Alternative View of "The Secret"

[richardtc]

I am interested to hear your thoughts on this view of "The Secret." I am in to considering all views.

Formless Mountain :: The Secret

There are references to colors within the above linked article to find out more about that you can go to this link:

Spiral Dynamics > About Spiral Dynamics > Overview

I look forward to the discussion.

Best,

Richard

[Elenny]

I think the "scientific community" has failed to understand that if they explained the law of attraction in scientific terms, most people would not understand it or give a hoot about it. But if you dress it up in material terms, then the average person who works 40-60 hours per week making minimum wage will be more receptive to the idea.

This is not the first time the laws of the universe have been commercialized, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

As far as Mr. Steve Self from the Formless Mountain blog --- everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some people, the higher their IQ and the more they think they learn, the more they lose touch with the reality of the common man.

[TheColonel]

After reading about half of it, I got the impression that the writer was either an English major, a Lawyer, or a wanna-be philosopher. Maybe a faculty member at a university...

He comes across as someone who is trying to impress with his virtuostic writing style. It goes way past establishing credibility.

That's not intended to be an ad hominem attack, by the way. It's just that HOW he was saying it was louder than WHAT he was saying.

His argument was so feathered with intellectual lingo and grammatical acrobatics, that I found myself wanting to skim past entire sentences. Just freakin' say it for godsakes.

The Secret is a beginner level introduction to LoA, which has been written about for millenium. Yes, it's over-simplified and aimed at the widest possible audience. So what?

I bet that guy kills in the faculty lounge...

[renie408]

I think that dressing your opinion up in all the multi-syllabic words you can haul out does not change the fact that it is still just your opinion. I find color coding juvenile.

I think the Spiral Dynamics people are selling something. I am not clear as to why I should be more compelled by what they are selling than by what the people on The Secret are selling. Except perhaps because they use vernacular so esoteric it would offputting to most people. I assume they have chosen the language they have in an effort to impress. But if you are selling something, it would appear to me to be most effective to couch your message in terms easily accessible to anyone interested.

Oh, and this phrase jumped out at me, "Spiral Dynamics doesn’t track well with intelligence". Taken out of context, I found that ironical.

[renie408]

Originally Posted by TheColonel

I bet that guy kills in the faculty lounge...

Oh


MY



GOD!!!


I just blew coffee all over my laptop!

[ScottLee]

I am personally not bothered by the vocabulary of the writer, and I wouldn't be too sure that's he's aching to impress anyone all that badly...

But what I will say is that at least half of the text on that page is immediately voided in its point, because to say that your suffering will not be cured by ridding all negative thinking is a both a philosophical and psychological invalidity. If you have no negative thought, you have no negative perception, which in turn means you have no negativity of any kind. In other words - you would have no suffering if you had nothing but positive thinking. It wouldn't matter if you were dying from an open wound - you'd still not be suffering if you saw it in a positive light. Our minds work in strange ways like that.

I write about people's common interpretations of The Secret here:
Dirty Mechanism - Personal Development » Why “The Secret” Is Mistrusted

[Antiventurecapital]

Originally Posted by richardtc

I am interested to hear your thoughts on this view of "The Secret." I am in to considering all views.

Formless Mountain :: The Secret

There are references to colors within the above linked article to find out more about that you can go to this link:

Spiral Dynamics > About Spiral Dynamics > Overview

I look forward to the discussion.

Best,

Richard

It says a lot when someone posts something like this on the Net and then doesn't allow any reader feedback.

[dorothy hanna]

Obviously the writer just doesn't get it. But, that's O.K.

[Jason S]

I think the point from Formless Mountain was this: wishful thinking is not enough... true IM (in the Napoleon Hill sense) is about thought leading to action leading to opportunity leading to more action and so on, until someone has amassed the requisite resources to achieve some audacious goal, but the movie The Secret glosses over the hard work part to make it sound like wishful thinking is sufficient. As a corollary, he suggests that true IM is more inwardly reflected than external, and the application of self-awareness in one's thinking (including the willingness to hold oneself to a high ethical standard), is the difference between a kid's wishful thinking and a mature adult's focused thinking... therein is the nuance that The Secret blows off.

We can use his example about the scarcity of resources to illustrate the piont... think land for a moment, which is the ultimate "fixed" resouce: if all six billion people on earth tried to manifest a 10 acre plot of land for ourselves, we'd overshoot the total inhabitable acreage on the planet by about 4 acres per person, if my math's right. So some people would have to change their goals and either accept less land or accept land someplace else, like the moon... so to work, our collective use of IM requires that we know this limitation and account for it, either by wanting less or by being flexible about the ultimate location of our plot.

I didn't understand the spiral dynamics guys... how can one extend one's consciousness without becoming smarter? Intelligence is a measure of the level of abstraction one can handle in one's thoughts... and since the ability to extend one's awareness is an application of handling abstraction, it would seem that broadening one's perspective as they suggest would necessitate more smarts to accomplish. I didn't get it.

[Nicholls]

The Law of Attraction, and by consequence The Secret, is, under the current scientific understanding of the universe, complete ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Even ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ has it's uses though.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Jason S

We can use his example about the scarcity of resources to illustrate the piont... think land for a moment, which is the ultimate "fixed" resouce: if all six billion people on earth tried to manifest a 10 acre plot of land for ourselves, we'd overshoot the total inhabitable acreage on the planet by about 4 acres per person, if my math's right.

Nah. I live in a land-scarce country, one of the most densely populated in the world. We get by, by reclaiming land extensively from the sea, effectively expanding our surface area. Also we build extensively upwards (ie many highrise buildings) and increasingly we build downwards (eg we have extensive underground shopping areas).

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Nicholls

The Law of Attraction, and by consequence The Secret, is, under the current scientific understanding of the universe, complete ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. Even ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ has it's uses though.

Yes, the current scientific understanding of the universe is somewhat lagging behind. To understand what's scientifically available, though, you can consider reading Lynna McTaggart's book "The Intention Experiment" which surveys scientists' fledging attempts to understand how intention, thoughts etc can produce observable, measurable changes in reality.

The examples are really quite diverse - I'll just give a few. Stanford physicist William Tiller has got an experiment demonstrating how meditators' focused thoughts affect the rate of development of fruit fly larvae. There are a few interesting neuroscience experiments about how, merely by IMAGINING that you're working out with weights, your biceps actually gain in muscular strength. Professor Jahn, a NASA rocket scientist who was also with Princeton University, gets mentioned for his experiments on how human intention affects the outcomes generated by a Random Event Generator (which you can conveniently think of as an electronic coin flipper). Etc etc.

Unfortunately the book was published too late to cover Dean Radin's double-blind, and successful, scientific attempt to replicate Masaru Emoto's experiments about human thoughts directed at water end up affecting the shape of the water crystals subsequently formed from the water. Radin's attempt was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal late in 2006.

[Megan]

Well, maybe he's right, or maybe he himself is committing the classic Ken Wilber pre-trans fallacy, oops, make that the reductionist fallacy.

Pre/trans fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm no sage, but I manifested a good free computer in one week, for an example.

Maybe the cognoscenti don't want the unwashed masses to horn in on the good stuff without the bracing hard work they put in?

As for the obvious material limitations of the planet, I think that once people start getting more personally empowered, they will realize they don't have to "get it before the hoarders," and overconsumption will simmer down.

Could be wrong, of course.

I would love to see an experiment in empowering third world people's thinking. I think about that a lot.

[Jason S]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Nah. I live in a land-scarce country, one of the most densely populated in the world. We get by, by reclaiming land extensively from the sea, effectively expanding our surface area. Also we build extensively upwards (ie many highrise buildings) and increasingly we build downwards (eg we have extensive underground shopping areas).

ALG, So you've made trade-offs... eg, by building up, not everyone gets a 10 acre plot.

btw, do you realize that if we reclaimed 24 billion acres (4 acres x 6 billion people), we'd be nearly doubling the planet's inhabitable land mass? Since much of that is ocean, where would you suggest we put all that water?

[dorothy hanna]

This is a very fun thread to read.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Jason S

ALG, So you've made trade-offs... eg, by building up, not everyone gets a 10 acre plot.

Well, the question is theoretical for me, because in my reality, it's unlikely that everyone will want a 10 acre plot for himself. Personally, I'd find it rather inconvenient. If my wife had her own 10-acre plot, and my two kids each had their own 10-acre plot, then even if the plots were all next to each other, I'd have to travel quite a bit just to see all of them.

btw, do you realize that if we reclaimed 24 billion acres (4 acres x 6 billion people), we'd be nearly doubling the planet's inhabitable land mass? Since much of that is ocean, where would you suggest we put all that water?

Haha .... Well, firstly, you don't necessarily have to reclaim land from the sea. You could simply transform inhospitable terrain into hospitable terrain, and live there. Eg if you converted desert areas and mountainous areas, you could free up a lot of land.

As for the oceans, well, I suppose sea water levels may rise, so we'll just have to build more, and higher, embankments around coastal areas to keep the water out.

Alternatively, as fresh water sources run out together with non-renewable energy sources, we'll have to use the ocean's water for desalination as well as nuclear fission to provide more fresh water and electricity. Desalinated water can be transported to inland reservoirs, lakes etc.

With a bit of luck, global warming will reverse, icebergs in the North Pole and South Pole will grow larger, and sea levels will sink. Or the atmosphere may expand and absorb more water vapour.

Or maybe we'll just have to have floating cities. This one over here:

FOXNews.com - Setting Sail on a Giant, Floating City - Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment News | Arts And Entertainment

will take 17,000 resident families, up to 20,000 daily visitors and 3,000 commercial enterprises, including banks, restaurants, grocery stores, and video-rental places.

[write2win]

Originally Posted by Jason S

We can use his example about the scarcity of resources to illustrate the piont... think land for a moment, which is the ultimate "fixed" resouce: if all six billion people on earth tried to manifest a 10 acre plot of land for ourselves, we'd overshoot the total inhabitable acreage on the planet by about 4 acres per person, if my math's right. So some people would have to change their goals and either accept less land or accept land someplace else, like the moon... so to work, our collective use of IM requires that we know this limitation and account for it, either by wanting less or by being flexible about the ultimate location of our plot.

BUT not all of them would want to have 10 acre plot of land for themselves!
I do want SUCCESS (using conventional methods: hard work pays!; as well as using LOA), but my success does not have 10-acre plot in it! 3 bedroom house is gr8!!

[Jason S]

The 10 acre thing was a hypothetical example to illustrate a different author's point. If someone else would like to pick up the torch on that one, have at it, but I really don't feel like defending that example anymore, especially when counterarguments range from an ultra-muggy atmosphere to 3 bedroom homes. (Someone could be satisfied with a 3 bedroom home? That's just silly!)

Related to the original question, I think The Secret did a poor job delineating between positive expectation and wishful thinking. I also think WE need to be careful about attributing things to IM when other explanations could work equally as well. Researchers call such conclusions false positives. (Before you blow off the concept of the false positive as statistical mumbo-jumbo, consider the concept for a moment in the context of... say... an EPT or STD test. That should bring the potential dangers of the false positive home real fast!)

So if you conjured something for yourself, I think you need to be careful about assuming that you did it through IM, and eliminate alternative potential explanations before settling on "I IM'ed it." How do you know you didn't read the mind of a person who had already decided to give the item to you? Or maybe you tapped into the collective unconscious and learned that the item was on its way? How do you know it wasn't serendipity, or a flash of precognitive awareness? Maybe your guardian angel whispered in your ear, and you happened to hear her?

This isn't to be flippant or dismissive... it's simply to highlight that I think The Secret plays into our tendency to want to confirm what we think we know, rather than test what we think we know by trying to disprove it. As a result of the lack of critical analysis, I think the movie suffers.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Jason S

So if you conjured something for yourself, I think you need to be careful about assuming that you did it through IM, and eliminate alternative potential explanations before settling on "I IM'ed it." How do you know you didn't read the mind of a person who had already decided to give the item to you? Or maybe you tapped into the collective unconscious and learned that the item was on its way? How do you know it wasn't serendipity, or a flash of precognitive awareness? Maybe your guardian angel whispered in your ear, and you happened to hear her?

Certainly. My oft-repeated advice in this forum is that people should record down in writing all their LOA intentions, and how they're trying to manifest them. At the same time, they should maintain a diary / blog of actual events, occurrences and developments in their lives.

Over time, you will be able to decide for yourself whether LOA works or not. Through your own experience, and your own written records of your experience. With different intentions, different techniques, different situations .... just go play & experiment.

And you'll see.

[Megan]

"...our tendency to want to confirm what we think we know...."

Yeah, we even do that unconsciously (and effectively, I might add)...the placebo & nocebo effects.

Something is afoot here, but it's devilish hard to pin down!

Like, how would you ever even know a false positive from a real manifestation???

Given the slippery nature of time, if you read your friend's mind, maybe your friend was reading your mind at the same time! I mean really, this all is very oogie-boogie, in a good sort of way, I trust.

Bottom line: if you consciously wanted something, and then you got that thing, well, thank the powers that be, whatever they may be. I call them God.

Maybe all manifestation is that kind of tangled up interaction with others at the mental level. I mean, something makes it work, if it indeed works, right?

Trying to explain it scientifically...well...good luck.

[Acting Like Godot]

A wise observation, Megan. Some people think, for example, that the Law of Attraction is mostly about the reticular activating cortex. In my opinion, the reticular activating cortex is just one example of how the Law of Attraction can work.

Others say that the Law of Attraction can work only if you take real action. In my opinion, thought affects reality, and one way, but certainly not the only way, that it does so, is by getting the thinker to take real action.

Others say that "evidence" of the Law of Attraction is mostly merely random coincidence. Methinks however that there are really no coincidences, and "random" events occur in your life only to the extent that you have random thoughts.

Of course, that's generally quite a large extent.

[Megan]

Well...thinking is real action! (Apparently.)

What about those studies where the people imagined weight lifting & actually got stronger...or somethin' like that...can't remember exactly.

How's that for random, sloppy thinking?

[Megan]

The "Secret" is YOU!

Once in a while, however, by adjusting our thoughts, we adjust our senses and our brain's processing of the sensory input. We modify our RAS. Suddenly, opportunities, events, desired things etc fall into our lap. Some people call this "The Secret".

Of course there are reasons why these things happen. They are just mostly beyond our comprehension, that is all. We are like that goldfish in the bowl.

Makes sense to me Godot. There are reasons--we just don't know 'em.

(Still don't know how to link the post with your name.)

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Megan

Well...thinking is real action! (Apparently.)

I don't think that most people would view "thinking" as taking real action...

I know that if my wife ask me to clean the garage... and I say that, "I will think about it" she will not see that as being real action...

Real action implies that something tangible will come out of it... which is not really the case with thinking...
.

[Megan]

But..but...what about those weight-lifter guys...or was it basketball players...or...oh well, never mind....

[Megan]

Say...maybe that's why I haven't been able to attract "cleanness" to my house!

Thanks, Shamou!

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Megan

Say...maybe that's why I haven't been able to attract "cleanness" to my house!

Thanks, Shamou!

Well... I once lived alone for a few years... and while at home, I did nothing but think... so the house stayed quite clean all the time...
.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Shamou

I don't think that most people would view "thinking" as taking real action...

I know that if my wife ask me to clean the garage... and I say that, "I will think about it" she will not see that as being real action...

Real action implies that something tangible will come out of it... which is not really the case with thinking...
.

I disagree. I know lawyers who charge $700/hour for thinking. In fact, most of the highest paid people in the world get paid for thinking. They then get someone else, who isn't inclined to think to put their thoughts together into what you'd call "tangible". I believe it was Henry Ford that said "Thinking is the hardest work in the world, and that is why so few engage in it."

[Acting Like Godot]

In fact, you cannot clean your house without thinking. Ever seen a comatose person do housework?

Even if you have two conscious persons, the difference between the person who gets his housework done and the person who doesn't is that the first person has held thoughts like, "I want to get the room vacuumed and the windows wiped today" while the second person didn't.

Thought affects reality. Desire, a vital component of LOA, drives the thought. It can cause the physical movement of the thinker's body into a series of action that leads to the cleaning of the house. Or it may attract the desired outcome in some other way. For example, a cleaning agency person suddenly drops by to ask if you want to use their services, and you say, "Oh great, just when I need my housework done."

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I disagree. I know lawyers who charge $700/hour for thinking. "

So it is because the lawyer gets paid for thinking that's is called "taking action."

I like your logic...

He might charge for thinking but it is whatever he finally does with the result of that thinking that is the real action... and that is why he gets paid...
.