The Science behind Intention-Manifestation.

[The Protagonist]

watch this video

YouTube - Animated Quantum Video

[dor]

regarding 'attacking' emoto for his creditionals;

a. why would he get an empty, useless degree then presumably use those credentials as a indicator credibility- in short if credentials don't matter why did he get a diploma from a degree mill - it strikes one as quackery.

b.as frans emphasized In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto.

In short you can go through those molecules and find ones that look like what you're looking for and tweak your photo further to make it look like the result you want.

As i have said before, whether he can do this or not doesn't change my belief in IM - anymore than a crying saint statue turning out to be fake questions my beliefe in God. Neither Emoto nor the crying saint are conditions of my belief.

[Hilary]

Originally Posted by dor

As i have said before, whether he can do this or not doesn't change my belief in IM - anymore than a crying saint statue turning out to be fake questions my beliefe in God. Neither Emoto nor the crying saint are conditions of my belief.

Exactly! It doesn't matter whether or not Emoto or anyone else has proved anything. What matters is the truth you experience now.

[shanlstrick]

This is a great thread. I too absolutely believe in Intention Manifestation. I saw where someone was asking for any connection with quantum physics, and someone else mentioned Fred Alan Wolf and how he catches some flak for his views. Dr. Wolf is one of my all time favorite physicists.

I am no scientist, but as a layman I have studied QP on my own for some time and how it relates to the nature of reality, and to me there is no better example of how you (an observer/participant) influence reality than the wave-particle duality of light. In fact, I had some doubts about my own understanding of these phenomena so I emailed Dr. Wolf about it. I have posted his answers in my Quantum Existence blog (the blog is about 1 week old), check it out if you like.

But the basic explanation of this is found in the double slit experiment. It’s a given that light is a wave much like a radio wave or a ripple in a pond, but at a visual wavelength. If light passes through 2 narrow slits to project on a wall you will see a pattern of dark rings indicating wave interference (where the light from the two slits cross each other’s path).

However Max Planck proved that light also behaves as a particle (called a photon), which is a quanta of light, hence the term quantum physics – the study of small particles. He figured out that energy (which all matter really is), comes in discrete amounts, it is not continuous, and came up with Planck’s Constant to solve equations relating to the relationship of the frequency and energy states of elementary particles.

But here’s the key that relates to I M in my opinion, light only manifests as a particle when one is looking for that particle. When there is no observer, there is no particle, it’s only a wave, or more precisely a probability-wave. It does not exist independent of observation. The act of observation by a person is said to collapse the wave function, creating the particle. Even a measuring apparatus will not collapse the wave-function without an observer to read it. No wave interference will show if you see all of the particles as they pass through the slits, but if you don’t watch for particles you get the wave interference pattern. The event is absolutely influenced by the observer. There is no argument on this in quantum physics, it is long accepted.

Another example is the Pauli effect. Wolfgang Pauli was a quantum physicist and he a terrible effect on machinery. It seemed every time he was in the lab the machinery seemed to malfunction, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia-

…it was said that he was such a good theorist that any experiments would self-destruct simply due to his presence. For fear of the Pauli effect, the German-American experimental physicist Otto Stern banned Pauli from his laboratory despite their friendship.

A famous incident occurred in a physics laboratory at the University of Göttingen. An expensive measuring device, for no apparent reason, suddenly stopped working. Obviously, the head of the research group concluded, they had fallen victim to the Pauli effect; but, as someone countered, Pauli was on his way to Zurich, so that was not possible. When this story was related to Pauli, though, Pauli recalled that at that moment he had indeed been in Göttingen — waiting for a connection at the train station.

The Pauli effect, if it were real, would be classified as a "macro-psychokinetic" phenomenon. Wolfgang Pauli, however, was (according to his biographer Enz) convinced that the effect named after him was real — Markus Fierz, a close colleague, says "Pauli himself thoroughly believed in his effect" . As Pauli considered parapsychology as worth serious investigation, this would fit with his scientific thinking.

If you think about it the implications are astounding. There is NO objective reality – you cannot objectively witness any event because you participate and influence that event - even if you are not aware of it. So maybe this is a little scientific ammo for I M.

[Hilary]

Um... I think actually there is a considerable argument in quantum physics about whether the act of observation is really key. AFAIK the majority view (with Dr Wolf in the minority) is that the key is the act of measurement, and whether or not a conscious observer reads the measurement doesn't matter. This isn't testable, of course

[shanlstrick]

Not wanting to start an argument I dissagree Hilary, the fact that interference patterns do not show up when a particle is detected is significant. The FACT that an interference pattern shows when a particle is NOT detected is just as significant - there is NO argument there. This has nothing to do with Wolf, he hardly originated this, it's established in testing.

Okay, Wolf is the one who stated to me that it's the observer (not the equipment), until I find evidence to the contrary I'll conceed that. But what I said in the above paragraph still holds.

Add to that evidence that people influence machinery all the time, many tests done show how computer random number generators can be influenced by test subjects concentrating on certain outcomes is indisputable.

[shanlstrick]

Hi again Hilary, okay, I neglected the many worlds interpretation where wavefunction collapse is not a requirement. I see where that interpretation is gaining ground - as in quantum computing. I do tend to like that one a great deal, but it's just as strange as the other - a different universe for every possible outcome of an event. At anyrate, I accept there are still arguments in the science community - so my bad. I'll take observer created reality, because from my own experience it seems most plausable. I know I can influence events, my life is evidence.

Okay, I posted all of this as support for I M and I still hold it's true, but conceed that the physics community still argues about what it all means, still look at the outcome of these test events and make your own judgement. Observer influenced reality is well accepted. Anyway I don't want to hijack this thread into a quantum argument, we can agree to disagree and let this thread continue as it was intended. Thanks Hilary, I like it when people make me think - how else can we learn.

[Acting Like Godot]

The "many worlds" interpretation means, in the IM context, that by choosing our thoughts well, we can keep moving into the universes that we personally prefer.

Sounds good to me too.

[shanlstrick]

The "many worlds" interpretation means, in the IM context, that by choosing our thoughts well, we can keep moving into the universes that we personally prefer.

I agree, in terms of probability, the more you intend, concentrate on a specific event or outcome, the probability of that specific Universe timeline will be higher than all other possible histories - thus you achieve it.

I read elsewhere here that some had mentioned problems with manifesting when other people were present with them - makes sense in the context of a collective conscious, if others are not in sync with you, best not to have them around at critical times (thoughts canceling out other thoughts) IMHO. To me this also explains why you can most likely never become "a flying whale" - you have to fight the collective influence from the consciousness of the rest of the world - which has no doubt that you are not a flying whale. But to manifest something personal to you that does not conflict with the "known" reality should be easier (your health, wealth, life, etc.) - your little "bubble" of reality that doesn't rock the "boat" of reality as a collective whole.

Many physicists ( not all) believe that separation is illusion - at the quantum level, causality hardly operates if at all. Observers influence eveything. Think about this - you only experience the so-called "out-there world" via your senses - sight, touch, smell, hearing. These are physical senses tuned to specific wavelengths with everything else filtered out. No one knows what reality really looks like - you do not directly experience the "out-there" world with your consciousness. So how can one say the out there world actually exists? - It could be an illusion of your senses. For me these arguments validate the effectiveness of I M and erases a lot of doubt. I think WE are the universe - just trying to figure itself out.

I also agree the universe does not understand "no" and you must I M in the present. I know first hand of this, I have had events happen by accident (unintentional consequences of wrong thoughts) and on purpose - getting money when I need it. I have actively started to I M this weekend toward my goals, I'll keep you informed as to my progress.

Okay, I have said enough, please notice I said (not all) regarding physicists, but many, just don't want an argument on the nature of reality or quantum physics ( if we are to argue on reality it should have it's own thread) - just showing my support of I M and my belief in it's "reality".

[Hilary]

Thanks for your generous response.

[Dive Bomb]

I've always been the skeptic type but lately all this is starting to make some sense. The fact that a particle changes what it does depending on is pretty out there but yet doesn't seem so strange once it's all in perspective.

I personally think that there may be a limit what we can manifest based on our experience. If we start out manifesting things that are realistic to our current reailty, we can start to break away into something totally out of this world.

[shanlstrick]

I have been re-reading the Q & A I had with Physicist Fred Alan Wolf, one particular answer struck me as tying in with I M and the influence of a collective consciousness. Now as Hilary mentioned (and rightly so), Dr. Wolf does have his detractors, but I have to think in this case he is dead on - since it makes no assumption about the nature of reality, it deals with the record of an event.

The question I posed had to do with noticing that on a picture of the photon hits on the detector screen there were a combination of dots and wave-interference. I asked how there could be both (assuming no one was in the room). Now I saw the picture, but I made the assumption that no one was in the room, I have no idea why I made that assumption since niether the picture nor the article said no one was there - he called me on it.
His reply:

Fred Alan Wolf: "If no one observed how did you see the dots? You certainly saw them and so did the experimenter who recorded them. Once a massive record is made, the effect of the observer is negligible".

Ultimately the explanation is some photons were detected and formed dots, others were not - forming a wave-interference pattern.

But the part that really struck me was "Once a massive record is made, the effect of the observer is negligible".

In classical physics it's known that once an object is placed in motion it tends to stay in motion - until another force acts upon it to stop it (air, gravity, etc.) Inertia.

A record of an event is, to me, the same as inertia - that's why at that point the effect of the observer is negligible. Same principle could be applied to the collective influence of I M and why it can be hard to manifest if you are trying to counter opposing thoughts - or what is "Known" by others. Things are known, thoughts are built - they must be overcome. Could be why it's so important to continually build your thought inertia toward your goal, but be sure to allow as little opposition from others as possible (as in don't make waves with non-believers). Just my opinion, and probably not very well said - kinda off the cuff. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[Liara Covert]

Some scientist believed it was possible to travel faster than the speed of light, and then this guy baffled sceptics when he proved it.

Once we believe that our points of reference are changable, then we realize limits begin within our own minds. This applies to what we hope will happen which can evolve into what we actually help make happen. Personally, I'm looking forward to functional teleportation. Based on the rate of technological progess, that may not be as far away as people think!

[shanlstrick]

Originally Posted by Liara Covert

Some scientist believed it was possible to travel faster than the speed of light, and then this guy baffled sceptics when he proved it.

Once we believe that our points of reference are changable, then we realize limits begin within our own minds. This applies to what we hope will happen which can evolve into what we actually help make happen. Personally, I'm looking forward to functional teleportation. Based on the rate of technological progess, that may not be as far away as people think!

Agreed! - I think if it can be imagined, it can be actualized - after all, everything starts with thought and imagination. Sometimes science is slow to catch up that's all.

[renie408]

A) Wikipedia is not considered a credible source by most people in serious discussion. Not saying the information is bad, just that it would be more credible from the original source.

B) If what Emoto was trying to prove was that water molecules can be influenced by human thought and emotion, then it seems to me that the creativity of the photographer would be absolutely key.

C) Water crystals are ice. I have some problems with the Emoto studies mostly because a lot of the pictures look like crystals, which are ice. Freezing the water to get shapes would seem to skew the result, I think. I would like to point out that Emoto not being a credible scientist running sound studies does not discount the LOA or his results. Credible scientists running sound studies would have to be what does that. Can anyone cite the studies refuting Emoto's work?

D) It is my understanding that Quantam physics is part of the scientific field. It is also my understanding that they are proving every day more and more through quantam physics that the smallest units of matter are influenced by human thought. The broad extrapolation to be taken from this is that we influence our environment. To say that there is 'no' science behind the LOA is uninformed. It might be more accurate to say, "I am not impressed by the science behind the law of attraction theory." One assumes that anyone making this statement has valid, researched reasons for making it and would be willing to share both the reasons and the research.

E) For those who do not believe that we influence our environment through our thoughts and feelings, check out space conditioning.

Conditioning process

F) ...and The Maharishi Effect

Dubrovnik Peace Project

G) Lastly, but not leastly, for those of you who do not believe in the Law of Attraction and don't think it is real...how is that working out for you? I assume you are in top physical condition with the mate of your dreams, a six figure bank balance, are checking the board from your vacation home on Maui and you have such a sense of general well-being and good will towards your fellow man that other people just love to be near you. If that is not the case, then you might want to slow down and give the LOA a chance. I am not a poster child for the LOA...yet. But I have only been studying it for five weeks and my life is demonstrably better. Is that because I have cheered up? Maybe. But WHATEVER it is, I like it and I am sticking to it. I have had things happen that I feel like support the theory of the LOA. Other people may look and see happy coincidences. If that works for them, great. If thinking that being happy and holding on to my desires works for me, great.

(For those who DO believe, think about this: Is there a possibility that spending so much time and effort trying to PROVE that we are right might actually detract from our vibration? Maybe it is better to just tell the people that don't believe, "OK, whatever works for you." and move on?? This is a legit question. I am getting a degree of flak in my daily life due to my new beliefs.)

[shanlstrick]

I must admit that I have never heard of LOA aside from the talk here. I am new here so there is much to be explored. I am most assuredly open to the possibilities, so I guess I need to look around a bit and learn something about LOA and see if I can experience the benefits myself.

[JoeBlogs]

Originally Posted by renie408

Lastly, but not leastly, for those of you who do not believe in the Law of Attraction and don't think it is real...how is that working out for you? I assume you are in top physical condition with the mate of your dreams, a six figure bank balance, are checking the board from your vacation home on Maui and you have such a sense of general well-being and good will towards your fellow man that other people just love to be near you. If that is not the case, then you might want to slow down and give the LOA a chance.

For those of you who do not believe in the giant mongoose god who lives on top of the empire state building and grants what I wish for as long as I wish hard enough and offer him a sacrifice of two rabbits and a pickled egg each thursday...how is that working out for you? I assume you are in top physical condition with the mate of your dreams, a six figure bank balance, are checking the board from your vacation home on Maui and you have such a sense of general well-being and good will towards your fellow man that other people just love to be near you. If that is not the case, then you might want to slow down and give the giant mongoose god a chance.

I'm sorry, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and all. (No offense given that you were being quite sarcastic yourself.)

No, I haven't achieved most of those things but that doesn't make me inclined to believe that I can "manifest" them anymore than it makes me want to believe that I can get them from other ridiculous sounding sources, mongoose related or otherwise.

Intention-Manifestation is people dreaming of a world where they can get what they want by just wishing for it and there it is, it's wishing on a star, and I don't believe gigantic burning gaseous bodies in outer space grant me wishes.

I will continue reading this thread with interest however, maybe I will see something that suggests this theory has any more basis in reality than anything else people could randomly make up.

[Abundance]

Joe Blogs & Shanlstrick,

I don't know whether you have already seen these videos that Infinite Thoughts posted the links to earlier on in this thread (p.2 16th Jan 07).

the new biology - where mind and matter meet 1 of 2 - Google Video

the new biology - where mind and matter meet 2 of 2 - Google Video

If not I can highly recommend them. I already believed in the intention manifestation process but these videos increased my understanding of
how the whole process physically comes about.

Dr Bruce Lipton is a PhD Research scientist & he presents some really interesting ideas based on his research about how our cells actually function & interact with our environment.

Sharyn

[renie408]

Originally Posted by JoeBlogs

For those of you who do not believe in the giant mongoose god who lives on top of the empire state building and grants what I wish for as long as I wish hard enough and offer him a sacrifice of two rabbits and a pickled egg each thursday...how is that working out for you? I assume you are in top physical condition with the mate of your dreams, a six figure bank balance, are checking the board from your vacation home on Maui and you have such a sense of general well-being and good will towards your fellow man that other people just love to be near you. If that is not the case, then you might want to slow down and give the giant mongoose god a chance.

I'm sorry, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and all. (No offense given that you were being quite sarcastic yourself.)

No, I haven't achieved most of those things but that doesn't make me inclined to believe that I can "manifest" them anymore than it makes me want to believe that I can get them from other ridiculous sounding sources, mongoose related or otherwise.

Intention-Manifestation is people dreaming of a world where they can get what they want by just wishing for it and there it is, it's wishing on a star, and I don't believe gigantic burning gaseous bodies in outer space grant me wishes.

I will continue reading this thread with interest however, maybe I will see something that suggests this theory has any more basis in reality than anything else people could randomly make up.

Sarcasm doesn't bother me, nor do I think it is the lowest form of humor. I wonder if it was an American that said that? It sounds so Puritanical. I prefer the Dostoyevsky quote: "Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded."

And are you REALLY reading this thread to learn anything about the LOA?? Come on, tell the truth. It shows anyway, so you might as well. Of course you aren't. You have your mind all made up. You are dismissing it without knowing a thing about it. Intention/Manifestation has nothing to do with wishing on a star. All it says is that you reap what you sow. Basically, it says happy things happen to happy people. Bad things happen to people who send out bad vibes. Period. The end. That's about it. There are lots of tweaks on the message, but all of those that I have read require action. None of them say all you have to do is wish for something to get it. The steps go something like this:

1) Form the desire.
2) Create feelings about your desire as if it has occurred. FEELING prosperous increases the odds that you will BE prosperous. FEELING grateful increases the things about which you can BE grateful.
3) Act on the opportunities drawn to your positive feelings.
4) Don't worry about whether or not it will happen. This is the allowing part. You have to offer it up to god or the universe or whatever you believe in and trust that it will happen for you.

Does that really sound like a bunch of voodoo witch doctor BS to you? It makes sense to me. I know that when I was depressed and feeling negative all the time, it seemed like the negative things in my life just kept piling up. Since I have begun to work on creating a positive vibe in my life, I have noticed positive things happening. And there is more than anecdotal evidence that it does work and none that it doesn't. Instead of asking us to prove it works, I would like you to prove that it doesn't. But you can't, so all you can do is offer your skepticism and your own sarcasm. Like I said, if that is working for you, go team. If not...well, there is always that mongoose god.

[Abundance]

Just found an article which summarizes Dr Bruce Lipton's credentials & information covered in his videos mentioned above, if any one wants an overview before watching them.
dhere




Sharyn

[tipsypixie]

I have read every post in this thread with interest and often confusion (not being scientifically educated yet).

For more years than I care to remember I have been trying to get my husband and daughter to practice the power of positive thinking as it has almost always provided great results for me. Frankly I had all but given up - until last night. There was a movie on the television that wasn't advertised in the program guides. My husband even asked me this morning if he had dreamed seeing it. It was about I-M and LOA and he finally got the concept.

Today for the first Sunday since my child learnt how to speak we have had a peaceful and happy day. Sundays in this household usually mean a series of arguments over the housework, what we're doing for entertainment, can we afford anything, what movie we're going to watch etc. My husband and child will argue over how many fleas the cat has if it's on a Sunday! Today was peace, calm and harmony and if I never have another Sunday like this I will always be thankful for today. This wonderful day was purely and simply a result of my husband embracing the principles of positive thinking.

I have suffered from more than 1 bout of clinical depression during my life. It has always been the power of positive thinking that has pulled me through. I see the LOA and I-M as extensions of this thought process. There are many other names for the same thing over differing cultures, countries and beliefs.

Some people will only use wood based tissues to blow their nose, some only cotton hankies. Some people use tissue paper to wipe their bums, some people grow long pinky nails for the same job. Who is right and who is wrong is not for me to say. Personally I believe in the concepts of I-M and LOA. I would not deign to put down anyone who did not believe, however I do reserve the right to feel sorrow for what they may be missing out on - a feeling of having some control over our own destiny, however futile that feeling may be.

Cheers
C.

[placebo]

Yes, there's no understandable science behind Law of attraction but if there is do you think you would be able to understand it. Many people with Phd spent their lives studying quants and they managed to explain us in an easy way. You become what you think. If you want to you can play with that fact, try to use it, prove it is wrong, you can do your own scientific experiments.

I've seen many people insecure how to manifest money, cars, girls, etc. All this is wrong. Whole lives we do jobs we hate to buy ************ we don't need. Why would we now get this for free? Are we different people than we were yesterday? Now, i don't think so. In "Think and grow rich" I found out that rich people are not happy because of amounts of money, they are happy and satisfied with person they've become.

So if you want money it is wrong to visualize briefcase with millions in it. You should visualize yourself as a man able to earn money, man who knows how to deal with money, how to save money.
If you want beautifull girl imagine you as a man who deserves nice girl. Imagine you as interesting, good looking, whateverYOuWantToBe person and things will start happening.
You will slightly become person you've imagined because you believed you already are that person. and thinking about that will give you power to notice all those things that were invisible to you before.

My point is that materialism is runinig you people. You have to deserve material things with your qualities as a person, otherwise you would already have all those things you want.

[JoeBlogs]

Originally Posted by renie408

And are you REALLY reading this thread to learn anything about the LOA?? Come on, tell the truth. It shows anyway, so you might as well. Of course you aren't. You have your mind all made up.

Yes, I am. Don't try and tell me what I'm doing as you don't have a clue. I am viewing this thread to see if it will change my mind, I just start with original beliefs, I am capable of changing them given enough evidence or persuasive argument.

Originally Posted by renie408

You are dismissing it without knowing a thing about it. Intention/Manifestation has nothing to do with wishing on a star. All it says is that you reap what you sow. Basically, it says happy things happen to happy people. Bad things happen to people who send out bad vibes. Period. The end. That's about it. There are lots of tweaks on the message, but all of those that I have read require action. None of them say all you have to do is wish for something to get it. The steps go something like this:

1) Form the desire.
2) Create feelings about your desire as if it has occurred. FEELING prosperous increases the odds that you will BE prosperous. FEELING grateful increases the things about which you can BE grateful.
3) Act on the opportunities drawn to your positive feelings.
4) Don't worry about whether or not it will happen. This is the allowing part. You have to offer it up to god or the universe or whatever you believe in and trust that it will happen for you.

Does that really sound like a bunch of voodoo witch doctor BS to you? It makes sense to me.

That does make some sense, being open minded and allowing things to possibly happen very well might lead to them actually occuring. Although I've seen lots of people on this forum writing about using I-M to get things that don't involve step 3, acting.
Maybe this is also where I have a problem: the name. Intention-Manifestation to me IS just wishing, you intend something to happen: it happens.
To me, what you described above is Intention-Action-Manifestation, and that is something far more plausible. But also something far more ordinary, it makes sense: you want something, open your mind to it, act on each oppurtunity, and you have a better chance of getting it. If that is what intention-manifestation is, and it doesn't actually involve "wishing" or anything like it then I'll certainly accept that it's a method with some merit...but also isn't it just common sense? If it's that simple and obvious, what's the big deal?

Originally Posted by renie408

Instead of asking us to prove it works, I would like you to prove that it doesn't. But you can't, so all you can do is offer your skepticism and your own sarcasm. Like I said, if that is working for you, go team. If not...well, there is always that mongoose god.

Hmm, I have a bit of a problem with that idea though. Disproving I mean. I've studied very scientific subjects for years now, and I know that "disproving" isn't really a sensible way to go about things. It's almost impossible to disprove anything without someone who believes in it coming up with an excuse for your disproof. Eg. You can't disprove the existence of the mongoose god (he's invisible by the way and can allow people to walk through him ). Can you?

[renie408]

Originally Posted by JoeBlogs

You can't disprove the existence of the mongoose god (he's invisible by the way and can allow people to walk through him ). Can you?

Not just 'no', HELL NO. Of course I can't disprove the Mongoose God. I wouldn't even want to try. It might offend him. Or more to the point, his followers. Doubt is easy. It's believing in something that's the hard part. If they believe, good for them!

A lot of people leave the 'action' part out. Mostly because ACTING is a lot less fun than sitting back and waiting for lottery tickets to fall from the sky. I had one woman on another board tell me she had manifested a brand new Jaguar in two weeks. I asked her how she managed that. She replied, "I formed the desire. I cut out pictures of the Jag I wanted from magazines and pasted them all over my bedroom. I talked all the time as if the Jag were already mine. Two weeks later, my husband leased one for me!" Ummmmm....NO. That is NOT what I would call manifestation. That is what I would call nagging your husband until he leased you a car to shut you up. This, BTW, is how I manifest the trash being taken off.

There is more to it than you have been led to believe on this board, I think. Even if you end up not buying in totally, the processes part of the Abraham/Hicks books is very valuable for its positive mood improvement. From about September through the first of this year, I was in serious depression. I was having semi-suicidal thoughts and the whole bit. I could not seem to drag myself out. I didn't clean house, I didn't do my job properly, I felt worse and worse. External things over which I could not logically have had any control which negatively impacted our lives continued happening, also. Then in the last few days of December, when I wasn't sleeping and was beginning to have less semi and more suicidal thoughts, I saw the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?". Which led me to the movie The Secret. Which led me to read every single thing I could get my hands on about intention, manifestation and the Law of Attraction. Since that time, my mood has gone through a 180 degree turn around. And life is responding. It has only been six weeks, but my husband's work has picked up, I have gotten two new customers in my barn, the main contractor my husband works for has decided to start mailing our checks, which means we get them earlier in the week, we have somehow turned around in the bill paying department and I have daydreams instead of nightmares. Along with things I would previously have considered outside of my sphere to control, however, I have also started eating better, cleaning the house regularly, being friendly with people I meet, working harder and riding more and generally I have more energy. These things could account for some of my life improvements even if I decided to leave out the Law of Attraction. But not all of them. What accounts for the 'happy coincidences'? Do we really believe in coincidences? I think I have decided that I don't. I am much happier thinking that my reality is mine to create. My reality is not some random event at the mercy of the cruel winds of an uncaring universe. My reality is created from my own positive feelings and drawn from a Universal stream of boundless abundance. See?? That second one sounds WAY better, doesn't it?

[JoeBlogs]

In that case I am somewhere close to agreeing with you, I accept that making those changes to your outlook definitely could effect your life for the better (and congratulations that they did). If you want to call this process Intention-Manifestation then fair enough and I'll accept that it certainly has the potential to work.

It's the people who believe in the sudden appearance of material wealth without taking any action, such as the woman who got the Jaguar, that I strongly disagree with.

I do believe in coincidence. Although I don't think my life is entirely out of my hands and ruled by coincidence or chance, I can have a serious effect on my life, but to do so I must act and respond to things that happen that are out of my control, not just hope, wish, pray, intend...

[renie408]

Some more thoughts....

For those of us who believe, is trying to PROVE that the Law of Attraction is feasible anti-intentional? I mean, does it in some way invest in the disbelief of others and therefore ameliorate our own vibration? Isn't it better to use Jesus' approach to spreading 'the Word'? "Let your life be your witness"?

[Ati]

I have to agree with the notion Intention-Action-Manifestation. My experience has always included action and I think that I've always thought of Action being a part of Manifestation.

It seems to me that Intention is a powerful tool to change how we behave (Action). If I think differently, I act differently just about all the time. Sometimes I notice it right away, sometimes in retrospect.

One thing about sarcasm, I think it's fine, but let's please keep comments on the respectful and considerate/courteous side particularly when they are directed to other posters. Doing this makes a person more credible, for sure. It also keeps the quality of our forum high, and encourages the best thinking and communication among all of us.

Agreed?

All best,

Ati

[Indy107]

I've been reading this thread and thought I'd put in my 2 cents.

renie408 - what happened when you watched The Secret? And WTB? Did it not give you just a little HOPE? When you are depressed, and everything is falling down around you, all hope appears to be gone. I know cause that's where I've been lately with my business. And the worse it gets, and the worse you feel, the faster it spirals downward. But once you have HOPE - which is nothing more than a different BELIEF - things start happening. Dr Bruce Lipton says a belief can be changed in an instant. And once your beliefs change, your perception changes, the signals from your brain change, your cells change, your thoughts change, everything changes just by changing a belief. The Secret gave me hope. IM gives me hope. If there is any action to be taken - to reach my goals, I'm sure I will know what I need to do. A way will be made for me. If I need a book, it will show itself. If I need a person, they will also show up. And as far as manifesting things without any action? I think those are the synchronicities we see. I did the dollar bill trick Jack Canfield did in the Secret, only I made it a $100 bill. I'll be danged if I didn't see more of those the following week than I have in years. They were popping up like weeds. Sure my customers often pay in cash, but usually not with $100s. They did that week. I still have 3 of them in my wallet for a reminder. I was showing a friend my $1/$100 bill and the Secret Trailer - and he went home to watch it immediately. That night while taking out the trash at his apartment what did he find on the ground? $100 bill. No action on his part at all other than taking out the trash. I agree for the bigger things action will need to be taken, but I'm not discounting that it could just 'pop up' out of nowhere either.

[Dive Bomb]

To put it in a few words, it seems like Intention Manfestation is just doing what you want to do without hestitation. Me personally, I follow the Nike logo which is "just do it". I don't even talk about what I"m going to do, I just do

Do do do do do. I live by doing.

[renie408]

Originally Posted by Dive Bomb

To put it in a few words, it seems like Intention Manfestation is just doing what you want to do without hestitation. Me personally, I follow the Nike logo which is "just do it". I don't even talk about what I"m going to do, I just do

Do do do do do. I live by doing.

Not exactly. There are plenty of things I want to do. Without opportunities, my 'want' is not going to come to fruition. Intention/Manifestation follows the theory of the Law of Attraction. That like attracts like. If you hold a high, positive vibe, good things are likely to happen to you and good opportunities are likely to come your way. You must still act as these opportunities present themselves. Without a degree of 'luck' you can 'Just Do It' all you want and still not get where you aspire to be. But 'doing it' is definitely part of the equation.