Can two people manifest opposing intentions?

[Willworker]

What would happen if two people tried to manifest two things that opposed one another?

The simplest answer is this: There is no 'other person.' There is only you, and you are the universe, or alternately, there is no you and there is only the universe.

So did you just manifest another person and give him an interest on opposing you? Congratulations! You just manifested an enemy. Now did you manifest someone opposing you who's trying to manifest against you? Now you believe in a contest of wills. The universe will oblige and create it.

I, and every other person anywhere is only an illusion that you are creating. We exist in your life for some specific reason only, to fulfill some need of your intentions and universe. Perhaps I'm here to offer a viewpoint.

Reality is probably more complicated than this, but if you focus on 'there is no other' first and foremost, you'll begin to realize just how powerful IM is. And it'll become a lot more useful to you, as well.

[iSteven]

I'm all alone. No one else beside me.

YouTube - Im all alone

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Willworker

The simplest answer is this: There is no 'other person.' There is only you, and you are the universe, or alternately, there is no you and there is only the universe.

So did you just manifest another person and give him an interest on opposing you? Congratulations! You just manifested an enemy. Now did you manifest someone opposing you who's trying to manifest against you? Now you believe in a contest of wills. The universe will oblige and create it.

I, and every other person anywhere is only an illusion that you are creating.

So did I manifest the existence of the Olympics then?

I didn't realize that I was that creative! And I wasn't even trying. I guess I manifested the moon landing too! To think that I manifested the moon landing when I was 4 because I remember seeing it on TV while I was sitting on my Daddy's lap! I didn't even know the moon existed but I put a man there! Am I awesome or what????

Seriously, if this is true then life is really frikkin' boring.

[Willworker]

Reality is more complicated than that, but a short answer is...you manifested then that life is exciting and random and beyond your control. The universe, in its infinite creativity, was helpful in bringing about that vision.

And yes, you're awesome.

[993125002]

@ bananya

just because someone wants/believes in something conciously doesn't mean their subconcious does (to the same extent anyways). If I was playing basketball with someone who has never played before, i would be confident that i would win all the time. my concious mind is telling me that i have a 100% chance of winning, but my subconcious mind might say "he/she might get lucky" or "I might twist my ankle and be forced to forfeit the game". As long as the other person thinks (subconciously) that they may have a chance of winning, i will have a chance of losing. Unless my willpower can totally overcome theirs, the chance of losing is there (although very small). There is a difference between believing in something, and thinking that you believe in something, but the results of both are usually the same.

[SmartAlx]

Then please explain the phenomenon of "the upset."

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Then please explain the phenomenon of "the upset."

It's no different from any unexpected thing that you attract into your reality with your thoughts.

"X" arrives in your reality and when it arrives, you say: "Hey, I hadn't had any thoughts about X, how come it's here?".

But of course you did have thoughts about X. You just didn't conceptualise those thoughts as X.

Example - you think about having money, and then you get a promotion. You say: ""Hey, I hadn't had any thoughts about getting a promotion, how come it's here?". The answer should be obvious.

2nd example - you think thoughts about having a fun, happy family etc. Then you go home and you find that your family has organised a surprise party for you. You say: "Hey, I hadn't had any thoughts about a party, how come it's here?". Again, with a bit of reflection, the answer should be obvious.

As you practise the LOA and grow more mindful of your thoughts, you get better and better at recognising how they are manifesting in your reality. This applies to "good" stuff as well as "bad" stuff. Increasingly you will understand that you are responsible for your own thoughts and your own reality, and that it is futile to blame others for anything.

[SmartAlx]

Sounds like post-dicting.

[gigij]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

So did I manifest the existence of the Olympics then?

I didn't realize that I was that creative! And I wasn't even trying. I guess I manifested the moon landing too! To think that I manifested the moon landing when I was 4 because I remember seeing it on TV while I was sitting on my Daddy's lap! I didn't even know the moon existed but I put a man there! Am I awesome or what????

Seriously, if this is true then life is really frikkin' boring.

Don’t look at it as manifesting something as a four year old child – it was manifested by you in the sense that you are a part of the collective conciousness that makes up the reality of the world that we see – and you always have been – whether you know it or not. The ‘person’ that is you didn’t conciously manifest these things – but your essence and being in unity with the universe did. There is only one conciousness – yours.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by gigij

Don’t look at it as manifesting something as a four year old child – it was manifested by you in the sense that you are a part of the collective conciousness that makes up the reality of the world that we see – and you always have been – whether you know it or not. The ‘person’ that is you didn’t conciously manifest these things – but your essence and being in unity with the universe did. There is only one conciousness – yours.

Wait. I thought the universe is all in my mind. Let me see if I understand you...

I am part of a collective consciousness. That collective consciousness is 100% inside my head. So it's like that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other? I'm part of a collective, but that collective is all in my head. That doesn't sound like a collective to me.

It seems to me that there is a disjunction in the LoA world. some people believe in a collective consciousness, but then some people believe that everything we see exists only in our minds... our imagination if you will. You can't have both. Collective consciousness requires more than one consciousness. If it all exists in my mind, then there can be no collective.

[Willworker]

Actually, yes.

If a equals b, then b equals a.

If you are the whole of a collective universe, then the collective universe is also you. If you are a ocean, you can focus on being a particular molecule of water or you may focus on being an ocean. The choice is up to you to focus upon, but it doesn't change the fact that you are still an ocean as well as innumerable individual molecules of water.

And yes, you'll find most practioners of LoA to be somewhat unique in intepretation. This is intentional. LoA is not supposed to be religious dogma but personal discovery. Personally, the fact that it has so much overlap already in the various incarnations of it already surprises and impresses me.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Willworker

If you are the whole of a collective universe, then the collective universe is also you. If you are a ocean, you can focus on being a particular molecule of water or you may focus on being an ocean. The choice is up to you to focus upon, but it doesn't change the fact that you are still an ocean as well as innumerable individual molecules of water.

Ookaay. So an apple can be an orange then because all apples are fruits and all oranges are fruits.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Ookaay. So an apple can be an orange then because all apples are fruits and all oranges are fruits.

Nope. That's not correct. What may help you find clarity in this discussion is the concept of dependent origination in Buddhism. The following links may be useful for you:

Pratītyasamutpāda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dependent Origination by Christina Feldman

For your particular response, you may begin by holding an apple in your hand and asking yourself: "What really is this thing?"

If you go far enough in your explorations of this question, you may see that this apple is really sunshine, water, earth, air, tree, leaf, wood, apple farmer, apple farmer's mother; and apple farmer's mother's mother, and many more things.

For without all of these things, this apple simply wouldn't be here in your hand.

Similarly you may see that your orange is also sunshine, water, earth, air, tree, leaf, wood, orange grower, orange grower's mother; orange grower's mother's mother, and many more things.

For without all of these things, the orange simply wouldn't be here in your hand.

Go even further, and you will see that neither the apple nor the orange inherently exists. If you perceive them as inherently existing, this is merely a mental concept (that is, you have created them as inherently existing objects, in your own mind). Instead their existence depends on the entire universe. The apple and orange ARE the universe. They are exactly what they are and where they are, because the entire universe is exactly what it is and where it is.

And because the universe is changing, the apple and orange are changing too. Everything is impermanent. Although you may not be able to perceive, your apple is changing right at this moment, and is in fact changing all the time. Its atomic structure is inherently unstable. It may also be eaten, digested, passed out and recycled into the universe. It is after all made of the same stuff as the stars.

You too do not inherently exist. Your existence depends on the entire universe. You ARE the universe. You are exactly what you are and where you are, because the entire universe is exactly what it is and where it is, and any change in you is a change in the entire universe.

Why yes, that includes your thoughts too.

[gigij]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Wait. I thought the universe is all in my mind. Let me see if I understand you...

I am part of a collective consciousness. That collective consciousness is 100% inside my head. So it's like that Escher drawing of the two hands drawing each other? I'm part of a collective, but that collective is all in my head. That doesn't sound like a collective to me.

It seems to me that there is a disjunction in the LoA world. some people believe in a collective consciousness, but then some people believe that everything we see exists only in our minds... our imagination if you will. You can't have both. Collective consciousness requires more than one consciousness. If it all exists in my mind, then there can be no collective.

Sorry if I was not clear - it is clear to me but perhaps I am not that articulate. Perhaps collective conciousness is not the correct description - it's more about unity rather than duality. It's a feeling that is hard to put into words actually. And yes I guess it is different for everyone.

[Willworker]

Actually, there's an interesting thought experiment that I think is very worth exploring, Alx. This was also explored in HG Well's Country of the Blind and probably helped me get to the place where I am. This is also interesting because I'm familiar with some rather fascinating stories of the blind as well.

Assume for a moment that we are all blind - none of us has the advantage of eyesight. We get along reasonably well in life, however, leveraging what abilities of touch, smell and hearing that we have. Its all pretty okay.

Now, wolves and sheep move in to share our home.

We now can observe that there are creatures that can attack us or seem to be able to evade us, but since we're not aware of the ability of eyevision, we either must expain 'scientifically' through our known sensory values of hearing, smell and touch. We would be partially correct, too: the wolves have good hearing, and we find that sheep have a very distinctive smell.

We would, however, still be wrong, since vision is an actual facet of reality.

Now 'magic men' tell us of this thing called 'sight.' And they claim that they can use it to achieve various goals such as gathering food or avoiding wolves or whatnot. These 'magic men' don't have much 'sight' either, maybe a faint glimpse now and then, struggling to develop their very rudimentary eyes. They conceive elaborate explanations of what they do see or whatnot - and as with the 'scientists', they're also probably wrong. They're closer to being right, but they're still wrong.

But, it doesn't change the fact that their 'ability' is still marginally useful.

I think that's a wonderful analogy to where we are currently, and perhaps, always have been in terms of human potential. "LOA", "Magick", "Intention Manifestation", "Mantra", whatever you want to call it...its useful. It is evidently real. Our explanations for it are probably lame, but we're all rather crippled by our current blindness. At least we're slightly closer to 'actual reality.'

In recent history, there have been quite a few individuals who have regained their sight through surgical intervention, despite being born blind. Its interesting to note that for them, even though sight is an everyday occurance, its still difficult for them. Even recognizing concepts like 'color' takes the newly sighted several months to a year, and to make any 'subtle' distinctions like deep red from pink takes them even more time. Heck, I suspect that even you, Alx, will have difficulty distinguishing scarlet from crimson while a fashion designer won't.

Not all of life is defined just by the five senses, and not even all our five senses are as developed as they could be. Could it be that 'mindsight'/'intention manifestation' is just another sense to develop, one that we can observe and vaguely attempt to utilize?

PS: Or heck, what about gravity? You don't seem to doubt it. Can you explain it? Nobody that we know of can. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Willworker

Assume for a moment that we are all blind - none of us has the advantage of eyesight. We get along reasonably well in life, however, leveraging what abilities of touch, smell and hearing that we have. Its all pretty okay.

There isn't any need for a thought experiment. This is our reality.

We are unable to experience much of the world: our sense of smell is limited compared to many animals, as is our sense of hearing, and our vision.

We cannot see things that hawks do, or smell things that dogs do.

Now 'magic men' tell us of this thing called 'sight.'

Continuing along a reality-based viewpoint: compare our real world experiences with "magic men" to our experience with "scientists" and "inventors" to transcend the limits of our senses.

Scientists and inventors devise machines that allow us to see or detect small particles, and understand the movement of stars and planets, etc. They have told us about things outside our experience and understanding like radioactivity and electricity. They not only claim such things exist, they prove them, and show how they can be harnessed by anyone, without exception or special skill, and create amazing scientific devices like telephones and lasers.

"Magic men" have been frauds for thousands of years.

Where exactly were you going with this?

[Willworker]

Prove? Proof is very strong term. Can you prove that I exist? Can you prove that you're not a brain in a jar, being fed electrical and chemical signals to simulate reality? Can you prove that you actually see? Can you prove that you are actually conscious, rather than experiencing an illusion of independent thought that is actually the result of various chemical and electrical signals?

You can't. So avoid bandying such words as if they were the end-all of an argument.

I believe what's happening is that you're falling in with the prevailing orthodoxy of the time. In an era of superstition, "scientists" would be considered the same as any other strange believer. They were the "magic men", as Newton himself is an excellent example. If they were all frauds, then all of modern science is also a fraud?

Not so much.

Scientists are individuals willing to analyze and observe phenomena. It has often been the case that they've found later evidence to support practices previously used by 'magic men', such as fertilization of the ground or the importance of exercise and calm of the yogi. The fact that 1600s scientists did not understand why "feeding the ground of the Great Mother" was a good idea doesn't mean that it wasn't a good idea; and just because we don't yet have the knowledge as to why a phenomenon works, doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

LOA works. Science will catch up, in time.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Willworker

Prove? Proof is very strong term.

No, it's not.

"Prove" requires an acceptance of reality, and application of logic and experience. Things can be proved through reasoning, or by weighing the empirical evidence. When the empirical evidence all points one way, one could consider the matter to be proved.

Can you prove that I exist?

Not through the internet, no.

Can you prove that you're not a brain in a jar, being fed electrical and chemical signals to simulate reality?

Yes. By all accounts, I am a human wasting time on a messageboard. I can confirm that through observation and reference to other people in my environment. I can confirm it by looking in a mirror.

In contrast, I have no evidence whatsoever that I am a brain in a jar. Nor is there any evidence that I'm a cat or Barack Obama.

Is it possible that I'm really a cat, a disembodied brain, or Barack Obama? No, of course it's not. There is a mountain of evidence to support that I am a human typing on a keyboard, and none to support any other theory.

The alternative is to deny reality. You are free to deny reality, but then there isn't any point in talking.

Because, if your view is really that there is no "proof" of anything, then there is no reality, no language, nothing. I can say you're a spider, and it's just as good as your opinion that you're a frog. Without a common basis of accepting a shared physical reality, there is nothing. You might as well write your posts in hebrew or an invisible typeface - you have nothing to communicate.

[Willworker]

Yet, you're completely willing to accept that you're sitting somewhere on top of a floating space rock spinning inside space, inside a galaxy spinning inside an possibly universe. You're willing to accept that you're made up of any number of particular elements, which in their pure form, do not exhibit characteristics known as life. You're willing to believe that unfathomable forces on a distant star cause light which you see daily.

I'm sorry, but you're basing your 'reality' and 'evidence' on beliefs which you have.

In essence, you're not doing anything different from any of us. You're just more in tune with the prevailing orthodoxy. I'm almost certain now that had you been born in a time when flat earth beliefs were common, you would also support the idea of earth being flat. I mean, there's a mountain of casual evidence to support that.

Reality is more complex than your casual senses, alas. To rely purely upon your casual experience would, ironically, dismiss most of the more complex findings of science that you've previously advocated. Truth is, there's no way you can win this argument, though you can try. Ultimately, we all rely on beliefs to distinguish what we believe is reasonable from what is not.

And yes, my opinion is that there's no proof of anything. I would recommend that you try that sometime - its an useful method to open your thinking. It draws back to the reality you just accepted - many of our casual senses are limited. So why rely so heavily upon them?

In three simple steps,

1) Your reality is limited by what you immediately sense.
2) What you sense is limited and flawed.
3) What you believe to be reality, then, is fundamentally limited and flawed.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Willworker

Yet, you're completely willing to accept that you're sitting somewhere on top of a floating space rock spinning inside space, inside a galaxy spinning inside an possibly universe. You're willing to accept that you're made up of any number of particular elements, which in their pure form, do not exhibit characteristics known as life. You're willing to believe that unfathomable forces on a distant star cause light which you see daily.

Any one of those propositions might be wrong. The overwheming weight of the evidence, as I understand it, much of which is second-hand, indicates that these propositions are true.

If there is additional evidence, then certainly I would consider revising my view.

Maybe someone has convincing evidence that the earth is a half-dome sitting on the back of a giant turtle. They can produce that evidence, and I'll weigh it against other evidence. But to say, without any support whatsoever, that it is just as valid to assert that the earth rests on the back on a turtle as it to say it is a planet in space is senseless.

I'm sorry, but you're basing your 'reality' and 'evidence' on beliefs which you have.

Let's draw a distinction: between the existence of reality and the existence of certain defined objects. I can think something is wine, but find out later it's cranberry juice. That doesn't have anything to do with a. the phiiloosphical and logical incoherence of denying realitiy or b. the practice of accepting matters supported by the best available evidence, rather than whatever I dream up at any moment, regardless of evidence.

In essence, you're not doing anything different from any of us.

I don't know who the rest of us is, but I am doing something different than you: I'm insisting on logic, clearly defined terminology, and evidence in a debate.

You're just more in tune with the prevailing orthodoxy.

This is in tune with your view that the world is just a mental construct, or an invention. Let's talk a moment about the understanding of the world throughout history: people have largely had the EXACT same understanding of whether reality exists: they perceive rocks and oceans, understand that other people are independent minds, etc. That someone once thought the sky was a blue dome, or that someone may believe it in the future, is a fairly minor point. You are denying reality and saying that it is valid to assume I'm a disembodied brain or a cat. That is an unusual view, in any era.

, my opinion is that there's no proof of anything. I would recommend that you try that sometime - its an useful method to open your thinking.

I went over this in briefly in another thread. But you are evading the objection I raised in this thread: if there's no proof of anything, in the absolute sense you are claiming, then there is no common basis to discuss anything, because every viewpoint is equally (in)valid. I doesn't open up one's thinking, because most thinking manipulates images and language - neither language nor images are useful in a perspective that presumes nothing exists. To accept as a proposition that there can be no proof of anything is to deny oneself the very ability to think - but I don't think you will grasp that anytime soon.

[Willworker]

And to consistently accept limiting beliefs is to deny yourself the possibility of grasping reality when its not the same as your casual beliefs. Your 'logic' is, alas, flawed. While logic is often useful, slavish adherence to can be lead to fascinatingly Aristotlean thinking of the natural - which while logically coherent, is still incorrect.

Until you realize that you're viewing reality through limited lens, I'm afraid that you'll be trapped in your viewpoint. Its like arguing with a man wearing red-tinted shades that the world isn't actually as red as it seems to him: you keep arguing that everything you see agrees with you and you refuse to even explore any other possibility.

Your logical certainty? More than satisfied. The actual bearing of your logic to reality? Not so much.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Willworker

While logic is often useful, slavish adherence to can be lead to fascinatingly Aristotlean thinking of the natural - which while logically coherent, is still incorrect.

I'm more Kantian than Aristotlean.

Until you realize that you're viewing reality through limited lens,

What do you mean by reality? The defintion of reality is that which exists apart from my thoughts.

Explain the lens I'm using, and why it's limited. I reject radical subjectivity, as I mentioned in another thread, relying mostly on Wiggenstein's observations about private language. I'm not asserting any particular vision of reality, but merely stating that a radically subjective view isn't logically defensible. Additionally, I'm stating as fact that a radical subjectivism can't be a basis for discussion or debate, even it it were true - and you are not addressing the point. I take it, by now, you've conceded the point.

I'm afraid that you'll be trapped in your viewpoint. Its like arguing with a man wearing red-tinted shades that the world isn't actually as red as it seems to him: you keep arguing that everything you see agrees with you and you refuse to even explore any other possibility.

The only viewpoint I've expressed is that I'm not a disembodied brain or a cat, and that, in the context of a debate, the parties need to accept logic, shared terminology, and accept that some reality exists in some form, somewhere. Are you claiming that I'm really a disembodied brain, or that there is some purpose to you and I pretending I am a disembodied brain? If so, to what end?

[Acting Like Godot]

Whatever you know reality to be is merely your state of knowledge.
Whatever you perceive reality to be is merely your perception.
Whatever you understand reality to be is merely your understanding.
Whatever you interpret reality to be is merely your interpretation.

Your own states of knowledge, your own perception, your own understanding and your interpretation are all subjective.

Therefore reality, in any form that you can know, perceive, understand or interpret it, is subjective.

There is zero evidence of any reality that stands separately from your mind.

Unless you can recall a time when you did not possess a mind, and describe what your environment was like then - were there any noises? Could you see the colour blue? Did you have five fingers on each hand?

But of course you cannot do that. If you did not possess a mind, you would not hear any noises or see any colour or even know if you had a hand.

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

This is boring .... Hasn't this forum discussed this like a zillion times already?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

Yes. By all accounts, I am a human wasting time on a messageboard.

Oh that's one perspective.

You're also mostly empty space with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence, with no division between you and the atmosphere next to you.

That's another perspective, a more scientific one.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This is boring .... Hasn't this forum discussed this like a zillion times already?

I agree, but a part of you must enjoy it, or else why do you continue?

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This is boring .... Hasn't this forum discussed this like a zillion times already?

I do notice that you lose this argument regularly. I'd be bored as well.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Your own states of knowledge, your own perception, your own understanding and your interpretation are all subjective.

You seem to have a problem sorting out the relationship between perception and reality. The relationship isn't clear, necessarily, but discarding reality isn't a viable option, practically or in the abstract.

You might do some reading on that.

Therefore reality, in any form that you can know, perceive, understand or interpret it, is subjective.

I sense a shifting usage of "subjective." Perception does not necessarily completely or accurately apprehend the thing in itself. That does not mean that the thing in itself does not exist, or that perception has no reference to reality.

For example, a human sees a tree, a worm feels it, and a bat detects it by bouncing sound waves off it. The experience of the human, the bat, and the worm would be alien to one another. However, the experience described between the humans of seeing the tree would be consistent. It isn't too terribly speculative to assume that all bats experience trees in very similar ways, or all worms. The human, bat, and worm all react to the reality of the tree, and within each species, the perception of the tree is shared in the same way. Hence, the tree is real, and the perception consistent. In philosophy, the perception of the tree is "subjective" - that is "relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself." But the fact that perception is "subjective" in this limited sense does not in any way negate that the tree exists, or make the tree a subject of multiple interpretations.

That is different than using the term "subjective" to convey matters of opinion, or interpretations. The existence of the tree is not open to interpretation. The tree is of a certain species, height, etc. The fact that perception is limited doesn't not make it arbitrary.

There is zero evidence of any reality that stands separately from your mind.

Yes, there is. The notion that there is no existence apart from your mind is a fallacy. You can use Descartes' argument from analogy, or Wiggenstein's argument from language, but the result is the same - there are other minds in your experience which are independent of your own. Because there are other minds, your mind does not encompass all of existence. Because these minds communicate, they share common points of reference.

But thank for acknowlediing, finally, a reality: you do not believe in reality. If there is no reality, you have nothing to communicate. I'm glad we got beyond "subjective reality" and identified your view correctly. A breakthrough.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh that's one perspective.

You're also mostly empty space with a few subatomic particles rapidly blinking in and out of existence, with no division between you and the atmosphere next to you.

That's another perspective, a more scientific one.

I hate to keep harping on language, but I don't see how they are two perspectives in any meaningful sense. A perspective is a "subjective valuation of relative signficance." Human beings are made of atoms, which are made of subatomic particles. It's like saying "one perspective is this is a glass of water, and another is it is a glass of H2O" - you have said the exact same (objective) thing twice, and not subjectively evaluated anything. There is no greater or lesser signficance to the subatomic composition of a human than the operation of the whole. They are two different ways of describing the same reality, not subjective valuations of reality.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I agree, but a part of you must enjoy it, or else why do you continue?

God knows. I must say it's damned repetitive.

We need some new topics!!!

We should create some kind of FAQs for the newbies posing the same old questions. Or maybe just provide links to the old threads.

[marinik]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

God knows. I must say it's damned repetitive.

We need some new topics!!!

We should create some kind of FAQs for the newbies posing the same old questions. Or maybe just provide links to the old threads.

This is a very good idea! A whole FAQs Forum. They ask and get the link !!!!!!