Why don't schizophrenic's dream worlds turn into reality?

[SmartAlx]

There are people in mental institutions who dream up their own worlds. They do not exist in our world at all. Their world is all in their mind. If what the LoA gurus say is true, why doesn't their reality become our reality? What's the difference between a schizophrenic and a LoA guru? I suppose the LoA guru would say that the schizophrenic people make themselves insane, but they don't even have the sanity to understand insanity. How does the LoA guru reconcile the view that we create our own reality against people who create a reality inconsistent with ours? If we all choose our own reality, why don't the crazy people have any effect on the real world? Why can't they make our sky purple? They often believe their visions more than we believe our own, so by the rules of the LoA, they should have MORE power than we do. Yet they don't.

Doesn't this disprove the LoA?

[Angela]

D'oh! I just can't quit you!

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Doesn't this disprove the LoA?

No.

They do not exist in our world at all. Their world is all in their mind. If what the LoA gurus say is true, why doesn't their reality become our reality?

Neither the LoA nor subjective reality posits that someone else's reality becomes "our" reality, in the way you are thinking: like "THE objective truth." What you are saying just isn't congruent; of course people with schizophrenia exist in your world -- you have just referred to them. If you were operating with a subjective reality perspective, which I understand you are not, and therefore it seems incomprehensible and wrong, then you would be present to how you are creating the existence of "schizophrenics." The "insanity" is an aspect of you, and if you were to heal your own insanity, the schizophrenia would not be part of your reality.

(I am anticipating your response to be, as in the past, "it sure as hell does exist in real objective reality!" and of course, that makes sense if you're operating within the framework of "there is a The Truth, an Objective Reality that exists independently of consciousness." SR perspies can see the "truth" of that, because OR lives inside of SR, but it's harder for OR perspies to see the "truth" of what SR perspies can also see, because the boundaries of OR are opaque, until you find a way to see through them. The ballerina optical illusion, and how people believe it's a scam until suddenly the notice they have the power to effect the apparent movement of the image, is a great little analogy of this.)

With an LoA perspective (which of course we have let you know several times is not equivalent to a subjective reality perspective), "reality" is not necessarily seen as the creation of consciousness. Lots of LoA people believe in God or some other source of creation, or just leave it as an unknown factor outside of themselves. Some of these people notice that they tend to get more of what they focus on, and it's a pretty reliable phenomena, like gravity. They don't necessarily believe they are "creating" their reality; some believe they attract what they are vibrationally aligned with. Even outside of an SR perspective, that tendency is so subjective that it's not terribly efficient to try and measure it, except for taking personal stock of one's own results. It's like trying to measure love or happiness -- it can be sort of attempted, but it's not like measuring your body fat.

What's the difference between a schizophrenic and a LoA guru? I suppose the LoA guru would say that the schizophrenic people make themselves insane, but they don't even have the sanity to understand insanity. How does the LoA guru reconcile the view that we create our own reality against people who create a reality inconsistent with ours? If we all choose our own reality, why don't the crazy people have any effect on the real world? Why can't they make our sky purple? They often believe their visions more than we believe our own, so by the rules of the LoA, they should have MORE power than we do. Yet they don't.

People with schizophrenia are genuises at creating their reality, although I believe that their reality is far more fluid than the reality we non-schizophrenics tend to operate in on a day-to-day basis. That can be pretty upsetting. The difficulties with emotion, the overwhelm and upset and helplessness, that come with experiencing such a lack of control and consistency of state, are part of what makes it difficult for someone with "mental illness" to deliberately create a reality that works well for them -- they are not vibrationally aligned with what you think they should consciously desire, so of course they're not manifesting that. They're manifesting their own game.

And in SR, of course, it's YOU who are creating that manifestation. It's all your consciousness creating schizophrenia, creating the words you are reading, creating the words that bubble up in your head as you read them, and the emotions, too.

[Angela]

Now that I think about it, this sliding, fluid nature of an OR perspie's experience of what SR or LoA perspective looks like may be what is so upsetting -- what makes them fighting-words -- in the same way it's upsetting to someone with schizophrenia or OCD to feel so utterly out of control of their experience of the world.

I suspect the OR person has an inkling of the usefulness of understanding SR or LoA, even if it's not for them to try it right now, or he wouldn't continue to shadow-box.

If the OR person read words about SR or LoA and had no personal aspect of it within, I think he would just pass over it with a smirk, the way he might when reading about the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may you be touched by his noodly appendage.) But when a button is pushed, that means there is some wiring inside that is reactivating some power, and that's why the buzzer goes off, in my experience. If the wiring is not attached to anything, there's no buzzer, and the person goes on about his merry way, unfazed.

What do you think about that, Acting Like Godot, wherever you are, my sweet and well-spoken Aspect?

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Doesn't this disprove the LoA?

From an Objective understanding, yes, it can be used to discredit LoA or SR.

And that's just it. There are two primary beliefs:

1. We live in an objective world and we experience it in a subjective way. This seems to be your belief, SmartAlx.

2. Everything is subjective, including the world and our experiences of it.

The consensus is that LoA tends to make more sense in SR, but it can also make plenty of sense in OR.

[Angela]

Daffy, I gotta love that 200 word maximum! Maybe it's time for me to adopt it, too!

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Angela

D'oh! I just can't quit you!

I know. LOL. I have a nasty habit of coming up with the most interesting debates, don't I?

of course people with schizophrenia exist in your world -- you have just referred to them.

Sorry, I should have said thier reality isn't consistent with our reality.


So, apparently there is a new thought on the LoA that wasn't being discussed too much (not with me anyway) when I was here a couple of months ago: Subjective and Objective reality. Funny that it's so prevalent now so much that it seems to be the default answer to everything and 2 months ago nary a word was said about it at all.

[Daffy Duck]

Oh yes, people here have talked about it a lot. Here's a blog post about Subjective Reality from 2006: Subjective Reality Q&A

[Angela]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I know. LOL. I have a nasty habit of coming up with the most interesting debates, don't I?

You do. You have a manner of talking about these subjects that is provocative to me!

Sorry, I should have said thier reality isn't consistent with our reality.

Yes. More and more I realize that reality isn't really consistent from any person to any other person. I mean, there are some agreements that many people have, but there is no one "reality" I've found that everyone agrees to operate within.

One example of that is a seminar I was in, in which the question was asked, "What is The Truth (objectively true) about sex?" and we were all surprised that out of 101 people, we couldn't find one solitary statement that everyone agreed was Real - The Truth about sex. Funny!

Another example I've been experiencing lately is the "reality" of time. It seems pretty real to you and me that time passes, right? Maybe the future is in front of us and we can put things behind us in the past, yes? But I'm finding in my practice that we store time differently in our experience of "reality" -- it's pretty interesting to see how people store their memories of both the past and of the future in a variety of particular ways, and they assume everyone else stores them in the same way. Even just becoming consciously aware of how you unconsciously store time can be a life-changing, reality-changing experience.

So, apparently there is a new thought on the LoA that wasn't being discussed too much (not with me anyway) when I was here a couple of months ago: Subjective and Objective reality. Funny that it's so prevalent now so much that it seems to be the default answer to everything and 2 months ago nary a word was said about it at all.

It ebbs and flows, but we've been discussing it here for years. How long have you been participating here? As for subjective reality being the default answer, I'd say that there are some people who operate almost completely within a subjective perspective (not too many), lots who play with moving among different perspectives of reality and using that flexibility to get the results they want in life, and many who think SR is a bunch of hooey. And plenty of people enjoy speaking with you and others who think it's hooey, because it's fun to talk and clarify and adjust their own views.

I think I fall into that category, mostly -- it's fun to talk to you and others who think as you do, mostly, because it's great feedback and great opportunity to hone perspectives that work well for me (subjectively -- not that I expect others to adopt my perspective ).

I say "mostly" because, like happened the other day, when I feel like someone is mismatching me, I just lose interest. When I feel like questions are asked with a genuine intention to reach and share understanding, and a space of freedom is being granted to explore and grow, then it's fun; but when the conversation becomes overrun with the kudzu of "I'm right/you're wrong," and I feel like I've answered the same questions with no feeling that the asker is genuinely interested in sharing understanding, then the fun just gets choked off for me, you know what I mean?

I don't generally see you as doing that; I just felt a little choked off the other day -- I didn't feel like I had the inner resources to make myself heard the way I would like to have been heard. Do you see what I'm talking about? I'm sorry I was a butthead.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

There are people in mental institutions who dream up their own worlds. They do not exist in our world at all. Their world is all in their mind. If what the LoA gurus say is true, why doesn't their reality become our reality? What's the difference between a schizophrenic and a LoA guru? I suppose the LoA guru would say that the schizophrenic people make themselves insane, but they don't even have the sanity to understand insanity. How does the LoA guru reconcile the view that we create our own reality against people who create a reality inconsistent with ours? If we all choose our own reality, why don't the crazy people have any effect on the real world? Why can't they make our sky purple? They often believe their visions more than we believe our own, so by the rules of the LoA, they should have MORE power than we do. Yet they don't.

Doesn't this disprove the LoA?

No, it doesn't. In fact, the schizoprenic's reality is, as usual, fully consistent with LOA principles. To understand this, it may be useful to first consider the interactions between any two sane people. Eg let's consider a teacher and a student.

According to LOA principles, each has attracted the other into his own reality. That is to say, the teacher has attracted the student, and the student has attracted the student. Coming together, say, in a classroom context, they each co-create an experience for the other.

But that is not to say that each of them has the same experience. They don't. For example, the teacher may feel that the classroom experience was very interesting. The teacher may have had a great time. He sees himself as an excellent teacher, and the student as an interested student, and the lesson as an important one.

The same student may or may not. For example, although the teacher genuinely has had the experience as described earlier, the student himself may feel that the classroom experience was quite painful. The student sees the teacher as an over-enthusiastic teacher, and himself as a rather bored student, and the lesson as another difficult, stressful exam topic.

Same classroom, same lesson ... But in two different realities.

Now, coming back to the schizophrenic. Suppose he is in the same room as you. In his reality, there is a woman, Sally, with bat ears who keeps following him and talking to him - she's in the room right now. In his reality, there is also another person - you - who for some strange reason just can't see or hear Sally.

In your reality, there just isn't any Sally. In your reality, there is you and this madman in one room, nobody else is there, definitely no "Sally", and in your reality, this madman clearly is very mad.

So the madman is part of your experience & reality. And you are part of the madman's experience & reality. Some parts of those realities coincide - eg both the madman and you agree that both of you are in the same room. Other parts of those realities however do NOT coincide - Sally, for instance.

Essentially, the madman-&-you-in-a-room scenario is no different from the teacher-&-student-in-a-classroom scenario. Except that we might say that the differences in the realities of the madman & you are somewhat sharper than the differences in the realities of the teacher and the student.

In structural form, it looks like this:

(1) X and Y are in the same place and at the same time
(2) X and Y nevertheless perceive reality differently
(3) X's reality and Y's reality are therefore different and distinct, even though they are at the same place at the same time

That's it.

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

Above analysis is based on co-creator model of reality. If you go by SR, it's even simpler. The madman and his imaginary Sally are all aspects of your own consciousness. In other words, you created a madman with an imaginary Sally following him around.

You will get an even deeper insight into this SR perspective, if you read "Zero Limits" by Joe Vitale, where he describes how a modern-day miracle worker, Dr Hew Len, sets out to cure an entire ward of psychiatric patients, through ho'oponopono, the traditional Hawaiian form of LOA.

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

To understand the schizo scenario better, you may wish to watch the movie "A Beautiful Mind".



It indeed contains some powerful lessons about the LOA. It is based on a true-life story of a schizophrenic who was also a brilliant mathematician.

The man finally saves himself, when he deduces, through the application of his high intelligence, that certain parts of his own reality are merely delusions created by his own mind. He then steadfastly ignores all those parts - including the three imaginary persons who keep following him around. They never really go away, but over time their power over him subsides, because he simply refuses to listen or talk to them anymore. In time, they become a small, dispirited, listless group of characters who still show up now and then but have no more influence over him.

So it is with our own realities. As we begin to understand that they are of our creation, we begin to gain more control of our own creation. One day, we may even wake up fully - as the Buddha did - and come to a full experiential realisation that it is all illusion.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

So, apparently there is a new thought on the LoA that wasn't being discussed too much (not with me anyway) when I was here a couple of months ago: Subjective and Objective reality. Funny that it's so prevalent now so much that it seems to be the default answer to everything and 2 months ago nary a word was said about it at all.

New? Hardly.

In fact, in May 2006, Steve received so many questions from readers about it that he did an FAQ (Most Frequently Asked Questions) post about it.


Subjective Reality Q&A

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

New? Hardly.

In fact, in May 2006, Steve received so many questions from readers about it that he did an FAQ (Most Frequently Asked Questions) post about it.

Subjective Reality Q&A

Hey you, stop copying my posts!

[Acting Like Godot]

Oh sorry! Just saw your post.

[Willworker]

It should also be mentioned that active conscious use of LoA requires a fairly organized mind, you need to at the least, have a clear intention and steady faith in it.

The insane could only very doubtfully be said to have an organized mind - some personal ancedotes of the insane will assure you that if they can't effectively manifest brushing their teeth(have an intention to brush teeth, find toothbrush, brush teeth), then more complex manifestations are probably far beyond their capabilities.

Even the most positive of the insane don't exactly seem to have a state of mentality that I know of which really resonates to how we would like to see LoA. I knew one girl who believed that she was going to have a child every night, and fixated on the 'going' part. Assuming that reality is correlating exactly with her thoughts, then she has maintained that holding pattern forever.

[Riddle]

People who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia are not "insane" or "madmen", and it is offensive to call them that.

Schizophrenia is a very broad diagnostic category, and in the upcoming DSM V it is going to be divided up into separate disorders. People with the disorder can have different symptoms of varying degrees, but they don't have their symptoms all the time, and so schizophrenics are more than just their symptoms - they are people like you and I.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Riddle

People who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia are not "insane" or "madmen", and it is offensive to call them that.

It is a matter of perspective. In mind/reality discussions, Eckhart Tolle has often described the vast majority of the human race as insane or mad. That includes, in all likelihood, you, and in all likelihood, me.

Buddha was perhaps a little more diplomatic and merely described the vast majority of the human race as "asleep" and presumably, trapped in their own dreams.

"Buddha" in fact means "one who has awakened".

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Riddle

People who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia are not "insane" or "madmen", and it is offensive to call them that...

...they are people like you and I.

Your point? What you say might be true but it doesn't do anything but distract the argument. Do you have a point that relates to how schizophrenic people relate to the LoA?

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Your point? What you say might be true but it doesn't do anything but distract the argument. Do you have a point that relates to how schizophrenic people relate to the LoA?

Yes I have a point. You said,

I suppose the LoA guru would say that the schizophrenic people make themselves insane, but they don't even have the sanity to understand insanity.

That statement is based on the presumption that schizophrenics are "insane". However, they are not insane, which is an offensive term to use, instead they are mentally ill - which is not the same thing. Therefore, I question your whole argument which seems to be based on this false presumption.

Also, I cannot resist the temptation to comment on something else that you said.

What's the difference between a schizophrenic and a LoA guru?

The LoA guru has not yet been diagnosed.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Riddle

That statement is based on the presumption that schizophrenics are "insane". However, they are not insane, which is an offensive term to use, instead they are mentally ill - which is not the same thing.

Okay then, define insane. If mentally ill and insane are two different things, then what does insane mean?

Therefore, I question your whole argument which seems to be based on this false presumption.

Making a semantic mistake doesn't invalidate an argument.

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Okay then, define insane. If mentally ill and insane are two different things, then what does insane mean?

I don't need to define a word that is obsolete, but I suppose it could be used to designate some hypothetical person who is completely deranged and exhibits no coherency in any of their thought or behaviour - although I don't think that any such person actually exists in real life.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Making a semantic mistake doesn't invalidate an argument.

It would make the argument unsound.

In your case, the premise that schizophrenics are insane is false, and thus your argument is unsound -admittedly I have not examined the rest of your argument in any detail, but I found this mistake particularly annoying since it is a common false misconception.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Riddle

In your case, the premise that schizophrenics are insane is false, and thus your argument is unsound -admittedly I have not examined the rest of your argument in any detail, but I found this mistake particularly annoying since it is a common false misconception.

You know, what's funny is that I knew that some people can be annoyed by other people calling schizophrenics crazy, insane, or whatever. But I decided that to make things easier to understand I would use language that people use, even if it's wrong. If someone can't get past the semantics, then that's their problem.

I do apologize that I have offended you though. It wasn't my intention. Do you know a schizophrenic person?

Read this:
Is it alright to complain?
Ask yourself this... did your emotional response to my question prevent you from answering the question the way it was intended? If so, then the problem is yours, not mine.

[themaster]

Jeez SmartAlx.. you could try questions like..

Why's the sky blue?
Why was chicken little afraid of the sky?
If I mix 2 parts nitro, 1 part oxygen and 1 part helium I get??

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

There are people in mental institutions who dream up their own worlds. They do not exist in our world at all. Their world is all in their mind.

They are just reflections in our reality showing us that we too could leave this one.. beautiful isn't it??

There world isn't in their mind.. their not even really here.. what we see is their reflection for us..

Recently I was wondering if you could have a conversation with them.. on this idea.. maybe

If what the LoA gurus say is true, why doesn't their reality become our reality?

I answered this question.. see above.. but to make it a little clearer.. there are general outlines and guidelines for this reality's construction (aka limitation) most of the schizophrenic's have broken those guidelines.. hence why they show us a specific reflection..

What's the difference between a schizophrenic and a LoA guru?

OMG!! I don't know.. you've stumped me.. there is no difference silly.. only the idea that the schizophrenic has left our 3rd density for somewhere else.. and given us a reflection to follow

Doesn't this disprove the LoA?

According to you every fear based IDEA disproves loa.. why don't you throw out why we haven't been killed by "Freddy" from nightmare on elm street or "Jason" from friday the 13th..

[Acting Like Godot]

But, master, these are all very good questions!

Originally Posted by themaster

What's the difference between a schizophrenic and a LoA guru?

Let's make that question a little more challenging. What is the difference between a schizophrenic, the typical joe next door, and a LoA guru?

The first creates a bizarre reality for himself, without realising that he's doing it and without much control over the process.

The second creates a typical sort of reality for himself, without realising that he's doing it and without much control over the process.

The 3rd is also creating reality for himself, but he realises that he is doing it and he has relatively much more control over the process.

[themaster]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The first creates a bizarre reality for himself, without realising that he's doing it and without much control over the process.

What makes you think they don't have control?? I think they do.. maybe there reflection here appears that way but I think their in control.. their demonstrating it

As I say sometimes.. my teacher states.. “even when we create a experience of being out of control!! Were in control!!”

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The second creates a typical sort of reality for himself, without realising that he's doing it and without much control over the process.

That assumes that the normal "joe" adopts reality's rules.. completely.. it's my understanding that children being born now.. adopt less and less beliefs as time continue to etch on towards 4th density

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The 3rd is also creating reality for himself, but he realises that he is doing it and he has relatively much more control over the process.

This is the message of "LOA" or "the secret" to type 2 yes

[Wax Frog]

Originally Posted by themaster

This is the message of "LOA" or "the secret" to type 2 yes

Come on master and ALG, snap this type 2 out of it

[StAnselm]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Doesn't this disprove the LoA?

Of course not.

You may be backed into denying that schizophrenia is a mental illness. You may be forced to say that schizophrenics are as healthy as everyone else. You may be forced to say that the schizophrenic wants to be schizophrenic, and could change in an instant just by application of mental effort. You may be forced to say that the schizophrenic doesn't exist, and that you dreamed him up.

But LOA will never, ever, ever be wrong.

There are only so many answers:

The schizophrenic doesn't exist, only you exist. This answers any conundrum. Whatever is, is always your responsibility, and there are no other actors.

The schizophrenic isn't able to manifest his reality. This seems pretty weak. Schizophrenics have some pretty deep and committed manifestations. If LOA is a law, they should have some effect.

There is nothing wrong with the schizophrenic. He's really quite happy talking to imaginary friends, and sleeping on the street. How dare you question his personal growth?

The schizophrenic may be unhappy, but he chose to be schizophrenic. He doesn't really think that aliens live in his car - he is manifesting mental illness, not believing the symptoms.

Those are the choices. There are no others.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by StAnselm

But LOA will never, ever, ever be wrong.

LOL. A belief system that doesn't allow its believers to examine it.

You know the beauty of Christianity is that the more I question it, the more it proves itself right. My faith in God increases the more I doubt.

Can you say the same thing about the LoA? I don't think so. You aren't allowed to doubt. The LoA doesn't just defy logic. It defies examination. The circular reasoning prevents any doubt from forming. Does that prove that it's true? Or does it prove that it's false?

[Daffy Duck]

If you don't think LoA allows doubt, then it won't for you. That's how LoA and SR works. Heck, this is even true from an OR perspective. Crap, guys, stop it! You're proving LoA is true!

You may find that the people here doubt many things. But they're willing to try them. And when they try them, if it works, then they may not doubt as much. So they continue trying. And if it keeps working, then why would they doubt something that works? ALG has been testing LoA for years and he is convinced. It's effective for him and he has achieved a lot.

Even if he is delusional, he's so effective in his insanity that his success grows! Even if he thinks he is Batman... if it helps create a real life full of love and joy, then hell, let me be Batman too. And if thinking Jesus died for your sins helps you create a life of love, then go for it.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

If you don't think LoA allows doubt, then it won't for you. That's how LoA and SR works. Heck, this is even true from an OR perspective.

Crap, guys, stop it! You're proving LoA is true!

LOL. Or are you proving it false?

I'm reminded of the South Park episode about Mormonism. The Mormon family tells a story that to them proves Mormonism to be true but for the rest of the world the story proves Mormonism false.

[Daffy Duck]

We can't really prove anything, can we? The concept of "proof" must be agreed upon to begin with. So we're using something we made up to judge something we made up.

We're touching on something important, which is "how do we know what theory is correct?" And that's what I care more about. My answer to this is: look at the results!

Even if Mormons were insane, if they were living better lives than the rest of us, then I think it would be insane not to be insane.

Of course, I just made all that up.

[SmartAlx]

None of you, including ALG, TEST the LoA. You try it. You work within the confines of the theory. You don't perform double blind studies. You don't approach the theory with doubt in your mind. Shoot! Even if you did, and the doubt was confirmed, you wouldn't prove the LoA wrong. But does the failure to prove something wrong mean the same thing as proving it true? No, it doesn't.

LoA is like a zero in math. Multiply anything by it and you end up with the same answer.