Uneasiness with LoA

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by John

In order to successfully use the Law of Attraction, you must first believe that it will work.

Is this true? As I see LOA it is a manifestation of thoughts, intention, motive and belief. If LoA works through these some of the time, then it must work through these all the time. Intentional thoughts, random thoughts and subconscious thoughts are made of the same stuff. They have the same effect even when we are not aware of the process.
The practice of LoA just brings awareness of one particular manifestation to mind but what of all the other manifestations appearing unexpectedly?
I believe it does work constantly but I don't believe you have to believe it. It is a natural phenomena occurring naturally from the whole consciousness.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

If your 'most valid indicator of sound philosophy' is 'feeling good' then opiates or other drugs would be valid ways of proceeding towards greater knowledge, wouldn't they? An alcoholic, beginning to feel a little low, would be well advised to grab a bottle and drink deep of the fountain of wisdom.

Tsk tsk, you are a very bad influence, John. Certainly hazardous to impressionable young persons who read this forum.

Anyway, back to the topic. I advise all serious LOA practitioners to stay away from all mind-altering substances such as opiates or alcohol. Why?

The reason is very simple. Buddha gave it 2,500 years ago.

Alcohol affects the clarity of your mind. Therefore it is an impediment and an obstacle to all paths which involve meditation. That includes the LOA. What you want, as far as possible, is a calm, clear mind with as high a degree of control and awareness as possible. Alcohol and drugs do not help that.

Personally I rarely drink alcohol (probably less than 8 times a year) and I have never taken illicit drugs.

As a matter of fact, I only drink water; orange juice; apple juice; watermelon juice; pineapple juice and soy bean milk. But you don't have to go that far.

[cylon]

Well I just opened this Heineken and I'm going to finish it.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Tsk tsk, you are a very bad influence, John. Certainly hazardous to impressionable young persons who read this forum.

Yes, I suppose impressionable, young or incredibly stupid people could think I'm condoning alchololism. Did you take it that way?

Now, then, let me see: either that was deliberate misinterpretation for the purpose of badmouthing me further, in which case you're 'intellectually dishonest', or it was accidental, in which case you're a bit dim, to be quite frank. Oh, no, those aren't mutually exclusive.

Anyway, back to the topic.

You only need to say that when you change the topic, returning to an earlier one. (Hmmm....interesting, I thought there was another topic earlier, something about your last accusation. Never mind, back to your new favourite subject...helping people not to fall foul of my incitement to take drugs...what a hazard I am to the young and impressionable! I hope it doesn't get out that I eat babies for breakfast too.)

I advise all serious LOA practitioners to stay away from all mind-altering substances such as opiates or alcohol.

Clever. Tag on a self-righteous preachy bit opposing my youth-destroying propaganda. Nice work. Is that to further your career as a personal development guru? (On topic: you're right to be uneasy, pokilty!)

Why?

You're not seriously going to explain?...

The reason is very simple. Buddha gave it 2,500 years ago.

Oh, you are! And it's Buddhist, of course!

Alcohol affects the clarity of your mind.

No way? Are you sure? The police, courts, hospitals and biochemistry departments of universities will be very pleased you passed on that 2500-year-old gem.

Therefore it is an impediment and an obstacle to all paths which involve meditation.

...or just 'all paths'...

Personally I rarely drink alcohol (probably less than 8 times a year) and I have never taken illicit drugs.

Fascinating. Well done. You should run for president.

As a matter of fact, I only drink water; orange juice; apple juice; watermelon juice; pineapple juice and soy bean milk. But you don't have to go that far.

Good. I don't like watermelon.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Is this true? <snip>

Maguru's last post was in response to this:

Originally Posted by John
In order to successfully use the Law of Attraction, you must first believe that it will work.

which seems to have come from the OP, pokilty, not someone called John, unless I'm mistaken. This is just for the sake of clarity. I would hate someone to think that was me and, I don't know, go off and have a frontal lobotomy or something. I've done enough damage to young minds as it is.

No problem, BTW, Maguru.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Maguru's last post was in response to this:

which seems to have come from the OP, pokilty, not someone called John, unless I'm mistaken. This is just for the sake of clarity. I would hate someone to think that was me and, I don't know, go off and have a frontal lobotomy or something. I've done enough damage to young minds as it is.

No problem, BTW, Maguru.

I do apologise. My mistake. It must have been one of those substances affecting the mind.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Yes, I suppose impressionable, young or incredibly stupid people could think I'm condoning alchololism. Did you take it that way?

Personally, no.

Neither did I believe you, when you claimed that Angela's philosophy of emotional wellbeing encourages people to be alcoholic. I saw instantly that you were just twisting her words, in your usual style.

Hahaahaaa! What else is new.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Personally, no.

Neither did I believe you, when you claimed that Angela's philosophy of emotional wellbeing encourages people to be alcoholic. I saw instantly that you were just twisting her words, in your usual style.

Hahaahaaa! What else is new.

But you have this all the wrong way round. I'll try to explain the point as though you actually didn't understand it.

First of all, this was a philosophical argument, which requires an understanding of reasoning. Angela shared an opinion that her feeling good indicated that her philosophy, her world view, i.e. using the Law of Attraction, was sound.

(I apologise, Angela, if in the course of this argument, I misrepresent your view, and would be happy to be corrected. We might actually make more headway if you and I discussed the point.)

Simplifying, then, she seemed to be saying: I am happy, therefore my worldview must be, or is likely to be, philosophically sound.

Like Descartes' "I think therefore I am", Angela, to me, appeared to be making the argument "I am happy, therefore I'm right (in my general view of life)". Now, of course, I may have taken the wrong meaning from her words, but I don't think anyone except an imbecile could not see how such a meaning could be construed from them. I certainly was not twisting her words.

Now, I wanted to express my opinion that I saw a logical flaw in the above, that we cannot take our happiness as indicating that we have a correct worldview. Perhaps I should have just said that and no more. I gave a bad example, since alcoholism is a condition that develops over time with the use of alcohol. It would have been better to say "One can be happy because one is drunk, but when one is drunk he does not see things clearly." On that point, as you have demonstrated, we are in agreement, although somehow you managed to pretend that I was making the opposite point, encouraging young people to become alcoholic. That interpretation requires such a long stretch of the imagination that I can only assume it was a pathetic pretense on your part, and that it was you who deliberately twisted words, which is not doing your credibility much good at all. Either that or you made a genuine mistake, which, if it was, was a particularly stupid one, and all your juice drinking and meditation isn't having the desired effect on your clarity of mind.

So let us forget alcoholism; it was a very poor example. Imbibing a chemical of any kind would be a bad example, although if I had chosen one, it would have been better to say ecstacy. The main weakness was that drug effects are temporary and, as I think Angela was pointing out in her response, have downsides!

Here's another direction altogether (because this is quite an important point and I'd like it to be understood):

A Creationist, Fundamental Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu, a Sikh, or any other believer in God may feel that their happiness indicates that they must have the right idea about reality, yet those ideas, at least in rather a lot of significant details, will be different. Prayer, the support of a community, the belief in redemption or reincarnation or the opportunity to free oneself from reincarnation, having clear moral guidelines, any of these can increase a person's happiness, yet the beliefs may be completely different and, logically, some of them must be wrong.

An atheist may feel happy to have avoided such 'nonsense' and realised that the world is physical matter devoid of spirit, the human mind an emergent phenomenon. Happy atheists, happy believers, someone must be wrong.

It would seem that most people who are happy can be expected to think that they see the world correctly, and this belief may contributes to their happiness, yet, since there are clearly very many different such philosophies, many of them must be wrong (unless, of course, we allow for the magical simultaneity of realities, which may be part of the LoA).

This last point raises the possibility that in arguing rationally about reality and how we think about it, I may be talking past you and your kin, who seem to believe that thought is superior to reality and moulds it. It would seem that if the ideas of an objective world and logical reasoning about it are thrown out, you must have no place arguing anything anymore. You would need only to believe whatever you believe, and reality will toe the line. You demonstrate your expertise in the LoA in your responses to me.

It is in order to argue logically against what I see as a circular and potentially damaging mindset that I bother to post here at all. You like to interpret this as me arrogantly trying to 'save' people, but it seems no more arrogant than posting to support LoA, or encouraging people to vote Democrat, or sharing any opinion online.

Now, I hope there is no longer any confusion about what I was trying to say, ALG. I accept that I may not have said it very well. Incidentally, I never got back to you about the NDE link. I see that indeed you did post it in response to someone else mentioning the subject. My apologies. I missed it the first time round.

I would offer a counter-argument to Angela's: in many cases it seems that illusion, rather than truth, contributes to people's happiness, that discovering our illusions can be very painful, and that people habitually resist discovering them, or deny the truth, for just that reason. An early response to my first posts here - I forget from whom - was to warn me of the dangers (unspecified) of taking away people's illusions too readily.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Angela shared an opinion that her feeling good indicated that her philosophy, her world view, i.e. using the Law of Attraction, was sound.

(I apologise, Angela, if in the course of this argument, I misrepresent your view, and would be happy to be corrected. We might actually make more headway if you and I discussed the point.)

Simplifying, then, she seemed to be saying: I am happy, therefore my worldview must be, or is likely to be, philosophically sound.

Like Descartes' "I think therefore I am", Angela, to me, appeared to be making the argument "I am happy, therefore I'm right (in my general view of life)". Now, of course, I may have taken the wrong meaning from her words, but I don't think anyone except an imbecile could not see how such a meaning could be construed from them. I certainly was not twisting her words.

Now, I wanted to express my opinion that I saw a logical flaw in the above, that we cannot take our happiness as indicating that we have a correct worldview.

I cannot answer for Angela, but if I'm feeling good, if I am happy, I don't care whether my worldview is "correct" or not.

[Angela]

I love that, because it is very simple for me indeed: feeling good (happiness is just one little form of feeling good) IS the most valid indicator of sound philosophy.

John, you and I are just not having the same kind of conversation, that's all. You are arguing, and I am expressing what's so for me.

From your perspective, there are "correct" worldviews and there are "wrong" worldviews, and I reckon you believe that "your" worldview is a correct one, because you are arguing for yours and against mine. Right?

From my perspective, (which from yours is "wrong,") there is no "correct" or "wrong," there is just what works well and what doesn't work so well. That seems to be different for each of us, and what I was expressing in my quote above is that it's very simple for me: if I am feeling good, I'm on the right* track -- whatever I'm doing, being, thinking or having is aligned with being in love with my life. I wouldn't presume that the same would be true for you, but I do tend to hang out more with people who are interested in feeling good, people for whom feeling good is a great signpost for a well-loved life. I am attracted to folks who feel good on purpose, and I prefer to spend time with them than people who don't. To me, such people who feel good on purpose are operating with a sound philosophy -- one that works very well.

"Feeling good" doesn't necessarily mean "being happy," so I wonder why you are so fixated on the happiness thing -- I hardly ever talk about being happy because to me it's just one smallish form of feeling good.

Also, as I've mentioned, drinking alcohol or using drugs doesn't necessarily mean feeling good. Abusing drugs and alcohol, I believe, probably does NOT involve feeling good -- not in my experience, and not in what I've observed in others.

Just as you mention, when you're looking at the world through the perspective that my thoughts are creating my reality, it's true that there is not much place for arguing, except sometimes it's fun. And I can also see how it might feel important to someone who is looking through a different lens to argue with me about that -- that it really IS important to be right and show me that I'm wrong. When people believe in right and wrong, they generally prefer to be right and that if anyone's gonna be wrong, it should be someone else.

* I just noticed that "right" for me here means: what I strongly prefer.

[Lanya]

Originally Posted by Angela

"Feeling good" doesn't necessarily mean "being happy," so I wonder why you are so fixated on the happiness thing -- I hardly ever talk about being happy because to me it's just one smallish form of feeling good.

What other forms of "feeling good" are there?

[marinik]

I feel good, tana nana nana, as good as it gets now... ta na nana nana na

I really do not see the need to explain what feeling good means. It is so subjective that it is silly to discuss! What makes you happy or feel good is the one thing that is worth living for at that moment. The next it might be something else!

If it is a great glass of exquisite vine so be it.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Lanya

What other forms of "feeling good" are there?

Gosh, lots! For instance:

Peace
Joy
Contentment
Satisfaction
Fulfillment
Pleasure
Freedom
Effectiveness
Power
Connection
Unity
Sleepiness
Alertness
Gratitude
Contribution
.... I could go on and on.

Happiness may or may not be present with any of these ways of being, including Joy. Or you might not find happiness at all when you're feeling good. One example is: this morning I was tidying my home, and I was feeling good. It felt good to be living my purpose (keeping my home clean and in flow is one way I express being a Joy Activist) but if I were to do emotional triage on myself, I'm not sure "happiness" would be the emotion I'm feeling.

Another example might be that you've got the flu, and you're lying in your bed with sore muscles, a runny nose and an icky tum. Your body feels pretty terrible. "Happiness" might not be present. But you might still feel very, very good; you might feel very good that you are safe in bed, someone is making soup for you, you are treating your body with respect and love by allowing yourself to rest and heal, you're looking forward to your body feeling strong and fine, and you have an excellent book you've been too busy to read. It wouldn't be happiness, would it? But it could be feeling good.

Or here's a common one: you have let go with love of a romantic relationship that wasn't working well. You are experiencing the pain of separation and the fear that you'll never find the right person. It hurts. That's not happiness, is it! Still, it can be feeling good, if you are bold, generous and honest with yourself. Even in the presence of the fear and the ache, you can feel good that you are courageously taking the right action not only for yourself but also for your former partner. You are generating freedom and love, and that feels good. You can recognize the power and growth in looking boldly at who you've been that the relationship occurred for you the way it did, and how you might more effectively take on relationship going forward. You can honestly and generously wish the person well, and recognize that as a great way of being for when you meet someone new, free of baggage. You can eat a whole pint of Green Tea Soy Ice Cream, because you're allowed to do that in this circumstance. You can feel the love of your friends and family who come around to help you through this challenging time. All that is a form of feeling good, isn't it?

It's fun to think about other forms of feeling good. Thanks for asking, Lanya!

-- By the way, this is all on-topic to the OP's concerns about the law of attraction, which I see as deliberately thinking thoughts that feel good when you think them. You don't have to believe in anything; you don't have to suspend your trust in the natural world. You can simply, if you want to, deliberately think thoughts that feel good when you think them, and then enjoy the results of that. Sometimes the results are things 'n stuff, and sometimes the results are ways of being that feel wonderful. What's there to be uneasy about there?

[John Freestone]

Thanks Angela, it's really good to hear more of how you think and act in relation to the LoA, and it seems a very healthy way to be. I feel that your view of my 'arguing' is slightly off, but you're right that it is a different approach. I hope in these things to discuss and for everyone to share their views, and sometimes to challenge each other's views. That's one of the benefits of discussion forums, that we bounce our ideas off others and have the opportunity to learn from each other. So I'm not really trying to make you 'wrong' and me 'right', but it's true that in order to discuss ideas I tend to use logical argument - 'argument' in that philosophical sense doesn't mean bad tempered or hostile, but it does recognise that if certain things are true, other things are false, etc. Again, I recognise that truth and falsehood aren't as important to you as to me.

So to clarify, the main antagonistic argument I have here regards those interpretations of the LoA that are about reality - the ones that assert that reality is magically influenced by our minds or utterly subjective, for reasons I've already spelt out quite enough.

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by Angela

Gosh, lots! For instance:

Peace
Joy
Contentment
Satisfaction
Fulfillment
Pleasure
Freedom
Effectiveness
Power
Connection
Unity
Sleepiness
Alertness
Gratitude
Contribution
.... I could go on and on.

Happiness may or may not be present with any of these ways of being, including Joy. Or you might not find happiness at all when you're feeling good. One example is: this morning I was tidying my home, and I was feeling good. It felt good to be living my purpose (keeping my home clean and in flow is one way I express being a Joy Activist) but if I were to do emotional triage on myself, I'm not sure "happiness" would be the emotion I'm feeling.

Another example might be that you've got the flu, and you're lying in your bed with sore muscles, a runny nose and an icky tum. Your body feels pretty terrible. "Happiness" might not be present. But you might still feel very, very good; you might feel very good that you are safe in bed, someone is making soup for you, you are treating your body with respect and love by allowing yourself to rest and heal, you're looking forward to your body feeling strong and fine, and you have an excellent book you've been too busy to read. It wouldn't be happiness, would it? But it could be feeling good.

Or here's a common one: you have let go with love of a romantic relationship that wasn't working well. You are experiencing the pain of separation and the fear that you'll never find the right person. It hurts. That's not happiness, is it! Still, it can be feeling good, if you are bold, generous and honest with yourself. Even in the presence of the fear and the ache, you can feel good that you are courageously taking the right action not only for yourself but also for your former partner. You are generating freedom and love, and that feels good. You can recognize the power and growth in looking boldly at who you've been that the relationship occurred for you the way it did, and how you might more effectively take on relationship going forward. You can honestly and generously wish the person well, and recognize that as a great way of being for when you meet someone new, free of baggage. You can eat a whole pint of Green Tea Soy Ice Cream, because you're allowed to do that in this circumstance. You can feel the love of your friends and family who come around to help you through this challenging time. All that is a form of feeling good, isn't it?

It's fun to think about other forms of feeling good. Thanks for asking, Lanya!

-- By the way, this is all on-topic to the OP's concerns about the law of attraction, which I see as deliberately thinking thoughts that feel good when you think them. You don't have to believe in anything; you don't have to suspend your trust in the natural world. You can simply, if you want to, deliberately think thoughts that feel good when you think them, and then enjoy the results of that. Sometimes the results are things 'n stuff, and sometimes the results are ways of being that feel wonderful. What's there to be uneasy about there?

Thank you so much for your words, Angela. I needed to hear those so bad today, you have no idea!! You need to write a book. (if it makes ya feel good, that is.. )

[Angela]

John, you and I are in agreement about that, I think -- I don't see any need for supernatural belief around feeling good; the natural world is "magical" enough for me.

I'm sorry if what I said about right and wrong came across as impertinent; I just re-read that and can see where it might have. I totally get that you are approaching argument as a means of expanding understanding, and that you are not being hostile or bad-tempered when you argue from a logical point of view.

Jawillie, what a great idea! I'll consider that. "Feel Good on Purpose," by Angela Lord.

[tinkerbell]

I believe in listening to my inner being/intuition. Listen to yourself Policky. You are your best teacher. You have to do what feels best for you. The more I trust and listen to myself, the better results I get. And I don't do anything (I mean --no action required) . The way LOA is being taught is not right
to me.

Good luck in finding your own way. Just relax, let go, be grateful for the things you have and the answers will come to you.

[Acting Like Godot]

John, you're rather weak in logic. You know it, I know it.

[Bradshaw]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

John, you're weak in logic. You know it, I know it. If I were so inclined, I could pick out so many logical flaws in your arguments that you would look like an F student in a Philosophy 101 paper.

Regardless, have you seen John's recent post on his newly started blog?

Weak in logic he may be, but an interesting read nonetheless, no matter how much i disagree with it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Basically he's just running around in his own circles. Let me explain it quite simply. One of John's biggest circles goes like this:

1. He assumes that LOA is false.
2. He is against the idea of testing that assumption.
3. Why? He assumes that people will do a "wrong" test.

This is like saying:

(a) "No swans are black."
(b) "Please do not try to observe any swans."
(c) "Why? Because you might wrongly observe a swan to be black."

Oh dear. What kind of logic is that? Would you trust a scientist who comes up with a theory, insists that it is right, but tells everyone that they must refrain from testing it? Yet this is John's reasoning. And he believes himself to be on the path of "truth".

Ahh, the LOA is amazing. The realities we create for ourselves! Look at John's. Weird, huh.

[Acting Like Godot]

Here is another one of John's hang-ups:

Originally Posted by John Freestone

So to clarify, the main antagonistic argument I have here regards those interpretations of the LoA that are about reality - the ones that assert that reality is magically influenced by our minds or utterly subjective, for reasons I've already spelt out quite enough.

John's personal view - that thoughts cannot alter "objective reality" - is rather common, mundane and ordinary. Surely the vast majority of people in the world would hold similar views.

I happen to have a different view. However, I do not seek to impose it on others.

That is why I had stated, quite early in this thread, that if one cannot accept that thoughts can alter "objective reality" (whatever that means to you), then one may instead consider experimenting to see how thoughts can alter "subjective reality" (whatever that means to you).

I gave several hundred examples of how one might test that idea. Those examples are found in Post 31. I also cited numerous scientific studies (Harvard, Stanford etc etc) on how the alteration of your thoughts can help improve all sorts of different things -

intestinal bowel syndrome; anxiety; concentration; intellectual performance; broken bones; surgical wounds; pain reduction etc etc.

... and I can cite even more.

Naturally, John was not very keen to agree with all that either. "Yes, yes, but apart from ALL of that, thought cannot affect objective reality," he hastily says.

Well then, it really depends on what one means by "objective reality". For example - and this is just one example - I would have thought that a broken bone, and its accelerated healing by hypnosis (as demonstrated by Harvard), might fairly be said to constitute "objective reality". But apparently not.

So it seems that the meaning of "objective reality" is quite subjective, after all. Unfortunately, while John is very keen to keep saying that "thoughts cannot affect objective reality", he makes no attempt to provide any helpful definition of what "objective reality" is. If you break it down further, you may see that what John seems to be saying is:

"In my opinion, thoughts alone cannot affect the things which thoughts alone cannot affect."

The unhelpfulness of this proposition, I think, is rather self-evident,

For all my clever musings, however, I am basically a very pragmatic, practical and sensible person. Unlike John, I have very little interest in philosophical meanderings of no practical value. So instead of indulging in all these airy-fairy abstractions of what "objective" or "subjective" reality is, I again invite people to consider LOA in much more concrete terms.

What are your everyday problems? What are your goals for today, next week, next month or next year? What would you like to see, as far as your career, home, family, finances or health are concerned?

Then consider - is it possible, and if it is possible, to what extent is it possible, to achieve all that, starting by just changing your thoughts and beliefs? Wouldn't it be interesting to ... try?

This is where John won't let you go.

I say - Go! Use your mind. THINK! And don't let John stop you.

[Acting Like Godot]

Incidentally John seems to consistently underestimate of the importance of subjective reality.

Here, by "subjective reality", I mean the objectively very subjective aspects of reality (if you know what I mean).

This is unfortunate, because I think it's quite reasonable to say that the most important things in life are all subjective.

"I am very happy," says Angela. Would it not be very peculiar to reply, "Ah, but that is unimportant, Angela. Happiness cannot be objectively measured."

Yes, indeed that would be very peculiar. The things that matter most in life - like happiness, love, peace, beauty - are all in fact subjective experiences.

In turn, the most powerfully objective aspects of our reality tend to turn out to be quite uninteresting. If I were to make the most objective statements possible about myself, I might say:

"I weigh 65.3 kilograms. I am 1.75 metres tall. 61.8% of my body weight is actually water. I have two hands, two eyes, ten fingers, ten toes and a nose."

Soooooooo what?

[Acting Like Godot]

You see ...

Originally Posted by John Freestone

So to clarify, the main antagonistic argument I have here regards those interpretations of the LoA that are about reality - the ones that assert that reality is magically influenced by our minds or utterly subjective, for reasons I've already spelt out quite enough.

... that really depends on what you mean by "reality", "magic", "mind" and "subjective".

However, these are the very matters which you are too afraid to explore. Gasp, the swan might be black! Or you might somehow wrongly perceive it to be.

[Acting Like Godot]

A striking example of John's fear. I had mentioned a paranormal phenomenon, and an ongoing scientific experiment by doctors at 25 US and UK hospitals to study that phenomemon. It wasn't even about LOA.

Since the experiment is still ongoing, I have no idea what the results will be. Neither did the news report give a lot of detail about the proposed methodology. However, even before the study is concluded, John already says that the study is flawed:

Originally Posted by John Freestone

Besides, I'll make a prediction. When the study is finished, it won't demonstrate that people having NDEs can see pictures up at a height no-one can from floor level. Furthermore, it clearly cannnot demonstrate that scientifically according to strict protocols, unless I'm unaware of some very clever details of security. The experimental conditions leave a lot of room for people cheating. I haven't studied it in detail, but I'm sure one of the objections will be that it is in no way a double-blind controlled trial, on which our reasonably confident knowledge of the world rests.

So this again is another example of the black swan fallacy in John's mind.

(1) "NO swans are black."
(2) "Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT try to observe any swans!"
(3) "Why? Because even if you see a black one, it ISN'T really black!
(4) "It must be because you didn't follow strict protocols in a double-blind controlled trial, that you WRONGLY perceived a black swan. Or else ... you must have CHEATED!"

Isn't it amazing? Even BEFORE the study is done, even before ANY results are reported, John talks about the doctors and scientists cheating.

It's like you're about to take an exam, you haven't even started looking at the questions yet, and this guy suddenly comes along and says, "You're cheating! You're cheating!"

Why are you so afraid of science, John? Do try to refrain from being so irrational.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Angela

John, you and I are in agreement about that, I think -- I don't see any need for supernatural belief around feeling good; the natural world is "magical" enough for me.

Yeah. I'm glad to hear that. Thanks. I was feeling a bit battered. I've just noticed things have moved on a bit since I was last here! I notice I now have a third charge to add to the list...illogical person!

I'm sorry if what I said about right and wrong came across as impertinent; I just re-read that and can see where it might have. I totally get that you are approaching argument as a means of expanding understanding, and that you are not being hostile or bad-tempered when you argue from a logical point of view.

That's fine. I'm no saint, and I'm sure I do get hostile at times.

Jawillie, what a great idea! I'll consider that. "Feel Good on Purpose," by Angela Lord.

Put me down for a copy, Angela!

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You see ...

... that really depends on what you mean by "reality", "magic", "mind" and "subjective".

However, these are the very matters which you are too afraid to explore. Gasp, the swan might be black! Or you might somehow wrongly perceive it to be.

Gosh, what a lot of posts raging about how illogical I am and how I can't let other people have their beliefs! I seem to have hit a nerve.

Look, I'm quite happy for other people to have different beliefs from me, ok? As a matter of fact, I joined in this thread and put my opinion forward, and it seems to have been at odds with yours and now look, you're going on and on at me (or more often, about me) like I'm some kind of fascist. You don't own this frikkin thread, Acting. Other people are allowed to disagree with you, and yes, you can get as upset as you like about it.

What is interesting is the number of issues that get raised and you just drop, however. Somewhere back in this thread I'm supposed to have been intellectually dishonest, but no explanation has been forthcoming. Next, I was supposed to be trying to make children into alcoholics. I explained your erroneous thinking, but you just drop that. By contrast, I was corrected on your having posted something about near death experiences without reason in this thread, and I acknowledged the error. Now, apparently, I am illogical, because I post the opinion that a particular take on the LoA, a magical supernatural one, is almost certainly wrong.

It is not, in fact, a silly suggestion, and the idea of searching for black swans is an interesting metaphor. I am one of those who happen to believe, after a certain amount of careful thought, experimentation and reading, that all the research into all forms of psi phenomena - magick and fortune telling and psychokinesis, etc. - has not brought to light the reality of these things. In addition, careful study of the facts of the research has demonstrated likely reasons why sometimes such studies throw up occasionally persuasive results in the short term, and why metastudies can suggest that something real is happening. In addition to that, psychological study has shown and elucidated some of the very powerful ways in which people think they have performed magic or experienced a psi phenomenon, when objectively they have just fooled themselves. There are indeed a number of scientists who have given their careers to investigating psi claims - deliberately helping people look for black swans - and finally have decided enough is enough.

I find your metaphor interesting because I don't in fact know whether there are any black swans. Therefore, if it was of great importance to me, your point would stand: not having found any so far among many many white swans, it would be illogical of me to just not bother looking. However, if I had searched pretty damn systematically for all the swans the world over, and had not yet found any black ones, then I suggest that it would be reasonable of me to conclude - always temporarily, as is the correct way in science - that there are no black swans, and desist from wasting my life searching.

Now, if some primitive or other kept insisting that black swans do exist, you just have to get in the right frame of mind to see them, I would try to educate him. His black swans may be subjectively real to him, but are a delusion, I feel. If he continues to believe in black swans, that is up to him, and I am not interested in forcing my opinion down his throat, though he may feel that I am trying to do so.

Hence my prediction stands, not on the illogicality that I can't know the result of an experiment still ongoing, but on the reasonable projection from past scientific study. Of course, I may be wrong: consciousnesses may be able to float out of their dead bodies.

Anyway, peace and love, man.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

I find your metaphor interesting because I don't in fact know whether there are any black swans.

Not that it really matters.



It is not my metaphor. Google "black swan theory" and "Nassim Nicholas Taleb". He is a clever man - you would learn a few things about logical thinking from him.

And no, he is not a "Law of Attraction" writer.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Not that it really matters.



It is not my metaphor. Google "black swan theory" and "Nassim Nicholas Taleb". He is a clever man - you would learn a few things about logical thinking from him.

And no, he is not a "Law of Attraction" writer.

Originally Posted by ALG

1. He assumes that LOA is false.
2. He is against the idea of testing that assumption.
3. Why? He assumes that people will do a "wrong" test.

In the 1st point, if we change the assumption to 'LOA is true', would this not be your attitude? It appears that way because you will not have your concept challenged. Different logical possibilities have been suggested concerning LOA which are just dismissed.

ALG, you don't seem to realize that it is you who is proclaiming only white swans exist, metaphorically speaking of course.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The black swan theory refers to a large-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare event beyond the realm of normal expectations.

I don't think LOA falls into the given definition of 'the black swan theory' at all.

[John Freestone]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It is not my metaphor. Google "black swan theory" and "Nassim Nicholas Taleb". He is a clever man - you would learn a few things about logical thinking from him.

And no, he is not a "Law of Attraction" writer.

No, indeed he is not. You'll consider that supporting LoA, though. Everything does to you. People doing NDE research, the theories of statisticians, absolutely anything. The LoA: deliberate apophenia.

You've taken us on quite a Black Swan chase.

You probably don't notice, but all your attacks on my character are ironically projective.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by John Freestone

No, indeed he is not. You'll consider that supporting LoA, though. Everything does to you. People doing NDE research, the theories of statisticians, absolutely anything. The LoA: deliberate apophenia.

You've taken us on quite a Black Swan chase.

You probably don't notice, but all your attacks on my character are ironically projective.

Hello John, doesn't any good researcher only find supporting evidence and ignore the rest? I do but I'm aware of it!
However, concerning the validity of LOA I find there is definately something to it. It could be claiming only white swans exist if we dismissed it.

The 'constant' I see amongst practitioners of LOA is that "awareness before the event" is present. There has been awareness of thoughts or thoughts on purpose, before the event. When the event (or manifestation or whatever it is that has been attracted) is external e.g. a car, job, partner, lotto win, blue feather, then logically a series of events have occurred prior and this is just one possible outcome. This is at best co-creation and involves many other factors besides one individuals' desire manifesting through LOA.

The only 'magic' I see is the awareness beforehand. I believe this is real as I have experienced it myself.

This phenomena I cannot explain logically. I would love to hear your thoghts, regards