share a couple of perspectives with you on that, but then by now I doubt your sincerity in this discussion.

Vitale is ok on techniques, practical applications etc. His major LOA contribution lies in bringing the traditional Hawaiian LOA methods (known as ho'oponopono) to a more general audience.

But on the kind of questions you raised, the better sources are Abraham Hicks; and Ramtha; or the earlier books of Gary Zukav (eg "The Seat of the Soul"). Or even Buddhism.

If you are intuitive enough, you'll glean insights on these sorts of questions from non-LOA sources like Brian Weiss and Raymond Moody.

The argument that "Starving children wouldn't attract starvation to themselves. The fact that there ARE starving children shows that LOA is false ...."

is essentially a similar argument to:

"If God exists and is good, He wouldn't let any children starve. The fact that there are starving children proves that God does not exist, or that God is bad."

which in turn is a cousin of the following argument:

"Bad things should not happen to good people"

which is a logical error known as the just-world fallacy, of which you are a victim.

Good try. But as you know that's not what I am saying.

I am not debating with you about the problem of evil.

I am quite sincerely saying that it is quite ridicolous to say that the people who have died in the recent natural disasters in China and Burma, have done so, as a result of their combined negative thoughts which they have attracted into their lives.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I am quite sincerely saying that it is quite ridicolous to say that the people who have died in the recent natural disasters in China and Burma, have done so, as a result of their combined negative thoughts which they have attracted into their lives.[/size]

Yes, it is quite ridiculous to you, based on your current understanding of what death (and life) is.

However, if you understand that you have died (and lived) a couple of hundred times before, then you see the matter in quite a different perspective.

Before you accuse me of trivialising the sufferings of people in these two recent tragedies, I'd simply point out that most people from Myanmar, where Buddhism is the predominant religion, would quite agree with me.

Reincarnation is of course a fundamental concept in Buddhism, and it follows naturally from the idea of karma (another fundamental Buddhist concept) which in turn may be briefly explained as follows -

"Your own deeds and thoughts create all the events in your life."

In other words, it's the Law of Attraction again.

If you wish to understand better what I am saying in this post, you may refer to the sources which I have mentioned in Post No. 152.

[Acting Like Godot]

By the way, folks, I just wanted to update you on my Post No. 148. I just signed my new employment contract on Friday evening.

Here's Page 2 of my contract (I've blocked out certain confidential details). Click here to see a bigger version of the image, if you find the image below too small to read:



It is for $276,400 a year ($250,000 + $2,200 x 12) in local currency, which works out slightly more than USD 203,100, based on current rates.

I want to remind everyone how I got this job. One day, I manifested for money. The next day, I received this job offer. That's it.

Note - I had not told anyone that I was looking for a job; I had not sent out any job application; I had not even looked at any job ads.

This will sound miraculous to new forum readers and LOA beginners. But those who have practised LOA for a longer time will not be too surprised. Those who have been reading this forum for some time will also not be surprised, because this is hardly the first time I've done something like this (and narrated these incidents on this forum).

A good chunk of my recent job history is related here, together with scanned images of my employment documents.

Very briefly, in mid 2006, I was earning around $8,000 a month. Around that time, I first began to use the LOA. Now it is 2008, and I am earning $23,000 per month (or will be, once I start work in my new job in late June). In other words, with the LOA, it has taken just two short years to almost triple my monthly salary.

(Don't get me started on how my annual bonuses have also multipled in size. Here's the quarter-of-a-million dollars bonus that I received earlier this year ...).

Once again, I don't say this to boast, but to encourage you guys to go give the LOA a try (if you haven't already).

[Acting Like Godot]

Sorry, the linked image was quite blurred. I've re-scanned at higher resolution:

contract.jpg (image)

[Acting Like Godot]

A further update on my Post 148 - regarding this part:

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

ANYWAY ..... I may have another interesting manifestation to report soon. This time it's about my intention to get my book published. A small personal dream for me.

I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch, but things are indeed moving rapidly since I did my intention last week. The publisher has now said "yes" in principle, we don't have a contract yet, but I will be going to their office tomorrow evening to sort things out. I'll keep you guys updated ....

(Oh before anyone asks, the book has absolutely nothing to do with the LOA)

The publisher has agreed to publish my book. It will be in the local bookstories in the first quarter of 2008.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I was thinking more of what Joe Vitale said....and I know he is well thought of round these parts........

paraphrased..Bad things, including natural disasters (earthquakes, typhoons etc) which kill people, are as a result of negative thoughts they have created...

oh please

not only is it idiocy but its downright offensive to the memories of so many people lost

What people believe summons the proof. You believe that LOA is a bunch of crap and the people who believe it are idiotic. And you summon the proof to what you believe. No matter what anyone has said to you, you filter it through this perception.

If you were to conduct an experiment where you believed LOA was true and that the people who believe it are enlightened beings from Venus, you would prove that as well.

The point is that you perceive what you want to perceive. A belief is nothing more than a deeply embedded perception. You can not prove there is a world beyond what you perceive because that would require you to use perception to prove it, negating the hypothesis.

This is what the Law of Attraction states, nothing more and nothing less. What you believe, you prove.

[javamannen2]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The publisher has agreed to publish my book. It will be in the local bookstories in the first quarter of 2008.

So I take it you have performed some succesfull time traveling experiments lately?
Your I-M skills are really improving fast!

[Acting Like Godot]

My error. That should be 1st quarter of 2009.

Now as for time travel, I shall discuss this another time. Please do not be so quick to dismiss the notion as impossible. Here is a link for those who are curious:

The weirdest link

Excerpt of the relevant part relating to time travel:

Measure a photon's polarisation, for example, and you will get a particular result. Do it again some time later, and you will get a second result. What Brukner and Vedral have found is a strange connection between the past and the future: the very act of measuring the photon polarisation a second time can affect how it was polarised earlier on. "It's really surprising," says Vedral.

This entanglement between moments in time is so bizarre that it could expose a hole in the very fabric of quantum theory, the researchers believe. The formulation does not allow messages to be sent back in time, but it still means that quantum mechanics seems to be bending the laws of cause and effect. On top of that, entanglement in time puts space and time on an equal footing in quantum theory, and that goes sharply against the grain.

Space and time have always been very different in quantum theory. A location in space is an "observable" - like momentum or spin, spatial coordinates are just another property any quantum particle can have. The passing of time, on the other hand, has always been part of the backdrop. An electron can have a particular value of spin, or momentum or location, but it cannot have a particular time.

But if time can become entangled, it should be considered as an observable, and there is no way to write that into quantum theory. "People have tried, but something in quantum mechanics always has to be violated if you want a proper time-observable," Vedral says. "So it could be that something in quantum mechanics has to be reformulated."

In other words, Brukner's result suggests that we might be missing something important in our understanding of how the world works. Maybe that shouldn't surprise us. After all, entanglement between two spatially separated objects already tells us that space doesn't really have the form that classical physics says it does: instantaneous cause and effect across cosmological distances is not something that any theory of the universe can cope with. And now Brukner's result seems to extend this "impossibility" to events separated in time as well.

What does this mean? The suggestion is that future events can affect past events (including the present).

This is a new development, which we add onto the principle of nonlocality - that the behaviour of a subatomic particle can instantaneously affect another subatomic particle's behaviour, regardless of how far apart they may be.

(That was how the principle of nonlocality was originally formulated - now, of course we know that quantum effects can be measured at macroscopic levels, which means events on a much larger scale can instantaneously affect events elsewhere, regardless of distance).

Once you start grasping the significance of these principles, you may start to understand why the LOA can be used to create seemingly impossible effects in seemingly impossible ways.

After all, if distance and time don't matter, the movement of electrons in your brain must instantaneously be affecting events elsewhere, possibly very far away, and they could even be past events or future events.

Electrons being subatomic particles, and the movement of electrons in your brain being inevitable, as long as you think.

[torilink]

this makes so much sense ALG, I've always compared the NOW to dropping a rock into a puddle, the energy effects the entire puddle. The effect radiates in all directions and the movement is from the center. What I think/believe NOW (center of the puddle) effects the past & future and the present as well.

I've visualized past events as I desire they had happened in order to tweak what is & will be, and had much success.

[Arboretor]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

My error. That should be 1st quarter of 2009.
What does this mean? The suggestion is that future events can affect past events (including the present).

You may also be interested in Kurt Gödels (one of the greatest logicians of all time ) thoughts about space and time. See this book:

Powell's Books - A World Without Time by Palle Yourgrau

and
A World Without Time, Palle Yourgrau

[nightdiamond]

I understand skeptism- I am a skeptic myself. I am also open minded too...
So in order to get any benefit from both these aspects, I have learned to balance both views, one, to prevent being scammed, and protect myself from disappointment, being exploited... to avoid wasting time getting involved in something that leads to beng disallusioned or worse even....

The other, to take advantage of something that offers promise if it is real and genuine... if O.B.Es are real, for example, to know there is an afterlife, something beyond this life... if manifesting is real to use these abilities to enrich and better life..... after all if there IS a possibility at all there is something else beyond this existence, I would like to know! You would have to be a fool to not want to know.... So I get what A.L.G is saying...

But if I can understand the desire to believe, I can definetly understand skepticism... I've been there, explored the thoughts, feelings, concepts.... that's why I understand views from maxdof and stephen... and also why I am comfortable with skepticism while at the same time exploring the concept of I.M and other things...

Personally, I prefer to experiment with I.M without using concepts from L.O.A ..I am an experimenter, willing to investigate something and if it works, I note it, remember it's my personal experience, but at least I can say I "know" from personal experience it works, and not just believe it does....

Be back with some more comments..discuss, discuss amongst yourselves...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by nightdiamond

So in order to get any benefit from both these aspects, I have learned to balance both views, one, to prevent being scammed, and protect myself from disappointment, being exploited... to avoid wasting time getting involved in something that leads to beng disallusioned or worse even....

Fear not, I am not selling any DVDs, books or seminars. I run no church or temple and I do not ask for any tithes or donations. I am too lazy to even put up Google ads on my blog.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by nightdiamond

I understand skeptism- I am a skeptic myself. I am also open minded too...
So in order to get any benefit from both these aspects, I have learned to balance both views, one, to prevent being scammed, and protect myself from disappointment, being exploited... to avoid wasting time getting involved in something that leads to beng disallusioned or worse even....

If IM works they way it has been stated, wouldn't you have to drop the belief of being a skeptic, at least temporarily?

[nightdiamond]

I want you to join MY church ALG... (Taking all donations )

mercuryrising: If IM works they way it has been stated, wouldn't you have to drop the belief of being a skeptic, at least temporarily?

I understand what you're saying mercuryrising...here's a way of looking at it...if I try I.M beginning as a skeptic and it works, then it seems that being a skeptic doesn't stop it from working ...which can mean then that continuing to be a skeptic shouldn't stop the process from working either...

Here's another idea...an old religious concept of faith-you must have faith when you pray, or else even if you are sincere, your prayer won't be heard..it's as if God would be offended that you didn't believe enough when you prayed, so he refuses to acknowledge the prayer..

One can argue though, that the very ACT of just getting down on one's knees and praying could be considered an act of faith even if that person has a little doubt don't you think? In fact, attempting to pray when you have doubt may show a greater act of faith than prayer when you already believe....

I think sometimes, with certain ideas about L.O.A, we are lead to believe that you have to have an almost superhuman belief that we already have what we want but with no doubts whatsoever.. even the slightest doubt, then the whole process is ruined...that's exhausting and unrealistic to me....

I use skepticism more like a tool than a way of life... if I see something that looks too suspicious or silly then I will pass it by... and if something works I study it more, keep it, practice it....

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Fear not, I am not selling any DVDs, books or seminars. I run no church or temple and I do not ask for any tithes or donations. I am too lazy to even put up Google ads on my blog.

Reassurance-via-humor: I am buying* what you're selling precisely because you're NOT selling

*not my original phrasing, but I'm trying my best to stick to the "now" concept

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The publisher has agreed to publish my book.

This is especially interesting to me because you were having a difficult time with this one. Why do you suppose this one took so long to manifest? Money, you seem to be able to just *poof* no problem. But getting the book published didn't come so easily. And do you have any idea why now? Why not earlier?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

This is especially interesting to me because you were having a difficult time with this one. Why do you suppose this one took so long to manifest? Money, you seem to be able to just *poof* no problem. But getting the book published didn't come so easily. And do you have any idea why now? Why not earlier?

I realise that I did do a couple of different things with this IM exercise. And as you know, it then manifested very quickly. I would suspect that it's one or more of those different things I did, which led to the success. These are the differences:

1. In the past, I would manifest for a specific, known publisher to agree to publish my book, OR I would manifest that I would find a publisher who would like the manuscript.

This time I manifested the other way around. I did not intend that I would find the right publisher. I intended that the right publisher would find me. In other words, I flipped the process.

It brings to mind Steve's polarity concept - which I never did like and never did agree with. But perhaps Steve could be right, after all, who knows. Another point that I'll have to investigate in my future LOA adventures.

2. I tended that the intention would be for the "highest good of all concerned". Meaning me the writer; and also the publisher; and also the readers who would eventually buy the book.

The "highest good for all concerned" is a standard exhortation in the Silva Method, and there's also a close equivalent in Pavlina's standard IM formula method. However, I have to say that it hasn't yet become a habitual feature in my own IM attempts. Sometimes I intend it; usually I forget.

This time I didn't forget - furthermore it wasn't merely an empty recital in my head. I did really intend that it would be for the "highest good of all concerned"; and as I said, in my mind, I was thinking that this should include the publisher and the readers.

------

I don't know for sure yet .... Another incident to record in my personal blog, perhaps in the future I will understand this better.