Advanced LOA proof and practice.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I find it interesting that so many of you say you are attracting John Freestone's into your life.

All of us attract every person in our respective lives.

In addition, the role which the attractee plays in the attractor's reality is predominantly created by the attractor's mind.

Here is a simple example. Richloaguy made some comment about quantum physics. Holistic Star doubted that comment. I offered a clarification. Holistic Star replied, "Thank you very much for your explanation. That is very clear."

John, however, perceived Holistic Star as correcting me on some error that I had committed, regarding quantum physics. In addition, John perceived me as having ignored that correction.

"Oh, but I just realised it is also you, Mystic Star, who, having corrected ALG on his quantum physics, said "Thankyou that was very clear" when the correction was ignored. That's odd."

Where is the basis for John's perceptions? None that I can see, in terms of any text actually written by anyone in this thread. But why did John have such perceptions?

Well, it's the LOA again, right. What you believe, you'll see. John believes that the LOA is false; and therefore he believes that my quantum physics perspective on it must be wrong; and therefore he believes that Holistic Star must have been correcting me about it.

And what he believes, he will see. Even if nobody else can.

Therefore Holistic Star's role in John's reality is whatever John's thoughts dictate that the role should be.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

All of us attract every person in our respective lives.

Maybe, but I haven't seen enough evidence yet to convince me that the five-year-old playing happily on the sidewalk attracted the drunk driver who hit and killed him. I believe this happens because of a stupid thought/action process of the drunk driver, and had nothing to do with the child (except that the child unknowingly was in the wrong place at the wrong time, which can not be prevented unless you have the psychic abilities of Jesus Christ, perhaps).

I do believe we play the most active part in creating our lives. Plato's Law states: "A grateful mind is a great mind which eventually attracts to itself great things," and I have seen plenty of evidence for this. Indeed, it makes sense, since only a grateful person could even appreciate what they have (it's the very definition of being grateful). My own life is going great and I express gratitude for all of it. But I see no reason to think that EVERY single little thing that happens to a person is because of that person.

You said, "What you believe, you'll see." And I agree with you, because this statement is only in your head. It's your perception of reality, which is often very different than reality itself. What we see is not always the truth, even if we think it is. Every single person in the world could think that the Sun doesn't exist... and yet there it would be, just shining like it always does.

I do like some aspects of the LOA belief. The main thing is that it forces personal responsibility. Too many people in the world tend to blame others for problems of their own creation. At least LOA says, "Nope, it's your own fault." The problem is that LOA says EVERYTHING is your fault, which doesn't seem logical to me.

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

I wish Johnny would take this opportunity to explain exactly what his Crusade really is all about. It seems quite irrational in itself - even more so as he approaches hysteria. It's like going into a Christian forum and saying "Jesus sucks" repeatedly. What's the point?

It's not like going into a Christian forum and saying "Jesus sucks." You would be banned quickly for doing that at any large Christian forum, and John would have been banned by now if he wasn't engaging in intelligent conversation.

Any large forum is going to attract people with different viewpoints. Large Atheist forums are filled with Christians sharing their views and vice versa. People will argue and discuss for different reasons such as entertainment, conversion (very rare I observe), a deeper understanding of both sides, etc.

[justinf77]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

All of us attract every person in our respective lives.

This is something I also need further clarification on. Are you saying that I attracted you to this forum to read your comments? Or did Daffy Duck? Or did Holistic Star?

Basically, how does the LOA function with regard to a number of people and intentions?

[Eisho]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I do believe we play the most active part in creating our lives.

In my opinion though the active part we play is already colored for us. We are already molded. Already pre-disposed.

How two people react to the 'truth' of the LoA was decided for each of us a long time ago. How two people react to the 'truth' that our minds create our reality was similarly decided.

Cheers,

Eisho

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Maybe, but I haven't seen enough evidence yet to convince me that the five-year-old playing happily on the sidewalk attracted the drunk driver who hit and killed him.

Right. In this case, if your inquiry goes far enough, it will lead you to explore the meaning of death. And then perhaps you'll find the answers that you're looking for.

Every single person in the world could think that the Sun doesn't exist... and yet there it would be, just shining like it always does.

No. Not every single person in the world could think that the sun doesn't exist. For instance, I wouldn't be able to. This would require such a massive unravelling of my belief system that it's pretty much impossible.

So yours is a common misconception about how the LOA works. To give you a simple example, a person addicted to smoking may casually think to himself "I am no longer addicted to smoking."

Well, if that is all he thinks, I assure you that he would be no more successful than the person who casually thinks, "The sun no longer exists."

However, if the smoker does conscientiously work on his thought patterns (perhaps, for example, by using hypnosis to access deeper states of mind to plant thoughts such as "I am free of my addiction", "My lungs are fresh and clean", "cigarettes are replusive to me etc) over a period of time, then it is reasonable to expect that indeed he could rapidly be free of his addiction.

The sun example is more extreme, and therefore represents a belief much more difficult to unravel than beliefs about an addiction (and as I say, in practice, probably just outright impossible). Again in practice, this is hardly of much significance, since there would hardly be anyone who harbours a strong desire for the non-existence of the sun.

Following logically from my line of reasoning, you see that it is too grand a statement to say that all things are possible for you, with the LOA.

More correctly, the statement should be phrased as follows: "All things are possible for you, with the LOA, to the extent that you are able to consciously control your mind." The point here being - all of us have quite limited control of our minds.

--------------

Theoretically, just for the purposes of discussion, what might happen if a person with advanced mind abilities were to keep meditating on the non-existence of the sun? (As stated, this is a very theoretical question - since I really don't see who would want to do such a thing).

I imagine that possibly he might go very blind. Such that he will never see sunlight again. Possibly he might die. Or circumstances may lead him to live in a dark, gloomy home in a dark, gloomy part of the world. Perhaps he'll end up working the night shift all the time. Haha.

But for the purposes of LOA experiments, why bother with such intentions? I advise you to select intentions of some practical benefit or use to yourself.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by justinf77

This is something I also need further clarification on. Are you saying that I attracted you to this forum to read your comments? Or did Daffy Duck? Or did Holistic Star?

Basically, how does the LOA function with regard to a number of people and intentions?

It is collective and multi-directional.

In a simple two-person example, eg a husband and a wife, or a robber and his victim, or a teacher and a student, each party attracts the other. In a multi-person example, (eg let's say there are 10 people working together in one group), each person has attracted the other nine. Each person also plays a role in the respective realities of nine other persons.

In this forum, I have attracted you into my reality, as surely as you have attracted me into yours. The role you play in my reality is fundamentally dictated by my mind; and the role I play in your reality is fundamentally dictacted by yours.

For example, if your mind is of the firm view that I am an eccentric, crazy person, then that is the role I play in your reality, and though you know nothing of me beyond what I write in these forums, you will see abundant evidence of my eccentricity and craziness.

Alternatively, if your mind is of the firm view that I know the LOA very well and have a lot to share with you about this topic, then that is the role I play in your reality, and though you know nothing of me beyond what I write in these forums, you will see abundant evidence of my knowledge of the LOA and my willingness to share it.

And if your mind is simply not interested in the topics I write about, then your mind will simply tend to skip over threads and posts where I have written something, and you may not even notice my existence.

----------

The poster Impaul99 once posted in these forums about a LOA experiment he did. IIRC, for the purposes of this experiment, what he did was that he deliberately meditated on thoughts about rudeness and unkindness. He then reported that within the next few hours, he met a series of very rude people in different sorts of places (including a very rude driver on the road; a very disgruntled cashier at a supermarket etc etc).

This striking experiment tends to illustrate how the people in our respective realities are all, in some way, reflections of what goes on in our own consciousness.

This is not to say that all people in our respective realities play an equally important role. Clearly, there are some people who play a bigger role in each person's life. These include people whom you interact most frequently with and/or people who you feel most strongly about and/or people with whom you have long-term relationships. These people appear in your reality, because of the more-dominant and significant attitudes, beliefs etc that you have percolating in your consciousness.

Also, you might notice that even as your external surroundings change (eg because you move to another city; graduate from college; change jobs etc), there may be certain types of people who keep recurring in your reality, even though you did not deliberately seek them out. For example, you may be the woman who keeps getting the abusive boyfriend; or the employee who keeps getting an abusive boss - no matter how many times you change boyfriends or change jobs. Again this is a reflection of something going on in your consciousness.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Eisho

In my opinion though the active part we play is already colored for us. We are already molded. Already pre-disposed.

We are always already molded. There is an interesting word that some Buddhist books use - "beginninglessness". That is where our consciousness first began. Each of us comes with a lot of baggage.

What we are, however, is evolving. How we think and feel, at five years of age, won't quite be the same as how we think and feel, at 10, or 18, or 25, or 50 or 70.

So the question is - how actively do you want to manage your evolution? How much do you want to try, to learn to feel and think better? Whatever "better" means to you.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

But I see no reason to think that EVERY single little thing that happens to a person is because of that person.

And if you carry on far enough, your inquiry will lead you to consider the meaning of a "person".

What is a "person"; where does "he" begin; where does he "end". Is a person merely his flesh, his bones, his blood? Is he also his words, and his deeds? If he is also his words and his deeds, then is he also the thoughts that produced those words and deeds? What then are the causes of those thoughts and deeds? And what are the causes of those causes?

Do you not know the "persons" you know, by their names, their jobs, their homes, their family members, their cultures, their societies, their countries, their genes, the history of their clans, the stories that they tell you about themselves? And the planet that they live on?

If that is how you know a "person", does a "person" really end where his body ends? Or is he not part of all the things you know him by - in other words, his name, his job, his home, his family members, his culture, his society, his country, his genes, his history, his stories, his planet? Does the person end where his body ends, or is there no boundary, is he simply part of a greater ever-expandig chain of events and circumstances which include his name, his job, his home, his family members, his culture, his society, his country, his genes, his history, his stories, his planet?

Where does the body end anyway? If the body is made up of mostly empty space and a few subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence, then how is the body different from the chair it sits on, which is also mostly empty space and the same kids of subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence? Indeed how is the body to be differentiated from the air around it, or from the entire universe itself (since it's the same mostly-empty space with the same subatomic particles). Isn't it just one extended, perfectly uniform quantum field of mostly empty space and blinking particles that we perceive .... a person .... to exist?

At the end of this ...

Do you see that a "person" is merely a concept? And what is a concept, how does it arise, where does it ever live .... except in your mind?

Now go back to your statement:

But I see no reason to think that EVERY single little thing that happens to a person is because of that person.

And ask yourself - what is a "single little thing"? Then ask yourself what is a "person"?

Then ask yourself, what are the concepts that I have applied, in answering the above two questions?

Then ask yourself, "Where did those concepts arise? Could they have arisen differently? If I had chosen otherwise ...?"

And then ..... revisit your own question again.

And THEN, ask yourself ... What can EVER exist, if I did not have a concept for it?

[Eisho]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Where does the body end anyway? If the body is made up of mostly empty space and a few subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence, then how is the body different from the chair it sits on, which is also mostly empty space and the same kids of subatomic particles blinking in and out of existence? Indeed how is the body to be differentiated from the air around it, or from the entire universe itself (since it's the same mostly-empty space with the same subatomic particles). Isn't it just one extended, perfectly uniform quantum field of mostly empty space and blinking particles that we perceive .... a person .... to exist?

But this is just one view of 'reality' - one that is no more or less true than simply looking at someone and simply seeing a person.

People throughout history have consistently made the mistake of confusing a contemporary 'truth' with some kind of ultimate truth. Our current view of a uniform quantum field is nothing more than a contemporary truth. It offers just another level, another way to view things.

However much you deconstruct phenomenal existence, you are still confronted with it. Whether you are able to 'see' (or imagine) the people in front of you at a quantum level or not, they are still in front of you as people. That is the first way in which we both perceive and conceive them.

What this simply means to me as regards the LoA is this: Can you use the LoA to get what you want in life? By LoA I mean the idea that a benevolent universe will give you anything you fixate on. For anyone who can do that, good luck to you. Cure cancer. If you can't receive anything you want, then I would suggest you start looking for more plausible reasons for your success and implement them more consciously and regularly to bring you closer to what you want.

Cheers,

Eisho

[Eisho]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

We are always already molded. There is an interesting word that some Buddhist books use - "beginninglessness". That is where our consciousness first began. Each of us comes with a lot of baggage.

I don't agree with this interpretation of beginninglessness. To me, it refers to the notion that I simultaneously have no beginning and no end. It is synonymous with endlessness. I am all things at all times...now...

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

What we are, however, is evolving. How we think and feel, at five years of age, won't quite be the same as how we think and feel, at 10, or 18, or 25, or 50 or 70.

So the question is - how actively do you want to manage your evolution? How much do you want to try, to learn to feel and think better? Whatever "better" means to you.

Yes, becoming 'better' is a goal. The issue is which vehicles I / we choose to use to become better. If the LoA works for you and for others on this forum then use it to become 'better'. If it doesn't work, then don't use it (or, rather, try to use it). That would be a waste of your time and resources.

Cheers,

Eisho

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Eisho

What this simply means to me as regards the LoA is this: Can you use the LoA to get what you want in life? By LoA I mean the idea that a benevolent universe will give you anything you fixate on. For anyone who can do that, good luck to you. Cure cancer. If you can't receive anything you want, then I would suggest you start looking for more plausible reasons for your success and implement them more consciously and regularly to bring you closer to what you want.

Essentially, I agree.

I do not think that with the LOA, I will get anything I want. After all, I do not have perfect control of my thoughts.

However, the proposition here is that the better you are able to consciously control and direct your thoughts, the more you will be able to influence and direct your reality, in ways that are pleasing to yourself.

So there are limits. For instance, perhaps I can't make the sun disappear, but I could possibly make a wide variety of my personal problems disappear. You see?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Eisho

But this is just one view of 'reality' - one that is no more or less true than simply looking at someone and simply seeing a person.

That is correct too.

The key point however is what you've missed. The more a person can appreciate that multiple perspectives on reality are possible, the more he will realise that what he perceives as reality is merely his perception, and what he thinks of as reality, is merely his thought.

The more he realises that what he perceives as reality is merely his perception, and that what he thinks of as reality is merely his thought, the more he will be interested in exploring how he may adjust his perceptions and his thoughts.

The more he is interested in those explorations, the more he will become able to make those adjustments. Therefore the more he is able to influence and direct and create his reality in ways that are pleasing to himself.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Right. In this case, if your inquiry goes far enough, it will lead you to explore the meaning of death. And then perhaps you'll find the answers that you're looking for.

Since I was a young preteen I have studied many different religions and philosophies. I assure you I've already thought a lot about death, life, what a "person" is, and so on. I'm sure I will continue to think about such things for my whole life. I don't run into many new ideas, but I do see people discussing them in new ways quite often.

No. Not every single person in the world could think that the sun doesn't exist. For instance, I wouldn't be able to.

Please note the difference between "could" and "would." Of course, it is possible everyone could think such a thing, but I agree it would never happen.

So yours is a common misconception about how the LOA works. To give you a simple example, a person addicted to smoking may casually think to himself "I am no longer addicted to smoking."

And what kind of misconception is that? Are you telling me about not speaking to the Universe in a negative sense? As in, one should not say "I am not addicted." It is better to think in the positive and present sense, such as you said, "I am free of my addiction."

If that's the misconception you were thinking, I already learned that a long time ago. From Jack Canfield, I believe.

"All things are possible for you, with the LOA, to the extent that you are able to consciously control your mind." The point here being - all of us have quite limited control of our minds.

I suppose my point is just a variation of the classic question: Can God make a rock so big that He can't move it? Saying "all things are possible" is kind of a self-defeating statement.

For example, if your mind is of the firm view that I am an eccentric, crazy person, then that is the role I play in your reality, and though you know nothing of me beyond what I write in these forums, you will see abundant evidence of my eccentricity and craziness.

Well, sure. You're just talking about perception.

I'll give an example. Every day my house contains my car keys. I may walk by them a hundred times and never notice them. Only when I direct my mind to "pickup my car keys" is when I notice them and pick them up. This isn't anything magical -- I did not alter reality, I did not use LOA to manifest my car keys "out of thin air." They were always there. I just decided to notice them. Our mind can only consciously notice so many things at once.

So when someone focuses on the negative, and they start seeing bad drivers, rude cashiers and so on, they are not creating a new reality. They are simply focusing or projecting their own emotions on something that was always there. They're making a value judgment. This is all going on in their head and has nothing to do with the reality "out there."

When one speaks of using LOA to influence what goes on "out there" against natural laws that govern it, such as saying "LOA will make it so I can fly by flapping my arms," I think people are just fooling themselves. As an extreme example, even if someone had perfect control of their mind and thoughts, I don't think it's possible that one could blow up the whole Universe by just thinking about it (not that a highly thinking person would want to do so anyway). Some things are probably inherently impossible.

So in conclusion, what is Daffy saying? I don't deny that LOA techniques can work. I mean, they worked before it was called the "Law of Attraction" and the New Age group applied their own spiritual philosophies to it. The basic techniques are very simple and common sense. But the interesting thing is why it works. Does LOA work because the "Universe conspires to work for you," or rather because it directs your own mind to accomplish things? I think the latter is more correct. You won't become a professional bodybuilder by sitting in a room thinking about it, but if you direct your mind and body to lift weights and eat well, then you can achieve the goal.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Eisho

Yes, becoming 'better' is a goal. The issue is which vehicles I / we choose to use to become better. If the LoA works for you and for others on this forum then use it to become 'better'. If it doesn't work, then don't use it (or, rather, try to use it). That would be a waste of your time and resources.

All your "vehicles" are thought-driven. Therefore they are also the workings of the LOA. That's what you're not seeing.

For example, you may decide: "To become `better' in [ ], I will ... exercise regularly .... make new friends ... relax more ..... pray to God .... take a time management course ..... work harder .... take a walk ..... buy a new camera .... be kind to animals .... keep my desk tidy".

But all these activities are processes of your consciousness. All these activities are driven by your mind. In fact, the very decision to pursue any of these activities is also a process of your mind. The belief that any of these activities will help you, is a belief, and therefore a process of your mind.

Once you understand that the mind is the be-all and end-all, you may well see that you might as well cut to the chase and get to the root of the issue, whatever your issue may be. And the root is always in your own mind.

Even the idea of "better" is in your mind. You say that the goal is to become "better". What is "better"? What is "worse"? Why? What are your reasons for believing or feeling this? Once again ... it goes back to your own mind.

[Daffy Duck]

Think about what you're thinking about what you're thinking about.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

And what kind of misconception is that? Are you telling me about not speaking to the Universe in a negative sense?

No. Let me explain your misconception. Your reasoning runs as follows:

(1) If LOA is true, then whatever I think will happen.
(2) I can think, "The sun does not exist."
(3) But the sun will still exist.
(4) Therefore the LOA is false.

The above is a misconception, because not all your thoughts will change reality, as per the text of your thoughts. The counter-example I provided is of the smoker who thinks casual thoughts about not smoking, but notes no change in his smoking habits.

The smoker example simply illustrates that not all thoughts translate into observable reality, or into changes significant enough to matter. This does not mean that the LOA is false, any more than your sun example shows that the LOA is false.

Another example. Suppose one day a mediocre student thinks to himself, "I am going to score straight A's". And that's it - he never repeats the thought; he never follows through with it; he never builds or cultivates or grows that thought any further. We would not expect him to score straight A's.

What if he does build, cultivate or grow that thought? What if he thinks every day about scoring straight A's, and how he's going to do it, and how exciting it would be, and what are the ideas and strategies for going about it, and where he will get help, and what he needs to do, and how fun this piece of homework is, and how interesting this essay question is .....?

Now we begin to see that the thought grows. At some point, it will be large enough to affect and influence reality. Studying, or working hard, or reading, or whatever other activity this student believes is necessary for straight A's, will become this student's passion. Then come the straight A's.

And of course, people with poor understanding of the LOA will say, "Well, he still needs to study. He still needs to attend class and pay attention. Thinking about straight A's alone is not enough".

What these people don't understand is that your actions are also part of reality. Your thought affects your reality. Therefore your thought affects your actions too (among other things in your reality). If you did not have the thought or intention of studying, you would not have studied. If you did not have the intention of studying hard, you would not have studied hard.

Quite apart from all these, from LOA theory, we predict that other external circumstances will present themselves (if the student has the necessary intention) to assist the student in fulfilling the intention. Eg the necessary teachers may appear; the necessary funds may appear; the appropriate studying environment may appear etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I'll give an example. Every day my house contains my car keys. I may walk by them a hundred times and never notice them. Only when I direct my mind to "pickup my car keys" is when I notice them and pick them up. This isn't anything magical -- I did not alter reality, I did not use LOA to manifest my car keys "out of thin air." They were always there. I just decided to notice them. Our mind can only consciously notice so many things at once.

Right. You are referring to the reticular activating cortex. The mind will find whatever it is motivated to find.

I believe that the reticular activating cortex is ONE way that the LOA works, And no doubt it is an important way.

However I do not believe that it is the ONLY way that the LOA works.

But the interesting thing is why it works. Does LOA work because the "Universe conspires to work for you," or rather because it directs your own mind to accomplish things? I think the latter is more correct.

The latter will certainly appear to be more correct, if you view reality in the way that most people view reality.

However it will begin to seem less correct, once you are able to see that your view of reality is merely a view, and many different views of reality are possible and are, as Eisho put it, "no more or no less true".

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

What if he does build, cultivate or grow that thought? What if he thinks every day about scoring straight A's, and how he's going to do it, and how exciting it would be, and what are the ideas and strategies for going about it, and where he will get help, and what he needs to do, and how fun this piece of homework is, and how interesting this essay question is .....?

Then he is changing his actions. I agree that thoughts direct action, and action directs the reality "out there." (Outside of just our perception)

But as I'm sure you're aware, there are many LOA teachers who do say that your thoughts alone can change the "out there" reality. In other words, you can sit in a room thinking "I have straight A's" and you will have straight A's (with no other action required). This is the teaching that I find to be untrue, and apparently you do too.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

However it will begin to seem less correct, once you are able to see that your view of reality is merely a view, and many different views of reality are possible and are, as Eisho put it, "no more or no less true".

It's possible Eisho is mistaken.

If a child comes to me and says, "Cats run away when dogs chase them, but cats grow wings and fly away when a bear chases them," is it accurate to say that this child's reality is "no more or no less true?" I think it's fair to say the child's perception of reality is skewed, and it is indeed less true.

Now sure, you can go into the argument that "flying away" is just a concept and all concepts are in our mind and so on, but that's just what I call "changing the goal posts." If we use that logic, then everything is true and everything is false.

There must be an absolute reality. Two of the most popular thoughts are:

a) reality is subjective, everyone is right in their own way, which is the objective truth.
b) reality is objective, and many are wrong about it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

This is the teaching that I find to be untrue, and apparently you do too.

Actually, no. Do read the last paragraph of that post of mine.

IMO, in general, it is actually not merely false, but egoistic, to believe that your intentions come true mainly because of your own actions. This kind of falsity stems from a very small view of reality.

Imagine a bird living in a forest. It has the desire to live, and it lives. Is this intention manifested solely by its own deliberate actions? Of course not. An entire ecosystem exists, to sustain the bird's life. Not to mention, a host of biological & chemical processes in its own body.

And the same applies for us. Say I form the intention to be very successful in my career and to be promoted, and I succeed. Even if we disregard the LOA entirely, can I truly say that my success and promotion is due solely by my own actions?

Of course not! There are numerous other factors, such as:

(1) the organisational needs of the company at the time
(2) the relative performance of my colleagues
(3) the support of my colleagues
(4) the subjective opinions of my boss
(5) the details of HR policies relating to promotions
(6) the availability of resources that enable me to do my work well
(7) the movements of other people in the organisation (some may resign; leave; transfer, creating the space for me to be promoted);
(8) my serendipitious good fortune in reading some Steve Pavlina article about productivity or effective communication, which unconsciously influenced me at work; and

(9) the entire global economy which ultimately affects the national economy which ultimately affects my company and its growth, which affects its need to promote me.

In this sense, one view is that a person's own actions may be said to play a minimal role in his own life. Instead great invisible forces are constantly at work which the person may or may not be aware of at all. (And what I'm suggesting here is that consciousness is the thread that weaves those forces together into a tapestry called that person's reality).

The person who thinks that things happen in his life, mainly because of his own actions, is just having a small little view of reality. So very small, that his own limited actions appear to be very large in the overall scheme of that reality's things.

[Daffy Duck]

So you're talking about how society (and nature) affects us all. I understand that, I love Sociology. But this is a different thing than saying something like "the Universe sees your intention and conspires to make it come true." These forces are not "invisible," although it sounds so mysterious and adventurous when you put it that way! Maybe you should write a book and call it The Secret.

I think it is fair to give yourself some credit for your own actions. The 9 things you listed could all be true, but if your actions did not work to use those things to your advantage, then you would not be in the position you are in. I did not suggest that your actions control everything, and likewise, I have been writing against the idea that your thoughts control everything.

Btw, I had a feeling you were going to quote that one sentence of mine, and you did. Must be LOA!

[Acting Like Godot]

Where you are headed, Daffy, is that there is some "objective" reality which your thoughts cannot affect (to any extent that is significant or measurable, for any practical purpose).

I am happy to agree with that statement to some extent. In fact I would go so far as to say that there are some aspects of both "subjective" and "objective" reality, which your thoughts cannot affect (to any extent that is significant or measurable, for any practical purpose).

Where I am challenging you is to identify the boundary right between what your thoughts can affect, and what they cannot.

I haven't found that boundary yet, after a few years of active trying. But I am much better off, for having tried. Life just keeps better and better.

To put it simply, there are MANY people in these forums, who will talk theoretically about they see as the limits of the LOA. "You can't make the sun disappear .... You can't flap your wings and fly ...." etc. But there are fewer people in these forums, who will talk about what they've actually tried to do with the LOA in actual practice, and how they've actually succeeded or failed.

----

My monthly salary has tripled in the 3 years that I've used the LOA. It's true. I've written about it every step of the way, in these forums ... Actually the increase is slightly more than 300%. I even posted image files of my salary statements in these forums etc.

Are these all attributable to merely my own actions? Seriously ... that would be an extremely egoistic, narrow view.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

But there are fewer people in these forums, who will talk about what they've actually tried to do with the LOA in actual practice, and how they've actually succeeded or failed.

Well, I could tell you some conscious goals I have accomplished, if you wish. These are things I have consciously decided I wanted and work towards. You can call this the "LOA" if you wish.

I'm the first in my family to go to college, and I'm doing very well. I've more than doubled my income in the past twelve months with a new career and generated passive income. I have a very happy relationship with a woman I very much enjoy. I just got back from Canada, finally the first time I have traveled out of the USA, and I learned how to snowboard.

So yay for conscious direction! Yay for not living life on autopilot!

I could continue, but I don't feel like scanning images of my salary stubs. Forgive me.

Are these all attributable to merely my own actions? Seriously ... of course not, but it wouldn't of happened on autopilot either.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

But this is a different thing than saying something like "the Universe sees your intention and conspires to make it come true."

Yes, it is a separate point and needs to be examined separately.

The evidence for that point is diverse in nature. Where we might begin to look is at events where a person generates thought, and although there is no other relevant physical action of any kind, an observable effect begins to occur in reality that corresponds to that thought.

There are plenty of examples of those kinds. I have given numerous examples before, eg William Tiller's fruit fly experiment; the Copenhagen experiment; NASA's remote viewing projects; Chinese qigong masters' telekinetic feats; Prof Robert Jahn's experiments of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory; the Rosenthal experiment; Dean Radin's double-blind replication of Masaru Emoto's water crystal experiments; the original Rhine psychic experiments; the accelerated healing of broken bones in Harvard Medical School's hypnosis experiments etc.

I could give dozens more examples. Fact is, these examples are of limited use, because any person could apply any perception he wishes, to any of these experiments. This is the fundamental ability of that person, to create reality in his own way.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Are these all attributable to merely my own actions? Seriously ... of course not, but it wouldn't of happened on autopilot either.

Well, ultimately in a discussion, there will be a point where the participants have to go their separate ways, and we probably have come to it.

Like any other person, I have had many different goals and ambitions. For some, I have taken a lot of action; for others, I have, as you put it, asked for autopilot, and indeed, they happened in an autopilot manner. I have experimented with the LOA extensively, in different ways, in different situations (and even been quite meticulous about regular recording all of these in writing, over extended periods of time)

On the sum total of my personal experiences, I have no doubt that the LOA works, and that it works beyond the scope of my personal actions.

On the sum total of your personal experiences, you have no doubt that the LOA works, but that it is limited to the scope of your personal actions.

I, of course, have been where you are now, and therefore do understand it. Your perspectvie is very common, very usual, and would not significantly differ from that of, sya, my grandmother.

You have not been where I am, and (I presume) have not experimented with the LOA anywhere as much as I myself hav done, and so it's more likely your understanding of the LOA would be rather dissimilar from mine.

This of course does not limit your ability to create your reality the way you want, and so it is open to you to have me play a role in your reality as your mind directs, eg in your reality I could be delusional, eccentric, seriously mistaken etc.

In my reality, you are a person who hasn't really peered hard enough at your own mind and reality. Most people in my reality haven't done much of that anyway. So there's nothing "abnormal" or "atypical" about you (not in my reality, anyway)

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Well, I could tell you some conscious goals I have accomplished, if you wish. These are things I have consciously decided I wanted and work towards. You can call this the "LOA" if you wish.

No, wrong context. We had narrowed down to the more esoteric / controversial / reality-bending aspects of the LOA by that point in that discussion. Not the conventional achievement of goals.

Anyway, goodbye.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

On the sum total of my personal experiences, I have no doubt that the LOA works, and that it works beyond the scope of my personal actions.

On the sum total of your personal experiences, you have no doubt that the LOA works, but that it is limited to the scope of your personal actions.

I see that we are basically playing semantics. I see a lot of things happen in my life, things that could be described as chance happenings, things falling conveniently into place, but I am unsure if that is just how life works, or if there is some Law at work. You, on the other hand, if I understand correctly, have declared it is more than just a happy chance. You see evidence and have applied a theory to it, much like a science. Many Christians say that God puts everything in place for them, and you seem to be saying something similar, in different words. Anyway, we describe the same thing in different ways. I'm not a Christian, but I do believe in and pray to God, so maybe I would describe it similar to the Christians.

One thing I've noticed in your conversations with others is your Wise Man role that you play. Have you ever noticed in business that when you talk confidently, people listen to you more? I think it works online too. To be fair, you seem to be a successful man with a lot of experience, so by most standards you are a Wise Man, so it's no surprise you speak as one.

I, of course, have been where you are now, and therefore do understand it.

In my reality, you are a person who hasn't really peered hard enough at your own mind and reality.

Sounds like the Wise Man, teaching his young ones. "Sonny, I remember when I thought like you..." You're nice though, and have included the "In my reality" disclaimer. But I think you do assume a bit much about me at times, considering you don't know me. I admit, in my reality, I may do the same about others too...

No, wrong context.

Hmm. If you think so! You mentioned tripling your income, which is not reality-bending, in my opinion.

This has been fun and relatively thought-provoking. I like to think on my own, usually, but it is fun to banter back and forth. It brings new perspectives to the table. Thanks for that. Goodbye!

P.S. Also thanks for the concise list of the examples applying to thought/reality research. I don't read most of the topics here, so I have not seen you mention some of these before. I intend to read more about some I have not heard about.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Hmm. If you think so! You mentioned tripling your income, which is not reality-bending, in my opinion.

Well I could give you hundreds of examples from my personal life, but I think the details would be too much to swallow. Still you're welcome to wade through a thousand or more of my personal records; although a lot of it would probably be boring to anyone but myself. Sometimes the entries may not be very clear to another reader, because they were written more for my own records, than for 3rd party readers.

Acting Like Godot (<--- LOA kicks in somewhere in the middle of this blog - that's when I really started using it a lot)
Creation & Other Adventures
Acting Like Godot
Constructions of the Mind (<--- This one is for the year 2008, so the latest stuff is all here.).

I did start a new blog for the new year 2009:
Mind Projects 2009
but there's nothing much to read yet.

Not all entries in these blogs are strictly related to the LOA. Some are just personal entries about my life and stuff; others are just conventional goal planning; yet others are about meditation, the occult etc.

In the end, I don't imagine people will learn that much, or enjoy, wading through the LOA details of my life. It's my reality, see. It's muuuuch more fun and meaningful for people to go create stuff in THEIR own lives.

[cylon]

Today my dad was telling me how he was concerned that he hadn't heard from one of his close friends for a few months, he said the friend seemed to be getting more and more distant.

About two hours later the friend called my dad, my dad said "speak of the devil! I should have been talking about winning lottery tickets!"

Now this was my dad's manifestation, but I was there, so I guess it's mine too.
I'm not sure if his friend called because I am always looking for LOA stuff. Like if I wasn't practicing this, would the friend have called? Not sure how that works.

One thing I've noticed is that when these sort of things happen to other people and I hear about them, they are usually freaked out by it like "oh my god I was just thinking about that!", but it's at the point where I just think "oh yeah, loa".

Then I have to remind myself that I have a new perception of reality and this is just how things are, and to accept that the more it happens.... the more it happens.

[cylon]

I've also been having things like if the tv is on and I'm talking, I'll say something and about a second later, the tv says the exact same thing I just said. My friends may look at me and go "that was weird". Of course I just shut up, and think "yikes, more and more weirdness."