The failure of I-M

[Frans]

Originally Posted by alexb5784

I think the universe gives us what we need, when we need it.

I agree with that statement and this is also the reason why I don't want to use I-M.

If you truly believe that the universe gives you what you need (= not what you WANT), then using I-M is a superfluous pastime.

Isn't it part of the personal development process that you learn to accept things that are inevitable, that you cannot get everything you want (despite what some liars keep telling you)?

[Frans]

I-M is based on the assumption that "your thoughts create your reality".

What if you are NOT the creator of your thoughts, what if the universe plants these thoughts in your mind?
In this case YOU are not the Intention maker, it's the universe that uses you as a medium to experience something.
If you use I-M (and if it works), the result will be: you'll get what the universe wants (not what you want).
I can live with that, but like I said in the previous post, this makes I-M a redundant pastime.

[moviestar]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Since this part of LoA keeps coming up and seems to be causing a lot of misunderstanding for people, I decided to write an article to explain what I believe to be required in the "Receiving" part of the Law as it pertains to action.

So as not to hijack this thread, I will start a new one, but the link to my article can be found here: Getting the Law of Attraction Working for You

I think it will help those who haven't been getting any success with IM or LoA.

Your entire article can be summed up as "The Law of Attraction works but...".

Can't you see how wrong your line of thought is?
The entire model of intention manifestation can be replaced by something more productive. By a model which really answers your questions. What do I do? What action will I take? How will I do it?

Your article is about that, it is about action and that is helpful. So, why do you insist to involve the supernatural in the process?
Rename the article to "Getting Yourself Working for You" and nobody will be confused anymore.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by moviestar

Your article is about that, it is about action and that is helpful. So, why do you insist to involve the supernatural in the process?

"Light works fine as a wave, Professor Bohr. Why do you insist that it is also a particle?"

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Frans

I-M is based on the assumption that "your thoughts create your reality".

What if you are NOT the creator of your thoughts, what if the universe plants these thoughts in your mind?
In this case YOU are not the Intention maker, it's the universe that uses you as a medium to experience something.
If you use I-M (and if it works), the result will be: you'll get what the universe wants (not what you want).
I can live with that, but like I said in the previous post, this makes I-M a redundant pastime.

Is this something you realized recently? I've been seeing your messages along this theme, and I haven't said anything but you're on the right track. I experienced this "planting" of thoughts you speak of, have you?

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by moviestar

Your entire article can be summed up as "The Law of Attraction works but...".

I'm sorry, but if that's what you got out of it then you have completely misunderstood my article.

Your article is about that, it is about action and that is helpful. So, why do you insist to involve the supernatural in the process?
Rename the article to "Getting Yourself Working for You" and nobody will be confused anymore.

Because it's not about ME working on ME. It's about ME along with the entire UNIVERSE working on ME. The article simply states that you have to participate, because some people were thinking that it was simply the UNIVERSE working on them, without them doing anything.

If your model of YOU working on YOU, works for you, stick with it. There's no point doing something else if you're happy with the results you're getting. I simply wasn't happy with my results which is why I implemented IM into my life and have been happy since.

[The Protagonist]

Anyone who says that the I-M process is a giant grapefruit pill is very wrong. I have manifested things I want without taking action in the most craziest ways possible. This is no placebo effect.

This past summer I wanted to shadow doctors in a surgical ward (looks really good for applying for colleges). I knew that they would never let a high school senior do such a thing, they generally speaking would never let anyone who is not an MD inside the surgical theater duiring surgery. Then while visitng my Dad's friends house, my Dad's friend who I will call mr. G called me over. He told me that his friend down at Georgetown medical was going to be doing nuerosurgery with some of his med school students on a very rare case. A girl had abcesses in her brain and needed them removed. Mr. G told me that I could go with him there and he could get me into the surgery. He did this because he wanted me to see what actual surgery is like before taking the plunge and applying as pre-med. Well withing 24 hours I was in the G-town med school in a borrowed pair of scubs. Getting a once in a life time oppertunity. I really wanted it, and then I got it. Action = except passion and courage to talk to the guy. The oppertunity it self came out of the blue <-- I/M..

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by The Protagonist

Anyone who says that the I-M process is a giant grapefruit pill is very wrong. I have manifested things I want without taking action in the most craziest ways possible. This is no placebo effect.

This past summer I wanted to shadow doctors in a surgical ward (looks really good for applying for colleges). I knew that they would never let a high school senior do such a thing, they generally speaking would never let anyone who is not an MD inside the surgical theater duiring surgery. Then while visitng my Dad's friends house, my Dad's friend who I will call mr. G called me over. He told me that his friend down at Georgetown medical was going to be doing nuerosurgery with some of his med school students on a very rare case. A girl had abcesses in her brain and needed them removed. Mr. G told me that I could go with him there and he could get me into the surgery. He did this because he wanted me to see what actual surgery is like before taking the plunge and applying as pre-med. Well withing 24 hours I was in the G-town med school in a borrowed pair of scubs. Getting a once in a life time oppertunity. I really wanted it, and then I got it. Action = except passion and courage to talk to the guy. The oppertunity it self came out of the blue <-- I/M..

Yes, in this case the action required from you was talking to Mr. G, going with him, and attending the surgery. Your intention was to get real life experience in a surgery room. That experience didn't just "POOF" appear inside you when you created the intention, but the opportunity to get the experience did "POOF" appear in front of you (brought to you by the universe), and then you just had to receive it.

However, since this is something you love doing it wasn't as if the action steps required to go there and attend the surgery were "work" for you, it was probably more like "fun" or how I like to call it "Play". For me, however, it would be "work" because I don't like going into surgery rooms, I can't even stand watching the stuff on TV, so it would have been tough work for me. Anyway, I agree with you totally that the action required is insanely smaller when you use IM to help you.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Is this something you realized recently? I've been seeing your messages along this theme, and I haven't said anything but you're on the right track. I experienced this "planting" of thoughts you speak of, have you?

To explain this, I have to return to my "life is a role-playing game" analogy:
Consider an RPG. You choose an avatar and you start the game.
Everything in that game (all possible adventures you might experience) is predetermined by the game developer.

In reality the RPG is physically located on a disk as a static, extremely long chain of microscopic bumps.
To experience that RPG, the series of bumps in the disk must be transformed in pictures and sounds.

In other words, we must introduce an illusion to experience that RPG:
(a) by identifying yourself with your chosen avatar, you put yourself in illusion
(b) time unfolds all adventures you will experience

While in reality there's only a static series of microscopic bumps on a disk, you experience now all kinds of adventures one after the other.
You enjoy the game, no matter that this is in fact only illusion.

You play that game indirectly, via your avatar. If that avatar would have consciousness, he might think: I have free will, I think what I will and I do what I will, but in reality, it is you (the game player) that manipulates that avatar.

For me, this is more than an analogy, I consider my life really as some kind of RPG.
If I identify myself with this human body (my avatar), I think that I have free will, that I can change my future (through I-M, for example ).
However, I know that I'm not that body, that in reality I am the manipulator of that body, that I have chosen that body to experience human life.
I know that I have no choices than to follow my pathway in this "life game", but this makes my life so interesting: I don't care what the future will bring, it's part of the game.

That's the reason why I deliberately don't want to use I-M.

Everything is predetermined by the "game developer" and whether that game developer and the game player is the same person, that's up to you to decide.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Frans

If I identify myself with this human body (my avatar), I think that I have free will, that I can change my future (through I-M, for example ).
However, I know that I'm not that body, that in reality I am the manipulator of that body, that I have chosen that body to experience human life.
I know that I have no choices than to follow my pathway in this "life game", but this makes my life so interesting: I don't care what the future will bring, it's part of the game.

That's the reason why I deliberately don't want to use I-M.

Everything is predetermined by the "game developer" and whether that game developer and the game player is the same person, that's up to you to decide.

What about this theory:

Although the game is an RPG and the data for it is originally stored on a disk, what if there is a central "server" which serves the data to multiple avatars, like for example in the case of Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games? I play a game called World of Warcraft, so I'll use that as an example. THe game is installed on my hard drive, but when I go to play it the game loads from my hard drive but then connects to a server which hosts the reality I'm in. I then play my Avatar which the server hosts. The avatar has certain attributes, skills, weapons, armor, alliances, awards, a rank, level of experience, $ in the form of gold coins, objects etc. Now, in that game, there are also millions of others that connect to this server, and they too have an avatar that plays in this world on this server and interacts with my avatar.

Although the game was developed by some game developers, so the number of possibilities are limited, because of the sheer number of players, skills and attributes you can get in the game, the possible combination of avatars is crazy huge. The game has an economy, an auction house, etc. It's basically a little version copy of real life, like a mini-Matrix thing.

Now, your point is that when I play Warcraft, my avatar thinks that he is in charge of the game and has free will, while it actually ME who is in charge of the game using my keyboard and mouse, however his little brain could make him think he's actually the avatar and playing the game. Therefore, your thinking is that there is no point in using IM at the avatar level, because the REAL YOU will override everything anyways and make you do what IT wants, not what the avatar wants.

The way I look at it is that insted of saying "I am the avatar." in which case identifying with the avatar's mind, I prefer to think that "WE are the avatar." meaning a combination of MY thinking combined with my avatar's thinking. (Spirit + Ego). The two of us get stuff done in this reality running on this server. When balanced out, these two are an unstoppable force, but when EGO tries to take over control, he ends up in failure. Imagine playing a role playing game where the character doesn't want to do what you're telling him to do via keyboard/mouse. You tell him to go up, and he runs left. You tell him to run left, he sits down. This is where the EGO/SPIRIT or YOU/AVATAR are out of wack.

So, the question you should ask yourself in this case is WHO is refusing to use IM, your AVATAR or YOU? Your Spirit or your Ego. If you believe it is EGO that wants to use IM to screw over Spirit, your assumption would be correct, however what if it is your Spirit (your real self) that wants to use IM to manifest things into your Avatars (ego's) world. Then, by refusing to use IM, you're not co-operating with the real you.

If you believe that the real you, your spirit (whatever you want to call it), is capable of creating the thoughs you think of, wouldn't it be your spirits thoughts that originally brought you to learn about IM and on this forum about IM?

Personally, I really don't see IM as a tool for EGO to use as a weapon against REAL SELF. In my life I"ve had times when I've acted and done stuff that I could tell were not in line with my spirit, when my ego seemed to take over, and they felt like crap inside afterwords. There have been a lot of times also when I felt totally connected with spirit and I *KNEW* I was on the right track. WHenever I use IM, I feel connected, not disconnected from Spirit. If you're feeling disconnected to your spirit when using IM, perhaps maybe you're right. Maybe you SHOULDN'T use IM at this point in your life, maybe there are lessons you still haven't learned in this game before you're "supposed" to find IM. Maybe we're all supposed to discover IM on our own from life experience, but the Internet and Self-Development books have been giving us "cheat sheets" to get to the next level.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by impaul99

What about this theory:

Although the game is an RPG and the data for it is originally stored on a disk, what if there is a central "server" which serves the data to multiple avatars, like for example in the case of Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games?

As I'm a big fan of the Ockham's Razor principle, I don't want to make things more complicated than they are, that's why a prefer the simple player RPG instead of an MMORPG analogy.

In this "life game", there are only 2 identities: this body (the avatar) and the game player (I consider the game player and the game developer as one identity).

Now, about my vision on I-M...

This is very simple: as I consider my life as a game, I know that I have chosen this "life game" to experience this particular life, so I believe that it is not appropriate to try changing the rules of the game during that "game" (otherwise, I'd better had chosen another avatar )

Everything in my life ("good" and "bad" things) are part of that game, so I accept everything that happens in my life.

I have 100% faith in my destiny, so I don't care what the future will bring.

That's my motivation NOT to use I-M.

[Hilary]

I know that I have chosen this "life game" to experience this particular life, so I believe that it is not appropriate to change anything during that "game"

I don't get it: how is it possible not to change anything during the game? Doesn't any action or inaction of the avatar affect how the game progresses, one way or another?

[quin]

Originally Posted by cylon

Why would anyone want to struggle against themselves?

Thankyou! This has helped shed some light on wu-wei for me

[cylon]

Originally Posted by quin

Thankyou! This has helped shed some light on wu-wei for me

Took me awhile to understand this concept as well. It doesn't matter what it is, if you're in tune to what you love to do, you can perform millions of actions, but all you'll remember is the experience of doing something you enjoy. The key is making your entire life this way.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Hilary

I don't get it: how is it possible not to change anything during the game? Doesn't any action or inaction of the avatar affect how the game progresses, one way or another?

I meant: it's not appropriate to try changing the rules of the game during the game.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Frans

I meant: it's not appropriate to try changing the rules of the game during the game.

But why assume that using IM changes the rules of the game? If IM was programmed into this game, wouldn't the simplest assumption be that it was meant to be used? Why would the programmers put something into the game only to tell you that you're not allowed to use it because it will break the game?

[moviestar]

It's a feature that is in beta-testing stage. Using it inappropriately might crash the game .

[Frans]

Originally Posted by impaul99

But why assume that using IM changes the rules of the game? If IM was programmed into this game, wouldn't the simplest assumption be that it was meant to be used? Why would the programmers put something into the game only to tell you that you're not allowed to use it because it will break the game?

IMO, I-M is nothing more than a built-in cheat code.

From that Wikipedia article:

Cheat codes are, by definition, considered cheating and most serious players only use them for experimentation, if at all.

[Hilary]

If it's just a cheat code, you can indeed use the game without touching it. But writers about LoA typically say that you're always attracting something, and to 'use' this is just to learn to attract it consciously. In other words, you can't participate in the game at all without using IM.

What if IM were not just programmed in as a cheat code, nor yet just as one of the rules; what if it were the programming language?

[Shaden]

IMO, I-M is nothing more than a built-in cheat code.

Lmao, you expressed exactly what my feelings were towards IM Frans.

Bravo!!

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Hilary

If it's just a cheat code, you can indeed use the game without touching it. But writers about LoA typically say that you're always attracting something, and to 'use' this is just to learn to attract it consciously. In other words, you can't participate in the game at all without using IM.

What if IM were not just programmed in as a cheat code, nor yet just as one of the rules; what if it were the programming language?

I stay with my "life is an RPG analogy":

It's obvious that within that game, there is NO law of attraction, because everything that happens follows a predetermined pattern (designed by the game developer).
Though each player can think that he can change the outcome of that game, it is all predetermined. The longer the player plays this game, the more he will realize where the limits of the game are (ask older people how they experience life, and you know what I mean).

About your last question: "What if IM were not just programmed in as a cheat code, nor yet just as one of the rules; what if it were the programming language?"

A role-playing game is only a program, an application that is written in a programming language. Technically, it can never be the programming language itself, because a programming language is only a loose set of instructions.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Frans

It's obvious that within that game, there is NO law of attraction, because everything that happens follows a predetermined pattern (designed by the game developer).

Oh, it depends.

Tierra (computer simulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[Hilary]

You know, this reminds me of a conversation I had with a visitor to my blog, which is about divination with the I Ching. Same kind of argument, different metaphor. He said that the cosmos was like a performance by a solo harpist. When people started to use divination to understand their lives more deeply and be more effective, this was like climbing up on the stage to pluck at the strings. If everyone did this, it'd ruin the music.

I suggested we weren't in the audience to start with; that the performance isn't a solo, it's more like chamber music on a grand scale. Divination is something like paying attention to the harmony and what the other musicians are doing.

In the same analogy (just for a change from programming), I suppose LoA might be tonality, or some part of it. But my blog visitor wasn't buying it, and Frans doesn't have to, either.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh, it depends.

Tierra (computer simulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Tierra is an example of evolutionary programming/computation.
The principle of evolutionary programming is that the executable machine codes are evolvable.

Tierra has nothing to do with a role-playing game.
Evolutionary computation has nothing to do with the LoA.

The point is this:
According to the Law of Attraction, you can create (manifest) whatever you like, you are only limited by your imagination so to speak.
In an RPG, everything is predetermined, you can only choose between predefined options, you cannot create new options during the game.
This makes it impossible to create an RPG with an "LoA"-type of rule: the structure of an RPG is incompatible with a LoA.

If my "life is an RPG" analogy keeps standing, it will be difficult for I-M practitioners to maintain some claims about LoA and I-M, so I challenge everybody to prove that this analogy sucks.

[Hilary]

Considering I've never touched a computer game, it's a bit of a pig for me. No takers for the music-making model?

Where's Steve when we need him? Doesn't he use 'avatar' imagery to describe his wholly subjective reality? I think maybe the idea is that his small consciousness may be the avatar or player, but he's also the programmer and the program.

[BettyBoo]

This reminds me of a joke: A man was praying God every night: "Please God give me one million dollars on a lottery, please God give me one million dollars on a lottery..." and he went on and on every night.
And one night God appeared to him in a dream: "When are you planing to buy a lottery ticket!?"

[infinitethoughts]

Originally Posted by Frans

I agree with that statement and this is also the reason why I don't want to use I-M.

If you truly believe that the universe gives you what you need (= not what you WANT), then using I-M is a superfluous pastime.

Isn't it part of the personal development process that you learn to accept things that are inevitable, that you cannot get everything you want (despite what some liars keep telling you)?

With that attitude life would just crawl into the fetal position and give up.


All of life is striving to get what it wants, NOT what it needs.......
The whole goal of life is to strive for what you want.

If you didn't strive to get everything you want, then it you're just an automaton, with no desires and drive.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by infinitethoughts

If you didn't strive to get everything you want, then it you're just an automaton, with no desires and drive.

I would rather say that in that case you are in a state of samadhi.

[maryelyn]

our 'needs' are simple. but our 'wants' are limitless! 'want' is a driving force.
'need' is just survival. the evolution of mankind differs from other life forms in that we strive as much for what we want as we do for what we need. that is what keeps us moving forward. and i'm in favor of forever moving forward!

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Frans

If my "life is an RPG" analogy keeps standing, it will be difficult for I-M practitioners to maintain some claims about LoA and I-M, so I challenge everybody to prove that this analogy sucks.

Why would we do that? It's your analogy, and you make the rules. There are many variations of your analogy that I can think of where life COULD be an RPG, but IM would work within it, but since you're making your own rules you can do what you want in your analogy.

My only question to you is What if you're wrong? What if you could have had everything you ever wanted, but instead of using IM to get it you just sat around and waited for the game to play itself out. It sounds to me more like your feeling unworthy of the power of using something like IM. This is actually a very common fear. Most of us fear our own power.