Can two people manifest opposing intentions?

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

We looked at your ideas and decided not to agree with them. Are you okay with that?

Not until you are able to think outside of your current beliefs about the LoA. 99% of the rebuttals to my points use the popular LoA theory and the people who respond don't seem capable of even imagining a universe in which the LoA doesn't work they way they think it does. Until there is a shift that allows the LoA advocates to step outside of their boxes, I'll keep fighting. If not here, elsewhere.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I just want to open your eyes to the possible dangers of using I-M willy nilly, without regards to any long term effects.

Okay, I see. To me, your approach is very much like the guy's who used to stand on the corner of Santa Monica and Third, holding a sign with tiny little lettering describing the dangers of all kinds of things, and fighting to make passersby step outside of the box of thinking in which they are "stuck."

He never made any difference at all, and then one day he went away, and no one has missed him.

The reason for that is, I think, that like you, he was unable or unwilling to get inside anyone else's box and speak in a language born of understanding that could possibly blow out the boundaries of their thinking. In other words, he was working against people and against the way they think, and not with people and with the way they think, and people complied by resisting his resistance. That is the feeling that I get about what you are doing, and also what I and others have been doing with you, too. It's like the fringy guy, because his resistance only serves to keep in place the very thing he's objecting to -- like yours and ours.

But there's nothing wrong with that, and I don't think you should stop! You just keep on fighting, if that's what's there for you to do.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Angela

But there's nothing wrong with that, and I don't think you should stop! You just keep on fighting, if that's what's there for you to do.

Why would you say this? It's completely contradictory to what you just said. If someone's approach is wrong, then telling them that it is right isn't very helpful. You have a point that fighting against something often gives it strength. If I want to change people's minds, then maybe I need to learn to be less antagonistic. I'm willing to accept that.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Why would you say this? It's completely contradictory to what you just said. If someone's approach is wrong, then telling them that it is right isn't very helpful.

I didn't say (and I don't think) your approach was wrong, and I also didn't tell you (and I don't think) that it is right.

Just because something, in my evaluation, is working against someone's conscious aims, that doesn't mean I think they should stop doing it -- I'm fully in favor of both my expressing the viewpoint on the effectiveness of what you're doing AND your doing exactly what's right for you to do, regardless of my thoughts about it.

I am anticipating that "punch in the face" analogy question now. This is my little secret love-message to you, DD.

You have a point that fighting against something often gives it strength. If I want to change people's minds, then maybe I need to learn to be less antagonistic. I'm willing to accept that.

Yeah, me too. (I don't want to change YOUR mind, but I can see this is a good thing for me to remember, too, for elsewhere.)

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Not until you are able to think outside of your current beliefs about the LoA.

I am able. I did this a long time ago, way before you ever suggested it. When I was a Christian, I would have used some similar arguments as yourself. Your beliefs are old to me. In my past.

I know a lot about being a Christian. I led Christian camps. I went on Christian missions. I read the Bible. I taught in church.

the people who respond don't seem capable of even imagining a universe in which the LoA doesn't work they way they think it does.

They are very capable. I know this because they didn't always believe in LoA. They were once skeptical too. ALG was quite skeptical and decided to try it out for himself.

Until there is a shift that allows the LoA advocates to step outside of their boxes, I'll keep fighting.

Will you step outside that Christianity box?

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they aren't capable of agreeing with you. Everyone has different opinions. You know this, but it seems you really want to prove us "wrong." It won't happen. If it were possible, I could have done it.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

ALG was quite skeptical and decided to try it out for himself.

I was, too.

[Daffy Duck]

Indeed. I often reference Acting Like Godot (ALG) because he's basically the "figurehead" of LoA around here. But yeah, many of us were/are skeptical.

Alx, I am still skeptical. I've said this before, but I don't buy into many of the theories I read. I think they could be right, but they could be wrong, so I don't really believe either way.

But just because we don't know how something works doesn't mean we should assume Satan is behind it. If anything, if something is good, as a Christian we would assume God is behind it.

Can you imagine people saying that Satan is how electricity works? I can imagine them saying, "Oooh that power is from the devil!" I bet many people did when it was first introduced. Some people still say this.

[Angela]

And there's that whole "God works in mysterious ways" thing.... christians don't know HOW god or faith works, they just know THAT it works well in their lives.

Maybe god or faith will have long-term negative effects -- there's certainly no proof that it doesn't! But how long does it take for you to know that it's a positive force in your life? As long as it takes, that's how long. For many christians, it is a momentary epiphany, after which their lives are forever transformed. Should they not practice christianity until they've had such an epiphany and they are absolutely, positively sure it's the real deal? Should Mother Theresa have put her christianity on hold for those years while she was having those serious doubts?

How do you react when someone tells you that your religion is a hugely negative, destructive, and stupid force in the world? There's been a lot of that kind of talk around lately. Maybe getting in touch with that feeling, the one you get when you hear people talking that way, will give you some access to understanding and even possibly influencing others.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I know a lot about being a Christian. I led Christian camps. I went on Christian missions. I read the Bible. I taught in church.

You are indeed a most remarkable duck!

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

They are very capable. I know this because they didn't always believe in LoA. They were once skeptical too. ALG was quite skeptical and decided to try it out for himself.

Yes, of course.

No one just wakes up one morning and concludes that his thoughts create his reality.

People move towards that kind of realisation (if they move at all) in small baby steps. And in their own kinds of small baby steps.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Not until you are able to think outside of your current beliefs about the LoA.

Yes, of course I can.

My thinking is extremely flexible, you know. It's one of the benefits of being a LOA practitioner.

Okay ... Let's see ... In an alternate universe, I might believe something like this:

1. The LOA is basically hypnosis, and sometimes, a very strong form of hypnosis.

2. The unconscious mind is an immense storehouse of information and knowledge. On an ongoing basis, it stores every bit of data that we've ever received through any of our five senses; including things in our peripheral vision or hearing. It's just that most of the time, we cannot consciously access any of that data.

3. When we send a message (eg "$10,000 is coming to me now") into our unconscious mind via hypnosis, the unconscious mind starts figuring out how to make that happen. Because it has so much data at hand, it will often be able to figure out a way to make the message come true (ie manifest in reality). Unconsciously we may perform little deeds and acts that have the effect of ultimately causing $10,000 to come to us.

4. Because of the limitations of our conscious mind, when this happens, we typically won't be able to figure out how exactly it happened. We won't know what it was we did that caused the event to happen. Still it was a process driven by our own unconscious mind.

[Acting Like Godot]

Another version of the LOA could go like this.

It's often a kind of unconscious telepathy. Eg you think ''I would like to have more friendship in my life''. You are broadcasting this message into other people's minds and they receive it unconsciously.

Of all the people who unconsciously receive the message, some will unconsciously find that your intention suits their own purpose. Eg perhaps they too would like more friendship. So unconsciously they gravitate towards you in a friendly way. Then you become friends with them.

[Acting Like Godot]

A 3rd version of the LOA is actually clairvoyance-based. You aren't actually creating events. What's happening is that you form an intention, and if your desire is strong, your mind goes out there in psychic ways, to gather a lot of relevant information about how to fulfill your intention. You then collect (unconsciously) relevant information about how to fulfill your intention.

That's how you end up going to the right place at the right time so that a lucky ''coincidence'' occurs to you.

[Acting Like Godot]

All these alternative theories have flaws. If you analyse carefully enough, you'll see for yourself.

Eventually you may also see that one of the best theories (that hold up most consistently against all your LOA experiences) is that you create your entire reality with your own mind.

[Willworker]

Well, that was an interesting synchronicity. I was just writing a post on LOA being some form of psychic phenomena and here you are explaining how that is a possibility.

This is awesome, yet freaky.

Personally, I find the clairvoyance theory to be very interesting. It means that you are actually effecting reality, but in a less God-like manner and rather more in the manner of a tinkerer. You're consciously trying to influence the usual 'flow' of events, and thus, why it requires patience and time. An analogy would be like this: you're trying to guide future events to your liking, like diverting water to your pool, rather than abruptly generating waterfalls.

This also gives an interesting reason for detachment. Most of the more serious psychic researchers note that psi phenomenon is mostly an engineering problem with a high noise(from conscious thoughts) versus signal(from subconscious use of psi). As Stephan Schwartz noted, there currently seems no way to improve the "signal" strength(psychics are born, not made?), the best way to actively exercise psi phenomenon is to reduce the "noise" from conscious thoughts.

On a less positive light, if this model is true, then it implies some people are going to be much weaker or incapable of using LOA. As psi ability seems innate and gifted psi-individuals are rare, there may also be rare individuals who just lack that ability in near total.

[WakingLife]

Originally Posted by Judge

Here is the anwser.

The Law of Attraction

Judge

so i read the answer about conflicting intentions, but it all made me feel responsible and guilty for things going on in other countries since the page is arguing that i am the creator of any unfortunate events... can anyone propose a good counterargument for this?

[Acting Like Godot]

Hi Kanzeon. Sure, for instance, you can also take credit for creating all the good, kind, inspiring marvellous things going on in all other countries.

But don't get too swell-headed now. The important thing to bear in mind is that your consciousness is very, very vast, and its most dominant themes manifest in the most immediate aspects of your reality (eg in your daily experience; your daily routine; in the events and circumstances that affect and surround you in the most direct ways).

Eg if you are a very nasty, cruel person and that represents your dominant thought pattern, it doesn't mean that on the other side of the planet, people can't be nice, pleasant and honest. But it does mean that you can expect to find in your daily life the karmic repercussions of being nasty & cruel.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The important thing to bear in mind is that your consciousness is very, very vast, and its most dominant themes manifest in the most immediate aspects of your reality (eg in your daily experience; your daily routine; in the events and circumstances that affect and surround you in the most direct ways).

If (as the popular subjective reality theory proclaims) everything is in your mind, then shouldn't your affect on the opposite side of the world be eactly equivalent to your affect on this side of the world? Couldn't it be true that you only recognize your affect on this side of the world because you spend more time in it?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

If (as the popular subjective reality theory proclaims) everything is in your mind, then shouldn't your affect on the opposite side of the world be eactly equivalent to your affect on this side of the world?

Sure .... If your mind is equally directed to the opposite side of the world. Which is usually not the case, unless you are deliberately focussing there (eg you have some important matters related to that country).

Simple example. In Dean Radin's water crystal experiments, people in one country are asked to meditate and direct their thoughts at specific water samples in another country. (There are, of course, experimental controls, control groups etc etc - Dean has gone beyond double blind, to triple blind controls). Result - the water samples' molecular structure is altered. However, the control water samples (located in the same building, but on a different floor and room) are not affected.

[SmartAlx]

You're thinking objectively, not subjectively.

If everything that happens in the world is inside your mind (subjective reality), then everything that happens in the world is controlled by you. Therefore anything and everything inside the world is equally affected by you.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Therefore anything and everything inside the world is equally affected by you.

Equally? That's an interesting idea. Why?

I see it like this: Can you equally move your thumb as well as your pinky? Can you equally write with your left hand as well as your right hand? If you can not equally control your own hands, do you think you can equally affect your whole world?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

If everything that happens in the world is inside your mind (subjective reality), then everything that happens in the world is controlled by you.

That's incorrect. What you have wrongly assumed is that you have absolute control of your mind. But you don't. You have only a very minimal degree of control over your own mind & thoughts.

This answer may sound shocking to many people. But it doesn't shock anyone who has had a little experience, say, with meditation. Meditators understand experientially how vast their minds are, and how very little control most of us have over our own minds.

[James81]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

That's not surprising. A lot of people make that comparison. But prayer is humble. IM is proud. Prayer is a question. IM is a statement. LoA advocates also compare IM to performing spells, but prayer and spells are completely different.

Whoah, back up the horse here a bit. You've assigned a lot of traits to each thing there that I'm sure many will disagree with.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I'm afraid that you don't understand prayer at all. You apparently think that it is identical to IM in its methodology, but it isn't. We are taught to pray very specifically in The Bible. We do ask for God to heal Bobby of his swine flu. But we are humble in our approach. We know that we are not worthy of the prayer being answered, but we pray anyway because God has proven time and again that He is compassionate and full of grace, and there is a very good chance that it is God's will that Bobby be cured of the swine flu. Miracles do happen. I know of one instance in which a friend of mine went on a mission trip with her church and witnessed one of her friends curing a blind girl. You better believe that he prayed VERY specifically.

What if it's God's will that Bobby not be cured of swine flu because, in his overall plan, it's more important and useful that Bobby HAS swine flu to bring more people to him? In my experience, people can write off "miracles" of this magnitude pretty easily. But the soul-wrenching testimony of little Bobby, touching hearts and lives BECAUSE he got swine flu? That kind of thing touches people on a different level. One level appeals to skepticism, the other appeals to emotions/soul.

And what happens when two people pray for opposing things? That question has arisen in the LoA circles.

With *my* explanation of prayer/LoA, those things are no longer an issue. Because the idea behind them is a process that changes you from within, not something that affects external circumstances.