The myth of I-M

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by alexb5784

Stop looking for instant physical proof and just start focusing on what you want. You'll get it regardless.

"It may manifest today or in ten year" ... How is that different from random chance?

If you think you can't have what you want, you won't get it. If you think you can...you will

Always the same excuse. The 'law' cannot be wrong. It's always the silly humans. Even if the 'law' doesn't work it has in fact worked! Hallelujah.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

So Frans your telling me you have been into PD for 37 years and you STILL think that people who talk about the LoA are scammers or delusional people. Please, you can't have grown much, or have yo ugrown into a set pattern of false beliefs based on Fear?

PD doesn't automatically ensue belief in magic. Or where does it say so?

[magickmystik]

I think I-M 's working or not depends on

how clear your intention
your attention to the desire and detachment of the result
your level of consciousness / life force
your overall vibration / frequency
how deep into the source you intend it from
your blockages / resistances / old conditioning / beliefs
your 'higher self' , 'universe' , and your desires, do they match or not, if the higher self and the universe say no no, then it is just... too bad, unless you know how to merge them, lol

etc

Intention is a force in nature. If your intention comes from the ego, in order to fulfill the intention, you have to work hard and have driving ambition and exacting plans. Still, frequently the intention goes unfulfilled, creating a lot of frustation. And even if it does get fulfilled, it creates a lot of stress (sometimes). On the other hand, when intention comes from a deeper source, it brings about synchronicity and spontaneous fulfillment of desire.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Mostly yes. But random chance is also always present.



Because nobody's perfect and positive thinking will ignore, or overcome, the doubts that sometimes come knocking on your door. It's obvious, and it also has been proven, that optimists are more probable to be successful then pessimists. But which of course does not mean that optimists ALWAYS succeed.

Positive thinking also helps you when you're confronted with problems and prevents you from giving up to soon.



That you shouldn't be totally naive neither. There are limits to everything.



Of course it doesn't always work. It's not a Law! Success depends on a lot of factors. Positive Thinking is just one means that can advance you on the path to success. But PT without ensuing actions doesn't create anything.

What I meant is that people usually look at the few who really scored big and say: "You see, the method worked and it's because of the method that he's so successful!" But that's not the whole truth, since there are other people who have miserable failed with their big dreams. But nobody is taking them into consideration. So it's naive to say it's only because of the method.

Markus, I obviously very strongly believe in Positive Thinking myself. I only debated it to show you how difficult it is to "prove" to someone who doesn't want to believe it. It is only because there was actually a FORMAL study done with people who were optimistic and people who were pessimistic that a lot of people finally believe PT is the way to live your life. I've done this my entire life long before I heard of this study. The thing is that even with studies like this which "prove" scientifically that people who are Positive THinkiers are wealthier, healthier and happier, it is still very rare to find positive people. The majority of people I find to be pessimists who, of course, don't consider themselves pessimists but rather say "I'm just being realistic." when they really are totally being negative.

In one example I was sitting in my office with a sales rep I hired three months before and asking him about his sales numbers and he proceeded to tell me all the reasons in the world why it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to sell any further clients on our product/services. He sat there for over an hour, while I listened patiently, and tried to convince me that the market is totally tapped out, there is no more clients left, he doesn't stand a chance because all the other sales reps already took all the clients, our business model doesn't work, etc. etc. I finally asked him afterwords "If this is true, then why do I need you?" and he said ".......... I guess I'm talking myself out of a job eh?" and I said "If you keep thinking like that, yeah." Anyway, he couldn't change his thinking so he doesn't work us anymore, but the funny thing is that since then (about a year ago) we've already almost doubled our revenues and client base even though he was convinced there was not a single client left out there. All the PT reps stayed behind and got all the clients he was too negative to see. It was scary to sit there and listen to the reality he lives in. It's so negative and depressing, however he strongly defended himself with "I'm just being realistic."

[Colm OReilly]

What surprises me about these types of debates is:

1. The use of one paradigm to attack another - which in itself is totally useless. "Haha my paradigm is better than yours." "Really, show me!" "No, your paradigm sucks ass!"

Everytime someone has promoted science as a paradigm for proving everything I ask them why they use terms like logical, when logic and science are incompatible paradigms. To assume something will necessarily happen because it happened before is a logical fallacy, yet this (proof by induction) is the basis of science.

Also, science was radically altered after Popper, who essentially said accept something as true only after attempts to falsify it have failed. So why should "scientists" on this board ask "believers" to prove something works, when they themselves only really fail to prove something doesn't work? Hmmm.

2. The angry responses and ridicule by both parties defending their side. I've seen this in other areas, MMA vs TMA being a great example, despite them both claiming to use science as their main goal. Might I suggest you all watch South Park's "Go God Go" where the world divides itself into factions over who has the best science.

What happens with any belief system, or way of explaining the world, is that it is never complete, so the user fills in the blanks themselves. Science, Logic, Magic, Religion, I-M are all paradigms used to explain the world and govern us. We like predictability, systems make things predictable, we like systems.

I think it can all be said that if we're on Personal Development forums we'd like to develop compassion? If so, wouldn't it be better to accept that others have different viewpoints and are living their life the best way they know how, so we should live and let live unless they come to us asking for tough love, instead of coming on here and trying to force others to see your point of view? Just a thought.

Frans, thank you for your post. I understand where you're coming from. The way you've explained away I-M is also the same way I've heard a lot of people explain away diets. Dieting and regular exercise work, but it's all the extra sweets and days off that lead people to staying overweight. Like I-M, it's success is dependent on the user. Of course, this is just an explanation, perhaps you just felt frustrated and wanted to come on here and shout "Jesus, what are you people on about!?"

That I can understand, I've seen people say they want something yet their actions go totally against it, or despite them wanting things I have, and me telling them exactly how I achieved it and how they can, they still go for quick fixes. Some times I'd never blow a gasket, but then I remember they're looking at the world in a completely different way to me and I need to accept that, for myself.

An example: I moderate a martial arts board in Ireland. On it, people talk about Self Defence tactics and techniques a lot. I don't get in fights, simple as that. When these guys talk about the mean streets of Dublin, and how being in pubs will get you in fights I just tell them I don't even see any violence in Dublin when I'm out. I'm out to socialise, charge the venue and make connections, not worry about some punter wanting to kick my ass. People would say I'm delusional or walking around with blinkers but I'm the one out drinking every weekend and they're not! Crazy, but I accept that's how they see the world, so i don't engage them in conversation.

Lots of love, (If only I could write blog posts as quickly as I can replies!)
Colm

[impaul99]

I want to offer a few quotes from the book "Ask and It is Given" by Esther and Jerry Hicks which might help to explain to some why instant manifestation might not have worked for you in the past.

Page 15.
"Perhaps the question we hear most often from our physical friends is: Why is it taking me so long to get what I want?

It is not because you do not want it enough.
It is not because you are not intelligent enough.
It is not because you are not worth enough.
It is not because fate is against you.
It is not because someone else has already won your prize.

The reason you have not already gotten what you desire is because you are holding yourself in a vibrational holding pattern that does not match the vibration you desire. That is the only reason - ever!"

Page 25.
"Every thought vibrates, every thought radiates a signal, and every thought attracts a matching signal back. We call that process the Law of Attraction."

Page 27.
"Worrying is using your imagination to create something you do not want."

Page 27.
"Nothing can occur in your life experience without your invitation of it through your thought."

Page 29.
"You cannot desire something, predominantly focus on the absense of it, and then expect to receive it, because the vibrational frequency of it's absense and the vibrational frequency of it's presence are very different frequencies. Your desires and your beliefs must be a vibrational match in order to receive that which you desire."

Page 73.
"The Law of Attraction always yields to you the essence of the balance of your thoughts. No exceptions. You get what you think about -- whether you want it or not."

Page 96. This is one of my favorites.
"Sometimes our physical friends will say 'I'm stuck! I've been in this place for a very long time, and I can't get out of it. I'm stuck!'
And we always explain that it is not possible to stand still or be stuck, because Energy, and therefore life, is always in motion. Things are always changing.
But the reason it may feel to you as if you are stuck is because, while you are continuing to think the same thoughts, things ARE changing --- but they are changing to the same thing over and over.
If you want things to change to different things, you must think different thoughts. And that simply requires finding unfamiliar ways of appraoching familiar subjects."

Now that I flip through this book, I see that a lot of the questions people have are already answered in this book. Perhaps people should pick it up as it gives a more detailed "how to" compared to the movie "The Secret". Frans, let me guess, you wouldn't buy the book because Esther and Jerry Hicks are just scammers right? Shame.

[Athena]

Originally Posted by magickmystik

I think I-M 's working or not depends on

how clear your intention
your attention to the desire and detachment of the result
your level of consciousness / life force
your overall vibration / frequency
how deep into the source you intend it from
your blockages / resistances / old conditioning / beliefs
your 'higher self' , 'universe' , and your desires, do they match or not, if the higher self and the universe say no no, then it is just... too bad, unless you know how to merge them, lol

etc

Yes!!! Thank you magicmystik. I can see that there are other forces that play into whether IM works for certain intentions, glad you listed some of them. I wonder too if, during periods of exaggerated fear or anxiety, the universe or some guardians also protect us from any manifestation of those thoughts?

Same with when studying certain topics or being involved in certain activities.. for example, a medical student studying maladies, or a rescuer or volunteer working with less priviledged people in not so fortunate situations.. we must be protected somehow in these situations, right?

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Colm OReilly

I think it can all be said that if we're on Personal Development forums we'd like to develop compassion? If so, wouldn't it be better to accept that others have different viewpoints and are living their life the best way they know how, so we should live and let live unless they come to us asking for tough love, instead of coming on here and trying to force others to see your point of view? Just a thought.Lots of love, (If only I could write blog posts as quickly as I can replies!)

The only reason I reply to skeptical posts is because I believe it helps others. Meaning, if someone says "Oh, I've got proof IM doesn't work because of ____________." and everything just ignores that and doesn't answer back, then someone else reading the post will be thinking "Oh yeah! ************ I never thought of that...hmmmm."

I think for every Markus and Frans who posts there are dozens of others who sit in the background with the same questions, wondering the same things but afraid to engage in the conversation, but I could be wrong.

In the end, I totally agree with your statements though. My energy would be much better spent helping only those who seek help. The only reason I don't do that is because I used to be a skeptic just like Markus at one point and it was the people who BELIEVED that kept me going. It was their conviction in their beliefs that kept me thinking "What if they're right?".
[/QUOTE]

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Colm OReilly

(If only I could write blog posts as quickly as I can replies!)

How true, lol.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Colm OReilly

Frans, thank you for your post. I understand where you're coming from. The way you've explained away I-M is also the same way I've heard a lot of people explain away diets.

Now that's exactly my point: diets don't work either.

Suppose you need 2000 Kcal per day to maintain your body weight.
If you start dieting and eat less calories, for example only 1200 Kcal per day, your body will think "hey, I'm not getting enough food!" and it goes in starvation mode.
Result: your basic metabolism will slow down, meaning you don't need 2000 Kcal per day to maintain your body now, but only 1200.

After a while you feel really starved and you must give up your diet. You start eating normal again (2000 Kcal per day as before your diet).
What happens?
Your body has enough with 1200 Kcal per day, so it will stack the 800 Kcal extra as body fat.

This is a description of the famous "yo-yo effect" that all dieters know.

Want to get rid of some bodyfat? Do cardio and weight training and you don't need to diet.


Next remark?...

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Frans

Now that's exactly my point: diets don't work either.

Suppose you need 2000 Kcal per day to maintain your body weight.
If you start dieting and eat less calories, for example only 1200 Kcal per day, your body will think "hey, I'm not getting enough food!" and it goes in starvation mode.
Result: your basic metabolism will slow down, meaning you don't need 2000 Kcal per day to maintain your body now, but only 1200.

After a while you feel really starved and you must give up your diet. You start eating normal again (2000 Kcal per day as before your diet).
What happens?
Your body has enough with 1200 Kcal per day, so it will stack the 800 Kcal extra as body fat.

This is a description of the famous "yo-yo effect" that all dieters know.

Want to get rid of some bodyfat? Do cardio and weight training and you don't need to diet.


Next remark?...

Although you describe quite accurately the flaw in MOST diets, I don't believe that exercise alone is enough to make you healthy. I think the best way to describe it is to say that while a DIET doesn't work, a NUTRITIONAL PLAN does. For example, no amount of exercise will make you healthy if your diet consists of eating McDonalds 3 times a day every day. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work.

I totally agree with you though when you say that simply following a calorie-reduced diet doesn't work. You need both a good exercise plan and a proper nutritional plan.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Markus74

Acting:

I've known about Masaru Emoto before. And those crystals look quite amazing indeed. But I'm wondering why Masaru hasn't agreed to peer reviews:

The way I look at it - he has described his basic methodology. Any interested scientist anywhere with the proper lab equipment can do these experiments himself and check the results.

It's a bit like Matthew Manning, the psychic I mentioned before. He says, "Hey look I can do all these things with my thoughts - kill cancer cells, bend metal spoons, move objects just by thinking about them etc etc. Now I volunteer to spend the next five years of my life doing whatever scientists want me to do, in their labs."

And he does, and three of those five years of research are done at Cambridge University, and all the scientists are amazed, and they are wowed, and they write scientific papers about it etc etc.

But because it is so far out, so beyond the ability of conventional science to explain, all these experiments just stay outside of mainstream knowledge. So after five years, Matthew Manning just gets bored, and he leaves, and he continues to do what he does best - faith healing - and yes, doctors do refer patients to him.

Your attack on Emoto's academic credentials is self-deceptive. The fact is, in past discussions I've also cited scientists / researchers of impeccable academic qualifications - Brian Weiss, Ian Stephenson, Fred Alan Wolf etc. You haven't been convinced either. So academic credentials is not the real issue -whether they have a PhD from Harvard or an obscure diploma from an unknown institution, you still disbelieve whatever you feel like disbelieving. The real issue lies within yourself.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Colm OReilly

Also, science was radically altered after Popper, who essentially said accept something as true only after attempts to falsify it have failed. So why should "scientists" on this board ask "believers" to prove something works, when they themselves only really fail to prove something doesn't work? Hmmm.

That's basically because lots of people simply don't understand what "scientific proof" really is.

Before anything can be scientifically proven, the subject-matter must be able to fit into the framework provided by Karl Popper. Now, there are MANY things which inherently cannot be fitted into the framework.

This doesn't mean that they aren't true. It doesn't mean that they are false either. It simply means that science is not able to form a conclusion whether they are true or not. Examples of things that science can't really prove either way:

1. "My mother loves me".
2. The Law of Supply & Demand in Economics.
3. The Law of Attraction
4. That fear is different from anger.
5. The correctness of theory of fundamental analysis (in analysing stocks)
6. The correctness of theory of technical analysis (in analysing stocks)
7. Elvis is dead.
8. If you think money, you attract money.
9. Michelangelo is a better artist than me.
10. Synchronicities happen every day.
11. Adler's theory of the effect of birth order on personality.
12. That the subconscious exists.
13. That right now I am thinking of a flower (I am, really - of a yellow one).
14. I am in love with my wife.

Etc etc. Science is soooooooo limited. Which is not a problem in itself, except when people don't understand its limitations.

[AndyMartin]

A couple of thoughts on this thread:

Self-referential proof is not proof, just like self-referential definition is not definition.

Truth, n., see Truth.

So we can't use books on I-M to support the claim of I-M. As much as we want to be illuminated by some greater truth than traditional methods of inquiry -- including science and religion -- provide, the fact remains that we are creatures with a dualistic nature. On one hand rational and empirical, on the other inscrutable. There are phenomena we can explain, and phenomena we can't, and we absolutely love to try to explain the unexplainable, and to say that the explained is explained wrong.

Fred Alan Wolf is a colorful character with some interesting thoughts. Jesus was a spiritual revolutionary who might have performed miracles. The Secret is thought-provoking, and it was produced in such a manner as to evoke a particular response. Same goes for the Bible for that matter.

The point is, the emotional satisfaction that an idea or -- more accurately, the presentation of an idea -- provides is in no way indicative of the degree of truth contained therein. It's not useful to look at I-M as the grand unified theory to connect god and science and all of the unanswered questions about the world. It's also not useful to completely dismiss it.

The problem is this -- science and spiritual+paranormal are still not in agreement about the basic parameters for reliably proving these ideas out, and that's a failing on both sides. Science needs to incorporate the evidence that consciousness affects experimental outcome on the quantum level and on the participatory level into its methodology. Spirituality+paranormal needs to enter the dialog and stop putting itself above scientific proof.

Because the fact cannot be denied: I-M is at best unreliable. There's nobody here who can demonstrate it to work 100% of the time. If the mythology is to be believed, Jesus may be the only one to ever master this in the history of humankind. And that's a big if. But imagine if we could understand the operational parameters on a repeatable level. That would mean something. A handful of successful businessmen and authors clamoring that all their dreams have come true, "Just buy my book," is not very compelling, true or not.

I think there is something to I-M, in part as the beginning of an explanation for how consciousness interacts with reality, and in part as the evolutionary unfolding of the capability of consciousness. But as a principal it is incomplete, explained totally in terms of fuzzy concepts, and self-referential in its justification. It needs some serious work. I think some pretty big things have occurred in my life as a result of I-M. But the burden is on the believers -- not to prove, but to refine the understanding and practice to the point where it is compelling in the degree and consistency of its results, not just in its appeal.

The Hindu sage Ramanuja relentlessly beseeched the teacher Ghoshtipurna to impart the sacred Moksha Mantra of enlightenment. Finally Ghoshtipurna relented on the strict condition that he not divulge it to anyone lest he be consigned to hell. Realizing that this mantra was the most effective path to enlightenment, Ranamuja rang the temple bell and announced it for all to hear. When his teacher berated him for this sacrilegious act, Ramanjua replied that his going to hell was a small sacrifice to bring liberation to so many. His teacher was moved by this selfless compassion and blessed his student and called him guru.

I think it's more valuable to put energy into discovering the Moksha Mantra of I-M before ringing the temple bell.

[Markus74]

Hm, interesting post, andy.

[Dolazy]

Originally Posted by Frans

Now, suppose that it is possible to master I-M and that everybody becomes an I-M expert.
In that case, it would be just a matter of time before all people in the world are happy, rich and healthy, and that there will be no war or injustice anymore.

I think that's where the world is heading to. Things are constantly improving.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by Dolazy

I think that's where the world is heading to. Things are constantly improving.

Uh, in some places, yes. In others not so much ...

[moviestar]

Intention manifestation is like any kind of prayer. You can pray to god to give you something and sometimes you will get it and sometimes you won't.

If you intend something and it doesn't happen it just proves that it doesn't work. Of course everybody here will try to convince you that I-M is a skill that you must work on, but it's not, it is just a way of noticing patterns. Trying to interpret reality from the point of "I create everything with my thoughts". It's only an INTERPRETATION not a tool for CREATING.

Nobody can prove I-M but I can easily disprove it, here:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/million-...nt-results.htm.
Anyone has 1000000$? Oh it takes time? Well then I will start praying to the tooth fairy and in 100 years I will earn 1000000$. We'll see who's faster.

The thing that bugs me is not that people think I-M works. It isn't a bad thing to use, because it focuses your mind on your goals. But the belief that you are god is wrong. This site is called "Personal Development for Smart People". You're not smart if you believe in such things. When belief starts, intelligence ends.

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by moviestar

The thing that bugs me is not that people think I-M works. It isn't a bad thing to use, because it focuses your mind on your goals.

I agree.

But the belief that you are god is wrong. This site is called "Personal Development for Smart People". You're not smart if you believe in such things. When belief starts, intelligence ends.

What bothers me if the rather ludicrous claim that 'Everything' is possible and that the 'Universe' will simply 'deliver' it to you.

If you're just sitting on your couch intending things and not moving your butt then nothing will manifest. Wanna bet?

[magickmystik]

Originally Posted by Athena

I wonder too if, during periods of exaggerated fear or anxiety, the universe or some guardians also protect us from any manifestation of those thoughts?

I am not sure, Athena, because I never measure it myself. But according to Dr. David Hawkins in his book, we can measure human thought in terms of electrical power, in microwatts, and that is an excellent indicator of its overall power to create experiences.

We have all hear people say "watch your thoughts, they are powerful". Indeed they are. But exactly how much power do they have and does it vary with consciousness levels?

Thoughts have the power to create universes. What they can do is unlimited. But of course, they carry varying degrees of power, so that some people can accomplish much with little thought while others put heaps of effort into much thinking only to accomplish much less.

We all know or have heard of people with great ability to almost effortlessly create outcomes. And then there are the great sages such as Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and the like. They did what people called "miracles", acts that defy physics and logic.

continued...

[magickmystik]

Dr. Hawkins Consciousness Calibration Table
020 -- Shame
030 -- Guilt
050 -- Apathy
075 -- Grief
100 -- Fear
125 -- Desire
150 -- Anger
175 -- Pride
200 -- Courage
250 -- Neutrality
310 -- Willingness
350 -- Acceptance
400 -- Reason
500 -- Love
540 -- Joy
600-- Oneness
700 -- 1000 represents Enlightenment – Christ Consciousness

The lower the number (e.g. shame - 20), the worse it will affect the intentions. And the numbers above is logarithmic scales.

We can measure human thought in terms of electrical power, in microwatts, and that is an good indicator of its overall power to create experiences.

For example LOC 100 – Fear – has the power of thoughts at this level: log 10<SUP>-800 million</SUP> to log 10<SUP>-700 million</SUP> in microwatts.

For LOC 500 – Love – has the power of thoughts at this level: log 10<SUP>-35 million</SUP>

Therefore, If you were afraid (fear, level 100), your fearful thoughts would register a reading of log 10<SUP>-800 million</SUP> to log 10<SUP>-700 million </SUP>microwatts. But if you were coming from a point of true love, your thoughts would register a reading of log 10<SUP>-35 </SUP>million microwatts.

Notice the negative sign (-) on the numbers above? That tells you that -800 million is many times smaller and weaker than -35 million, of course.

For example, Moving from 10<SUP>200</SUP> to 10<SUP>201</SUP> is a huge change. 10<SUP>201</SUP> minus 10<SUP>200</SUP> is equal to 90000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000 00000000000000000000.

So how much bigger the difference is between 10-800 million and 10-35 million? i think the number so big, it will be the same number as the number of characters ever written in this discussion board..... or even more

Therefore, occasional fear / anxiety thoughts has not much effects in changing reality IF our consciousness are also 'low'. (that's means it is pretty safe for 'common' people to think what they fear / anxiety about, it won't manifest suddently)
However, if your consciousness is High-er, better watch out what you think or feel about... it will manifest quicker... even a 'bad' thing that they are imagining about.

Also it mean:
1. Positive thoughts are much more powerful than negative thoughts.
2. One positive thought can counterbalance many negative thoughts effortlessly.
3. It explained why one is comparatively weaker and helpless when one is in the consciousnesses of poverty, grief, fear, guilt, and so on, but miraculously powerful at higher consciousness levels.

*** <SUP> supposed to make a SUP, lol - to the power of something

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by moviestar

But the belief that you are god is wrong.

It all depends on your definition of God. If you believe that God is a white bearded dude that sits in a throne in heaven and judges people after their life is over, then you are correct, it would be a silly thing to believe that.

If you believe that God is a form of conscious energy that penetrates and permeates everything in the universe, then it is only logical to accept the fact that we are all part of that whole which is God. Imagine two skin cells on your body having a little conversation in which one says "I am Paul, did you know that?" and the other skin cell saying "What?! You're crazy, you're not Paul! You're a skin cell." Well, if that skin cell isn't Paul, then what is Paul? Each cell in my body is part of me, therefore they are all me. In a similar way, we are all God because we are part of God.

If your faith is traditional Christian though, I understand that it would be wrong to think you are God. You wouldn't want to walk into a church and say "I am God." because a CHristian understanding of God doesn't fit within the context of what we are discussing here. A Christian God is seperate from every human being.

This site is called "Personal Development for Smart People". You're not smart if you believe in such things. When belief starts, intelligence ends.

Really? Does that go for all other beliefs that you don't yet embrace too? In other words, should Steve only write about articles that fit in with your current belief system?

I particularly enjoy that Steve writes about things I might not agree with or believe yet in certain areas. It is exactly why I keep showing up and reading, because I am looking to stretch my mind. I take what expands my mind and leave the rest. If Steve's site was simply repeating everything we already know about the world, it would be totally useless.

If there's one thing that I have a lot of respect towards Steve for is the fact that he personally tries different things himself and experiments with them himself before writing about them, so he's not just talking theories. If you read his blog you will see that he didn't just accept IM and Subjective Reality and all that at first, he setup personal experiments to see if they work because he wasn't sure. In fact, if you read carefully you'll see that he was probably just as surprised that the stuff actually worked as you will be one day and the same way I was surprised.

Something to think about.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by moviestar

This site is called "Personal Development for Smart People". You're not smart if you believe in such things. When belief starts, intelligence ends.

Wow, that is so not true.

Everyone believes. Some believe there's more to the world than meets the eye. Some don't. But to believe otherwise is still to believe - we can't definitively prove anything.

As Steve P has pointed out, the intelligent thing to do is to try out a bunch of different beliefs and see which ones make your life better.

[maryelyn]

Originally Posted by Markus74

If you're just sitting on your couch intending things and not moving your butt then nothing will manifest. Wanna bet?

"You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet, still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet."
Franz Kafka
Austrian (Czechoslovakian-born) author (1883 - 1924)

...of course, that has nothing to do with I-M...or, does it?

[Markus74]

Originally Posted by maryelyn

"You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet, still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet."
Franz Kafka
Austrian (Czechoslovakian-born) author (1883 - 1924)

...of course, that has nothing to do with I-M...or, does it?

Even Kafka wasn't always right

Do you have any example of what he described actually happening?

[magickmystik]

This discussion is getting nowhere

“You Create Your Own Reality” (YCYOR) is the predominant belief system of many New Agers. This doctrine states that reality is entirely the product of our minds, and that by controlling our beliefs, we may determine what happens to us: what events we focus upon, we attract; what we do not focus upon, we do not experience. Creating for oneself what one desires is called “manifesting”, and having all one needs in life is called “abundance.” For those who utilize YCYOR, manifesting abundance is usually a key goal.

Do we create our own reality? Yes we do, but not as freely as proponents of YCYOR claim. As it exists, YCYOR is a faulty paradigm whose incomplete nature was made so by design. This belief system is a dangerous spiritual weapon used by negative forces to disarm their potential victims

There are several reasons why YCYOR is dangerous.

First, YCYOR fools its followers into believing they are more spiritually evolved than they truly are. Such New Agers are lulled into a false sense of security, an overestimation of their abilities and invulnerability, and thus fail to prepare against random accidents or attacks from negative forces.

Second, the practice of “manifestation” often becomes an act of black magic when used irresponsibly. Black magic is the manipulation of higher forces by lower individuals to their own spiritual detriment. For example, when corruptly implementing “manifestation” through visualization, ritual, chanting, or meditation, one can circumvent one’s life mission or agenda, extort one’s Higher Self, and violate the freewill of other sovereign humans.

For Example: (one example of a belief)

“There are no limits.”

In truth, there really are no limits. But how easy is it for you to shed your present limits? Is it enough to merely think to yourself “there are no limits” and off you float above the ground as gravity, formerly a limit, no longer remains part of your reality? The fault of YCYOR is in making the phrase “there are no limits” appear more general, easily applicable and achievable than it really is.

While we exist here in physicality, there are several types of limits.

Illusory limits are those that truly do not exist, except in your mind as a consequence of your lack or suppression of awareness. These include such things as personal insecurities, false beliefs about your intellectual or physical abilities, glass ceilings, and subconscious programs.

Practical limits exist at the boundaries of your spiritual evolution. They are things you are not capable of because you have not evolved to the point where you can do them. Surpassing these limits requires spiritual evolution, often through struggle and the active use of knowledge/awareness.

Imposed limits are those placed upon you by beings with higher freewill than you. They may be aspects of your own consciousness, such as your Higher Self. These limits are mere handicaps, placed upon you so that you can exist within this reality and learn other lessons.

Practically speaking, then, there are indeed limits. What you must do to surpass these limits determines how objective they are. Illusory limits are mainly psychological, and getting rid of them will do wonders enough in one’s life. No limits are insurmountable, it is just that some limits are damn hard to break through.

When YCYOR says “there are no limits”, it accurately states that illusory limits are not real. However, one would be a fool to think that the phrase applies to all types of limits, that imposed or practical limits are as easily bypassed as illusory ones. Some extreme forms of YCYOR do incorporate this idea, and its followers think that reality is so much a function of their belief that they need merely believe they are invincible, and so they become it. Never mind that they lack the spiritual evolution and awareness to do so, and are attempting to violate their own Higher freewill. They think they can exist in a world without limits just by changing their 3D mind or subconsciously programming themselves through visualization or self-hypnosis. While this does work great to rid oneself of illusory limits, other limits remain.

While there are no limits as they can all be surpassed someday and somehow, due to our present physical and mental natures, we cannot break through all limits just yet. It is necessary to be aware of what limits one is truly up against, and which ones can be changed or voided.

etc...

Reason depends on analysis, logic, and so on. All these depend on abstraction and splitting the whole into smaller segments for your reasoning and analysis.
Logic has its limitations; it cannot carry you into infinity. It cannot even comprehend infinity. The other problem with logic is that it relies largely on the little you already know within your conscious awareness. Out of all the possibilities in an infinite universe, you are aware of a very limited amount. Your logic, if you ever noticed, relies on your past experiences. How can you possibly allow in infinity while attempting forcing it through the tiny window of comprehension that is called logic? It is impossible. You have to trust, feel, and at first you will have to go by faith but in the end even faith will be unnecessary, for you will have reached complete knowing! But you cannot get there if you still insist on logical 'proof'.

The point is for believers and non-believers... get more knowledge, be open minded, continue learning, meditate and always be aware of faulty beliefs. At the end, you don't need any beliefs, because you know.

[Markus74]

Great post, magickmystics!

And well said. It was about time that somebody redefined a few things here.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by magickmystik

First, YCYOR fools its followers into believing they are more spiritually evolved than they truly are. Such New Agers are lulled into a false sense of security, an overestimation of their abilities and invulnerability, and thus fail to prepare against random accidents or attacks from negative forces.

This point essentially boils down to the old "is it better to be optimistic or pessimistic?" question. I don't believe that any human is truly mentally equipped to be a 'realist' - they will always err one way or the other. (Does that make me a pessimist? ).

The danger of optimism is overextending beyond your abilities. The danger of pessimism is underextending within your abilities.

So is it better to err on the side of optimism or pessimism? This really depends a lot on your situation. If you're trying to negotiate a minefield, pessimism is preferable. If you're in a situation where little real harm can come to you, optimism is preferable.

And yes, what constitutes "real harm" is a topic in itself.

[moviestar]

should Steve only write about articles that fit in with your current belief system?

No. But he should write articles for "Smart People". That's what brought me to his site. The articles were useful and good before and I really liked them. Steve just realized that there are more not-so-smart people in the world and he wants more traffic to his site so he started writing more and more about I-M and subjective reality.
And it works, there a lot of people that catch into it because it is an easy belief. It's a marketing trick. It's easier to believe that you are omnipotent and can have anything in life just by pure thought than believing that you will have to get through a lot of pain and hard work to achieve the results you want. It's the promise of omnipotency that brings people to I-M.
Nobody wants pain and you will hate me because I tell you that you will have to WORK for what you intend.

The point is for believers and non-believers... get more knowledge, be open minded, continue learning, meditate and always be aware of faulty beliefs. At the end, you don't need any beliefs, because you know.

At the end you will also realize that you don't really need to KNOW anything, because you already KNEW it! Haha! Just a little zen joke .

[Ann]

Originally Posted by moviestar

No. But he should write articles for "Smart People". That's what brought me to his site.

How do you define "smart people"?