Be careful what you wish... er... manifest for... you might just get it.

[Angela]

SmartAlx, I notice you haven't responded to my post about this selfishness issue (#22). That's pretty selfish of you, after I took the time to respond to you!

I'm teasing. But is there a reason you skipped over mine? It addresses what you have been speaking of since then.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Angela

You are apparently reading a non-cooperative (and maybe uncompassionate, entirely-self-serving, unconcerned about others) "selfishness" into what people are saying here, SmartAlx -- and your brain is generalizing it out to "this whole new age thing."

New Age is a willingness to intermingle and accept any religious idea, especially as it pertains to metaphysical ideas such as crystals, magnets, pyramids, meditation, energy, consciousness, universal mind, etc. I-M may not necessarily use crystals or magnets but it definitely fits into the metaphysical new age group of ideas.

There are people, sure, who approach any of the things we've discussed here with intentions like the ones you're hearing. But the "belief system" -- or at least most of the ways I've heard of people using intention manifestation -- is extremely holistic. People who are interested in it, including the people you've responded to here -- are interested in the health and vitality of Consciousness -- the whole, all of us, in this together.

Interest in something doesn't necessarily equate to success in that area. You might be interested in a holistic approach to the LoA, but that interest doesn't necessarily equate to it actually having a positive impact on the world. In the early days of the lumber industry the people involved believed that they were being holistic, but now we know that (despite their intentions) they were extremely damaging. If you don't like that example, then consider dam building. It's used for good but it is also extremely damaging.

If I can get you all to understand this one thing, i'll be happy. Your desire might be for a positive outcome for all, and you might even end your meditations with a statement like "for the good of all" but that doesn't mean that your intention-manifestations will result in a good for all.

One important way to contribute to the health of the whole, for example, is to take responsibility for generating love for the self (the individual avatar.) It's like putting your own oxygen mask on first, thus giving yourself the power to thrive and be masterful in being a resource for others. If you are a resource for others but not a resource for yourself, you're not going to be a very long-lasting or effective resource for anyone. It would actually be selfish NOT to take care of yourself, and to generate for yourself what you'd like to see present in the world (like love, for instance.)

That's the obvious answer, but did you read my post about Hurricane Ike? You don't have to have a home to help someone fix theirs. You don't have to have a million dollars to help someone get money.

As for manifesting for others -- a big part of the human game is making our own choices. Manifesting is choosing. If you're manifesting something for a particular person, you are choosing that thing for that person, and that would be pretty selfish, wouldn't it, to take it upon yourself to make choices FOR another? If you choose something for yourself, on the other hand, and I join you in manifesting it for you, that's not interventionist or selfish in my book -- and I don't think that would be "forbidden" by any of the teachers that I've heard about. I think it's important to grant people space of freedom to make their own choices, even if we don't like those choices, because choosing is how we express ourself and find our way of expansion in this human game.

Actually, I'm not really proposing manifesting for other people. I'm for considering how your self - ish manifestations might affect other people.

And of course, you, as the "other," may choose to make a positive difference in the life of that person whose choice you don't much care for. That's not the same as manifesting (or choosing) something for that person. Do you see the difference?

Of course.

"This whole new age thing" is too big a scope to address fully in one post, but in most cases, a holistic, win/win intention exists in just about everyone I've ever encountered who is interested in new age pursuits. Of course there are exceptions who fit more in with your idea of selfishness, but in my experience, it's desire for a healthy whole that motivates and inspires these people -- especially, I'd say, the people who post here!

I understand that most people here are motivated by a universal goodness. In fact the people here are in general very friendly and I commend you all for that. After all, 99% of the people on Earth think they are good. Everyone has an understanding that one of life's goals is to be good (that's one of my proofs of God's existence.) But feelings of warmth and good will towards all doesn't necessarily equate to a positive impact on the world. There are extremely positive people who think the best of the entire society of people who do nothing but sell wholesale (legal) drugs that do nothing but make money for big-pharma. The pharmaceutical industry is a big money making machine that has no interest in preventing disease but rather in curing the symptoms of disease. They won't make any money if no one gets sick. So they don't focus on good health. They focus on fixing health problems. The people who sell their concoctions mean well. They think they are doing good, but in reality they are supporting a destructive industry.

How do you know that you are nothing but a drug salesperson? Be careful. Don't talk in circles. Don't say, "because my intention is positive." That's circular reasoning. And if you think something like, "the universe takes our positive intentions and creates positive outcomes" that's only a theory. You don't know that for sure, especially since no one is willing to take into account the long term ramifications of anyone's manifestations. That is almost exactly like that drug-salesperson who says "big-pharma cares about people." He thinks it's true, but it's not. How do you KNOW that what you say is true? Don't just say "because it works." Yes! It works... for you! But how do you know what the long term affects will be?

Have there been any studies about the long term or long distance affects of people's manifestations?

[StacyT]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

How do you KNOW that what you say is true? Don't just say "because it works." Yes! It works... for you!

SmartAlx,
Are you assuming that there is some universal "Truth" out there with a capital "T". Like, there is an absolute "Right" and Wrong"? Are you thinking that there is a book of rules and answers for life?

Please forgive me, I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just trying to get to the heart of your question - because for me, the answer is: there is no right/wrong. We need all kinds of people - good and bad, selfish and giving - to make the world go around. Otherwise, we'd never know the meaning of happy or sad, love or hate.

Therefore, we need people who are "good" and "evil", "selfish" and "giving", etc. If you are doing makes sense and works for you, then yes, it is "right"! If my "right" was exactly the same as your "right", then we'd all be exactly the same and we'd never know the meaning of "wrong" (or the meaning of "right" for that matter).

So as long as you are being true to yourself and doing what feels like the right thing to you, then you are doing the right thing.

Sorry if that was confusing.

[Angela]

Okeydoke, SmartAlx. Thank you for responding. This was the last time I'm checking in with you regarding your complaints about the dangers and selfishness and general wrongness of conscious intention manifestation.

And it doesn't look like you do much of anything else around here except for rant about such matters, so unless you develop an interest in doing anything else, I don't imagine I'll be running into you again any time soon.

So, Happy Trails!

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Actually I plan on living for other people rather than for myself. THAT is away away from the LoA.

SmartAlx:

This isn't a philosophy board.

Some of this site is devoted to useful self-improvement.

LOA is exactly what it seems. "Arguing" in circles is senseless, because LOA doesn't respect logic. The "theory" (if it could be glorified by such a name) doesn't respect anything: not ethics, not logic, and not consistency. If a point of view actually goes so far as to deny the existence of other minds in the universe, there isn't any refuting it.

Logic isn't a part of the believers' worldview. You can think what you want about that, but you won't change them, and they won't change you.

The conclusion I drew a long time ago is that if anyone offers you a theory to explain human behavior, to solve all your physical and mental ills, or promises you eternal life or even claims they have a secret to worldly happiness, you are best served by running from them as fast as you can.

The glorious truth is there is no "law" anyone can give you that will unlock the secrets of the universe. You have your mind, your heart, and the very real world, that is full of other diverse people, many of whom are good hearted and worthwhile despite believing impossibly silly things.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

How do you know that you are nothing but a drug salesperson?

How do YOU know that you are nothing but a drug saleperson?

How do YOU know that by dissuading people from using their brains to improve their realities, you are NOT doing a disservice to mankind?

The only way you can know that, or try to know that, (or for that matter, anything else in the world), is through the usual processes. Knowledge, experience, reasoning etc.

Your problem is that you've been somewhat lacking in all three departments. Don't take that from me, take it from the comments of many other people who have responded to your posts here over the months.

Your "best" argument to date is that because we do not know everything about the LOA, therefore we shouldn't use it, there is some possibility that it could have some unknown, dark, evil consequences.

Many posters have already quite articulately pointed out the reasons why they cannot agree with your argument. They included, among others, posters who weren't even LOA practitioners and were ambivalent or undecided about it (Piano Performer being one of them).

This clearly indicates that your views lack the backing of knowledge, experience and reasoning. That's why you're not very convincing, you see?

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

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

SmartAlx:

This isn't a philosophy board.

Some of this site is devoted to useful self-improvement.

LOA is exactly what it seems. "Arguing" in circles is senseless, because LOA doesn't respect logic. The "theory" (if it could be glorified by such a name) doesn't respect anything: not ethics, not logic, and not consistency. If a point of view actually goes so far as to deny the existence of other minds in the universe, there isn't any refuting it.

Logic isn't a part of the believers' worldview. You can think what you want about that, but you won't change them, and they won't change you.

The conclusion I drew a long time ago is that if anyone offers you a theory to explain human behavior, to solve all your physical and mental ills, or promises you eternal life or even claims they have a secret to worldly happiness, you are best served by running from them as fast as you can.

The glorious truth is there is no "law" anyone can give you that will unlock the secrets of the universe. You have your mind, your heart, and the very real world, that is full of other diverse people, many of whom are good hearted and worthwhile despite believing impossibly silly things.

I can fully understand your perspective. However, you're in the wrong kind of discussion.

You see, Smart Alx does believe in the LOA. He believes that mind can affect reality in quite paranormal sorts of ways. However, he believes that there is some significant possibility that it works because some demonic force or devil or Darth Vader is at the back of it, granting people their wishes so as to lead them to some ultimate doomsday for the human race.

So if you are here to express support for the view that "LOA doesn't exist, there is no such thing, mind is just mind, and reality is a separate thing, thoughts on their own don't change anything" etc,

well, it is more relevant for you to just start a new thread or revisit one of the old ones.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I can fully understand your perspective. However, you're in the wrong kind of discussion.

With all due respect, the man can speak for himself.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

With all due respect, the man can speak for himself.

Actually, I hate to say it but I couldn't have said it better myself. I especially liked the Darth Vader reference.

[Daffy Duck]

Here's a "realist" perspective.

Disregarding the more abstract parts of the LOA belief, it's really quite simple. You can see how someone would say, "Everyone uses LOA, whether or not they believe in it."

Let's say you wake up in the morning and you want to have clean teeth. You think to yourself, "I want clean teeth. I need to go brush them." So BAM! There's your intention: clean teeth!

So you walk into the bathroom, you put some toothpaste on your toothbrush, and you clean your teeth. And BAM! Intention manifested: teeth are clean!

Was it Satan or another evil force involved? No.
Was it selfish of you to desire clean teeth? No.

Cleaning your teeth is an easy intention to manifest. Doesn't require much technique or practice. But say you want something harder, like, "I want a $20,000 raise." In this case, it may help you to focus your thoughts better on your goal. Heck, every high school basketball coach tells his players about the power of focus. Nothing evil about that. Some techniques that help focusing are: meditation, affirmations, belief boards, and so on.

[Willworker]

I think Pavlina said it best that 'if you believe that LOA is impossible, then you will successfully manifest your belief." Ironic, but true. The simple fact is that for the majority of us, we've found that it is a genuinely useful principle to which I may not be able to explain, but I can definitely state that it exists.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Actually, I hate to say it but I couldn't have said it better myself. I especially liked the Darth Vader reference.

In LOA, everyone gets what they want.

Black people chose to be slaves. Ted Bundy's victims chose to die. Van Gogh chose to paint, and to lose his mind.

There isn't any good, or evil. It's ok to be a murderer, because your victims manifest their demise as much as you do (depending on whether, at the moment, the LOA advocate decides that anyone else exists).

It sounds like you have found the only invalid objection to LOA I've heard so far.

Best of luck with it, anyway.

[Acting Like Godot]

Bah, amateur questions. They have been addressed about 2,000 times in these forums already.

What did the real Saint Anselm say?

"Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand."

He was talking about God, not the LOA. But the parallels are obvious. This argument:

"1. If God exists and is good, he wouldn't allow murder to occur.
2. Murder occurs.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist or God is bad."

is as flawed as this one:

"1. If LOA exists, people wouldn't think thoughts to get themselves murdered.
2. Murder occurs.
3. Therefore LOA does not exist."

Both arguments are too simplistic. They make too many assumptions about God/LOA, goodness, thoughts, people, murder etc etc. The flaw in the reasoning is to believe that a three-sentence argument is enough to decipher the nature of God. Or the LOA.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Both arguments are too simplistic. They make too many assumptions about God/LOA, goodness, thoughts, people, murder etc etc. The flaw in the reasoning is to believe that a three-sentence argument is enough to decipher the nature of God. Or the LOA.

You can't criticize my view of LOA. It's against the rules.

As I read in this very thread, LOA acts in accordance with my beliefs. If I believe something "wrong" in your view about LOA, that is my reality, and so it isn't wrong. Or rather, that is the reality that you manifested for me, since I don't exist, only you do.

To call LOA "simplistic" is to give it far too much credit. But, I stand from a standpoint of reality, which you do not believe in (you believe in the oxymoron "subjective reality"). It isn't very productive to debate someone who doesn't believe in reality.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

=1. If God exists and is good, he wouldn't allow murder to occur.
2. Murder occurs.
3. Therefore God doesn't exist or God is bad."

By the way, there is nothing simplistic about this argument. The problem of evil is one of the most vexing problems of philosophy and of literature (Doestovesky's Grand Inquisitor). There is no satisfactory answer.

The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The second syllogism isn't comparable.

Unlike the God syllogism, there is not contradiction in LOA between the theory and the existence of evil. I said evil can't exist in a world governed by LOA, and many here, even in this thread, agree. You can't create an ethical system, and tell me what I should, morally, do under LOA. Other philosophical systems have the same feature.

But I'm talking about reality, as that term appears in the dictionary. You choose not to believe in reality. We have no common ground of discussion.

[StacyT]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

I said evil can't exist in a world governed by LOA, and many here, even in this thread, agree.

Are you saying that there is an ultimate definition of 'evil'? Because what one person sees as 'evil', another person may see as 'good'.

So of course evil can exist in a world by LOA...

[gigij]

It is hard to be careful what you manifest until you know you are actually doing it. I backed into this the hard way - a very enlightened therapist who was helping me through my 'problems' commented on what a powerful manifester I was. That's when I started looking more into LOA and realized exactly what I was doing - and how I could use it to a better advantage for myself.

[Acting Like Godot]

He was a smart guy, that Saint Anselm (errr, I mean the other one).

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

"Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand. For this, too, I believe, that, unless I first believe, I shall not understand."

This is such a neat quote. It explains why some people's brains are blocked on any Big Question, and some other people's brains are not.

Think I must save this one up for my personal collection of quotable quotes.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

By the way, there is nothing simplistic about this argument.

You are right. It is the conclusion that is over-simplistic.

This is obvious, from the amount of serious discussion that is actually entailed. See for example this link:

The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Same goes for the other argument. The conclusion is over-simplistic.

I said evil can't exist in a world governed by LOA

You do not even know what you are disagreeing with.

Which LOA guru did you get that from?

[gigij]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I understand that most people here are motivated by a universal goodness.

Maybe I'm cynical - but I don't believe that for a moment - or maybe it's just me

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by StacyT

Are you saying that there is an ultimate definition of 'evil'? Because what one person sees as 'evil', another person may see as 'good'.

So of course evil can exist in a world by LOA...

Hence our dilemna.

For purposes of a productive debate, words must have at least approximate objective meanings, and reference an objective world outside the mind. For LOA, there is only subjectivity. If you try to define anything in an LOA framework, you can only run in circles, because all definitions are equally legitimate.

Among people who choose to accept reality, evil may not be agreed to be real or objective, but at least it can be discussed.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

You are right. It is the conclusion that is over-simplistic.

It is a perfectly valid rationale to reject the existence of a God. Then one needs to accept the consequences of a Godless universe, which doesn't necessarily lead to better options.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Which LOA guru did you get that from?

We are all our own gods, and our own gurus.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

No, the conclusion isn't over-simplistic. It is a perfectly valid rationale to reject the existence of a God.

Oh you could told me that in one sentence then. Next time, don't bother to post your links to your favourite loooooong, detailed essays from Stanford.

[Acting Like Godot]

Seriously, StA, I have no idea where you got the idea that evil can't exist in a universe governed by the LOA.

(Oh for the purposes of discussion, let's just assume that the LOA being referred to is the LOA explained by any of the following: Abraham Hicks, Steve Pavlina, Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dyer, Napoleon Hill, Jose Silva or anyone who ever wrote a book on the topic).

From basic principles, we know that if evil thoughts can be thought, then evil MUST exist in a universe governed by the LOA.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh you could told me that in one sentence then. Next time, don't bother to post your links to your favourite loooooong, detailed essays from Stanford.

I found the link interesting and informative.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by StacyT

So of course evil can exist in a world by LOA...

LOL, there you go, I just noticed that StacyT had also pointed it out.

As I said, you are making yourself look silly by arguing against something without even knowing what it purportedly is.

It's like a person arguing against the existence of UFOs without even knowing what UFOs purportedly are. (A kind of fish? An edible rock? Unidentified Ferocious Oranges?).

Whether UFOs really exist or not, the person would just look damned silly.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

From basic principles, we know that if evil thoughts can be thought, then evil MUST exist in a universe governed by the LOA.

Do you accept or reject reality?

Reality:

Philosophy. a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

reality definition | Dictionary.com

If you do not accept reality, there are no basic principles, other than the principle of there being no basic principles.

[Acting Like Godot]

You miss the point. Let me explain.

The rules of logic do apply within subjective reality. Logic is after all the correct deduction of a conclusion from a given set of premises.

Eg if you accept (believe) that:

(1) All tigers are cats; and
(2) John is a tiger;

it is logically correct to say "John is a cat" and it is logically wrong to say "John is not a cat"; and believing that "John is not a cat" doesn't make it correct, since after all, it runs against the two other premises which you have already accepted.

Similarly, if you accept (believe) that:

(1) LOA, if it exists, operates on the principles of x, y, z; and
(2) evil does exist

then you may indeed be able to draw certain logical conclusions, or state that certain other conclusions are illogical, or state logically that yet other conclusions cannot be logically confirmed on the basis of (1) and (2) alone.

What is happening here is that you have drawn the conclusion "The LOA does not exist." This may be a logical conclusion, depending on what your own x, y, z is.

However, I am just pointing out that your own x, y, z doesn't appear to be the x, y, z that LOA practitioners normally accept. Because the x, y, z that they accept certainly allows for the existence of evil in the universe.

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


Anyway, you know what I mean. And I can see that really, you have no interest in any genuine discussion. It's a bit sad, because it IS possible to have genuine discussion with people on any topic even if you believe that they are completely wrong, and at the least, what you might get out of it is some understanding of why they think the way they think, even if you still think that they are completely wrong. (Eg staunch atheists and fervent believers could gain value from a sincere discussion from each other, even if neither changes the other side's minds).

But that's that. And so, goodbye.

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The rules of logic do apply within subjective reality.

As I just pointed out, there is no such thing as "subjective reality." It is an oxymoron.

The defintion of reality is that which exists outside the mind, separate and apart from ourthoughts about it. If you are referring to something other than reality, then by all means explain it without misusing the language.

You say "I know what you mean" but I don't: your phrase "subjective reality" is literally gibberish.

This isn't closed-mindedness: just using words properly.

These concepts have accurate terms: for example, noumenon, phenomenon, quale.

A similar issue arises with the use of the term "law." LOA can't be considered a physical law, because it is not consistently reproducible by everyone. Some belief systems will borrow the word "law" to identify their peculiar, admittedly unproveable theories (for example, the law of karma) - but that usage is unique to the believers. Karma as a universal principle that always metes out rewards and punishments, is a belief, no matter what believers want to call it.

Even the word "attract" is problematic. The idea is expressed as if it is moving physical objects - but virtually every example is of telepathy or thought control. Usually, a person doesn't need to attract a house or a car or a blue feather mentally to expereince it - you can drive to a house, a car lot, or a place where bluebirds roost. The examples demonstrate influence over people to sign a deed to a house, or a bird to fly in your window. Telepathy would be easier to defend, but for some reason there is a compulsion to take examples of influenced behavior, and turn them metaphysical. Again and again, examples of influence over other people are referred to as changing the nature of physical reality. That is another fundamental disconnect that makes discussion somewhat useless.