Intention Manifestation or Just Wishful Thinking

[Radical]

Personally, I believe the concept of intention manifestation and the law of attraction to be a little too farfetched. Whilst it is obvious to me that your thoughts determine your actions and so consequently have a dramatic affect on your reality and how you interpret that reality, to suggest that your thoughts somehow create your reality bypassing the need to act, seems abit outlandish to say the least.

This reminds me too much of The Matrix and the teachings of the pseudoscience bashing new age entity named Ramtha. So before you're ready to throw in the towl of sanity and ignore all logical impulses, I urge you to be a bit more sceptical and question this dogma.

If however you are too wrapped up in the mysticism of this concept to question it rationally, then I challenge you to jump off a cliff and manifest the intention to sprout wings.

[november]

to suggest that your thoughts somehow create your reality bypassing the need to act, seems abit outlandish to say the least.

What, exactly, are you afraid of? (negative judgment is indicative of fear and "outlandish" is a negative judgment)

I would suggest that you view thought as action and see where that takes you.

[Radical]

Originally Posted by november

What, exactly, are you afraid of? (negative judgment is indicative of fear and "outlandish" is a negative judgment)

I would suggest that you view thought as action and see where that takes you.

I'm afraid of losing my mind.

[november]

Ah! Well, then, you already have.

[Lonewolf]

It's impossible to prove conclusively one way or another; but I think that subconscious suggestions could cause you to act in such a way that an intention becomes highly likely to manifest in some form; For example, when he was 15 years old, Arnold Schwarzenegger used to visualise himself as a giant muscular bodybuilding champion, and then as a real estate entrepreneur living in California, then as a movie star, then as a politician. This was all done years before he became famous or achieved any of these things.
But...., he was training really hard core in the gym all the time, eating big and taking steroids so it was likely that he would become a bodybuilder (it was talent and skill that made him a champion). He immigrated to California and started investing money in real estate at the beginning of a boom so it was likely that he would make some money at it (again, skill, talent, whatever, made him rich). Then he used his fame and build to leverage movie roles (luck, skill, whatever brought him to the top of the action genre). Then he used family connections, wealth and fame to get into politics.
So you see, it was likely that some of these dreams would be realised to some extent, what is remarkable is how fully they have done so. Luck plays a big role in these things - where does that come from?

[Jill]

Originally Posted by radical

to suggest that your thoughts somehow create your reality bypassing the need to act, seems abit outlandish to say the least.

It does, doesn't it?

That's why it's so cool.

[Lucas]

Originally Posted by Radical

Personally, I believe the concept of intention manifestation and the law of attraction to be a little too farfetched. Whilst it is obvious to me that your thoughts determine your actions and so consequently have a dramatic affect on your reality and how you interpret that reality, to suggest that your thoughts somehow create your reality bypassing the need to act, seems abit outlandish to say the least.

This reminds me too much of The Matrix and the teachings of the pseudoscience bashing new age entity named Ramtha. So before you're ready to throw in the towl of sanity and ignore all logical impulses, I urge you to be a bit more sceptical and question this dogma.

If however you are too wrapped up in the mysticism of this concept to question it rationally, then I challenge you to jump off a cliff and manifest the intention to sprout wings.

I don't think the mainifestations are the universe dropping millions of dollars right in your lap, I think it's partly the universe rearranging a path for you, but then you training yourself to be conscious enough to see the synchronicities it lays out and to act upon them. Thats why highly unconscious people cannot manifest, because they are unaware of their surroundings, or brush off small coincidences as just that, as opposed to the possibility of a path.

I really don't see how you could be "wrapped up in the mysticism" personally, because it's much more practical than a lot of things, because you only need one tool...your mind. As for jumping off the cliff, well, there isn't a cliff big enough, because I don't know anyone that can instantaneously manifest something.

[Wabi-sabi]

Thanks Radical. I'm new here and was hoping this forum would be more than just a love fest for one point of view.

If something happens that you want then you are the great and mighty manifestor but if something happens that you don't want then you just didn't allow what you wanted hard enough somehow. Or maybe you really wanted what you thought you didn't want. Are we fooling ourselves? Are we trying to think we are in control when stuff just sometimes happens.

I believe in the Law of Attraction but like to take the view of a skeptic sometimes just to help by own thinking. I can see your point and it is worth considering.

[Paul C]

Originally Posted by Radical

This reminds me too much of The Matrix and the teachings of the pseudoscience bashing new age entity named Ramtha. So before you're ready to throw in the towl of sanity and ignore all logical impulses, I urge you to be a bit more sceptical and question this dogma.

The ironic thing about this is that by questioning the Law of Attraction, your'e attracting doubt about the very existance of such a law. Even though you're using the Law of Attraction to perpetuate its continued falsehood! Almost paradoxical, but brilliant. But of course, that only makes sense from a Subjective standpoint.

But by nature, a purely objective person could never agree to this, obviously. Regardless that an objective mindset works within a Subjective mindset/reality, I find that very entertaining.

Being skeptical, as they say, often makes me smile. Considering what can possibly happen if one takes skeptism to its logical end. I beleive Steve had a n article on this very subject "Death of Skeptism " I think it was boldly named.

If not taken too seriously, this conversation could continue for quite awhile.

[Paul C]

Originally Posted by Wabi-sabi

Thanks Radical. I'm new here and was hoping this forum would be more than just a love fest for one point of view.

If something happens that you want then you are the great and mighty manifestor but if something happens that you don't want then you just didn't allow what you wanted hard enough somehow. Or maybe you really wanted what you thought you didn't want. Are we fooling ourselves? Are we trying to think we are in control when stuff just sometimes happens.

I believe in the Law of Attraction but like to take the view of a skeptic sometimes just to help by own thinking. I can see your point and it is worth considering.

I personally have nothing against that. It's good to have a good discussion about these things. As for me, and i'm sure for many others, can entertain both subjective and objective mindsets. But often I come back to the point where it may be never possible to prove one over the other. Because, it would be naive to think that we know the complete story and that within our current states of ego could even comprehend the 'full' complexity of reality and its workings.

But while we're here, we might just be able to work out some things that resonate with us individually and help us live meaningful lives. So please, contine.

[Colm OReilly]

All paradigms have gaping holes in them and conflict with other paradigms, which is usually why anthropologists use the term belief system.

Looking at science as a belief system. It cannot tells us what light is or what matter is. Beyond a certain point in reductionism we get into strings which require different dimensions and all other sorts of craziness. Added to the fact that science changed dramatically after Popper (who declared that something should only be accepted as true after attempts to falsify it have failed)

You also used logic in your argument. Logic is inconsistent with science, since scientific induction is a fallacy. Just because something occured in the past it doesn't necessarily follow that it will reoccur in the future. But people use logic and science hand in hand all the time.

The result? A belief structure. A paradigm attempts to explain the world. We accept it and fill in the blanks (or ignore them) ourselves.

Colm

[zippygoblet]

If there is a subjective reality and an objective reality...that's tough. I mean, if we are in a subjective reality, how would we know? We wouldn't know how to get out of it anyway, right? The crazier question is...what is reality?

[Lonewolf]

Here's another one - where does the subjective world end and the objective begin? Is it in the mind? the electro-chemical reactions taking place within the brain? The surface of the skin? The personal zone extending 50 metres around the body? and what about its location in time?

[Erki]

The subjective world doesn't end anywhere. It's everywhere. Same for objective reality. Just depends on which you believe.

[TechnoGuyRob]

These are my views on the subject.

[Radical]

In my opinion subjective reality is too weak an argument, since there is no way to prove anything if reality is entirely subjective as opposed to objective. This provides a convenient cop-out for people holding belief systems which would otherwise seem impossible under conventional reasoning.

[Phil Newton]

Originally Posted by Radical

So before you're ready to throw in the towl of sanity and ignore all logical impulses, I urge you to be a bit more sceptical and question this dogma.

Out of interest, why would anyone who uses the LoA successfully want to do this? I can fully appreciate that it all sounds completely nuts, but if it's bringing results why would you want to stop using it?

I don't pretend to understand how it works, but I figure it's worth a go. If it works, then that's all the better.

It might be worth noting that just because it hasn't been proven yet, doesn't mean it won't be in the future. Yes, that sounds like a cop-out but there was a time when it wasn't possible to prove that the Earth was flat, or that the sun orbited the Earth. Now these things are common knowledge, but at the time they were dismissed as outlandish...

[Radical]

Originally Posted by Phil Newton

It might be worth noting that just because it hasn't been proven yet, doesn't mean it won't be in the future. Yes, that sounds like a cop-out but there was a time when it wasn't possible to prove that the Earth was flat, or that the sun orbited the Earth. Now these things are common knowledge, but at the time they were dismissed as outlandish...

Good point. Quantum physics is providing a convient argument as to why reality may not be entirely objective. However, if reality is subjective then all the phenomena from quantum physics is just a manifestation of your own beliefs, so anyone who truly believes in subjective reality can't use quantum physics to back up their claim, since this would be hypocritical.

[Radical]

Is intention manifestation only possible if you take the view that reality is entirely subjective?

[Lonewolf]

Perhaps its more like thought and matter are inter-related forms of the same energy, not subjective nor objective, but a third category.

[Sadhana]

Originally Posted by Radical

Is intention manifestation only possible if you take the view that reality is entirely subjective?

Well...thoughts direct your actions, and so what you think about has a great deal of influence on your future.

With intention-manifestation, you're focusing on what you want (as opposed to what you don't want), and then working towards that goal (hopefully!), so even if you believe that reality is 100% objective, you can still achieve a great deal.

[julien]

Originally Posted by Paul C

I beleive Steve had a n article on this very subject "Death of Skeptism " I think it was boldly named.

I have noticed this proclivity to quote Steve whenever one's arguments lack substance; by reading Steve's articles I have found that he has a strong charisma and thus can exerce (involontarily) a lot of control on people.

When you say what you've just said above, I tend to think of those people saying "but it's in the Bible" whenever they have to justify some oddity.

Your argument that "if this works for me, I don't need to know the reasons" seems valid to me, even though, it all depends on what side of the road you are standing: reality or search for happiness. I think Radical's first post was geared towards abrupt reality, and like him, I prefer to face reality, because I think it is always more beautiful, no matter how hard it can be.

One more thing: from Steve's past and posts I would say that he's a high-IQ/high EQ person, implying that he probably bypasses a whole part of unpleasant reality but he never lifts from the ground. Assimilating his ideas without the proper pondering and intellect may be dangerous.

[Lucas]

Originally Posted by julien

I have noticed this proclivity to quote Steve whenever one's arguments lack substance; by reading Steve's articles I have found that he has a strong charisma and thus can exerce (involontarily) a lot of control on people.

When you say what you've just said above, I tend to think of those people saying "but it's in the Bible" whenever they have to justify some oddity.

Your argument that "if this works for me, I don't need to know the reasons" seems valid to me, even though, it all depends on what side of the road you are standing: reality or search for happiness. I think Radical's first post was geared towards abrupt reality, and like him, I prefer to face reality, because I think it is always more beautiful, no matter how hard it can be.

One more thing: from Steve's past and posts I would say that he's a high-IQ/high EQ person, implying that he probably bypasses a whole part of unpleasant reality but he never lifts from the ground. Assimilating his ideas without the proper pondering and intellect may be dangerous.

I think most things work because you want them to work.

As for abrupt reality, the closest thing I can come is "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot, which is based on the work of Neils Bohr, one of the highest acclaimed and highly discredited physicists of our time, but even after reading that, if you dont buy into the holographic theory, then nothing can convince you...which is the same for everyone. However, you say you like to "face reality", and I would like you to define what that means. Is that reality subjective, objective, and either way, can you prove to those who dont buy into that model that what you pervieve is truth? Pehaps you have a book by a renound physicist as well?

[Radical]

Originally Posted by julien

One more thing: from Steve's past and posts I would say that he's a high-IQ/high EQ person, implying that he probably bypasses a whole part of unpleasant reality but he never lifts from the ground. Assimilating his ideas without the proper pondering and intellect may be dangerous.

Good point, this is exactly how cults start. It's good to be open to new ideas, but to blindly accept them without sufficient evidence backing up the claims is just plain foolishness.

[julien]

Originally Posted by Lucas

Pehaps you have a book by a renound physicist as well?

I struggle to understand where this compulsive need to quote books come from. If you insist, I could give you the line of conduct of the (much more famous than Bols) philosopher Descartes: "never accept as true something that you cannot understand and prove as such".

Obviously, we must agree to a definition of reality the same way that we mathematicians agree on a set of axioms. Thing is, we traditionally define something to be true whenever it appears as self-obvious to a large majority of people and fits the model of our physical world. Basically, this is just a word. Nothing says that you feel better or anything else when you adopt this model, but statistically, this is so far, in my opinion, the best for the society to function.

I wouldn't go as far as Radical and talk about a "cult" here, even though I strongly suggested the metaphor; I'm just saying that Steve may seem to experience questionable things, but I always find his words and thoughts very reasonable. This may not be the case of all the distressed people who read his articles.

[Paul C]

Originally Posted by julien

I have noticed this proclivity to quote Steve whenever one's arguments lack substance; by reading Steve's articles I have found that he has a strong charisma and thus can exerce (involontarily) a lot of control on people.

Originally I was going to explain why skeptism in itself may also prove unreasonable when taken to its end. But instead, considering that many here might want a more indepth look and what I mean (and save me the time in typing it all out, maybe I'm slightly lazy), I suggested that article, for your entertainment and considerations.

And of course, you proclaim that the arguement lacks substance because of the reason that it doesn't match up with your standards of what should be considered factual or not.
Who knows for sure? So spare me the assumptions that I accept all blindly, please. I like to sometimes play around with 'obscure' ideas, see if they have any potential before dismissing them.

Originally Posted by julien

When you say what you've just said above, I tend to think of those people saying "but it's in the Bible" whenever they have to justify some oddity.

Ohh, don't get me started there, one thing I cant stand are the fanatical of the religious community (although a few I know are church-goers, they're humble in their beleifs). That comment did make me laugh though, thanks.

Originally Posted by julien

Your argument that "if this works for me, I don't need to know the reasons" seems valid to me, even though, it all depends on what side of the road you are standing: reality or search for happiness. I think Radical's first post was geared towards abrupt reality, and like him, I prefer to face reality, because I think it is always more beautiful, no matter how hard it can be.

Firstly, many (all, even) of the human race "do things that work for them but they don't know the reasons". And even is someone thinks that they know the reasons, they very well might just be arrogent. Instantly discarding all other beleifs without experimintation, for the sole reason that it contridicts their current mindset, hampering and possible, positive growth.

Secondly, whoever said that both Happiness and Readly necersarily need to be seperate? I don't beleive I was implying that, to my knowledge. One could possibly develop a mindset that is congruent 'enough' (its a continous journey) with the functions of reality. Which in turn the observer would then gain happiness because of his/her will to become a better person.

Wanting to explore a Subjective reality isn't turning ones eyes away from 'reality', quite the opposite. In seeing the harshness of the world/reality from a Subjective mindset, the observer then sees the many more tools that are at his/her disposal to make a difference, compared to that of a purely objective mindset. Even if a subjectivists is deulding themselves in the long run, they might just have made a greater impact because of their beleifs.

Originally Posted by julien

One more thing: from Steve's past and posts I would say that he's a high-IQ/high EQ person, implying that he probably bypasses a whole part of unpleasant reality but he never lifts from the ground. Assimilating his ideas without the proper pondering and intellect may be dangerous.

Without a doubt Steve is a very knowledgeable person. But regardless of this, I wouldn't automaticly replace my own capicity to reason with that of his reasonings, I need to sort these things out for myself.

And, i'm sorry to say, that it's an assumption to think that Steve didn't 'assimilate his ideas without the proper pondering and intellect'. Remember also that he isn't trying to get the complete answer in one fell swoop, but chipping away at what he thinks has the potential to become something truely beutiful. Although, I must say, I like the work in progress.

And to finish it up... His ideas would only become dangerous if he, or another, took hold of these ideas and weilded them as if weapons in which to beat others into submission with, which isn't what he's doing. Take them or leave them.

Hopefully I cleared up any misunderstandings. And I get what you're saying about how taking in beleifs naively can cause yourself or others much heart ache in the long run. At least that's what I gleemed from your post(s)

You know what, I could do with some friends that are willing to actually discuss these things, but alas, that doesn't happen too often in my (social) life at the moment.

Thank you.

[zippygoblet]

Ah well...all said and done, it just boils down to what you believe - despite what we think reality is, whether it is subjective or not.

[trekr5]

Radical

Believe what you want to believe and leave everyone else to do so as well

I for one read Steve's blog because I find it very useful and extremely informative. Now if people want to quote his articles when debating a point, then good for them. As you are a self proclaimed skeptic, then that's your business too. Just don't throw your toys out of the pram because no one gives you audience. You have to convince people of your point of view and not insinuate that people are bring drawn into cult-like thinking because they don't agree with you.

If that's the way you feel, find another forum

[kafaria]

i tell you what, do everything steve says in this blogs about and then say its nutts to believe in Intention manifestation. i mean, after all that is the only way to be "logical" and "sane" about it

[Ati]

Originally Posted by Wabi-sabi

... I believe in the Law of Attraction but like to take the view of a skeptic sometimes just to help by own thinking. I can see your point and it is worth considering.

Originally Posted by Paul C

I personally have nothing against that. It's good to have a good discussion about these things. As for me, and i'm sure for many others, can entertain both subjective and objective mindsets. But often I come back to the point where it may be never possible to prove one over the other. Because, it would be naive to think that we know the complete story and that within our current states of ego could even comprehend the 'full' complexity of reality and its workings.

But while we're here, we might just be able to work out some things that resonate with us individually and help us live meaningful lives. So please, contine.

Originally Posted by Paul C

...You know what, I could do with some friends that are willing to actually discuss these things, but alas, that doesn't happen too often in my (social) life at the moment.

Thank you.

What a great discussion here ! Certainly we are different people with different temperaments, different experiences, different styles, we've read different books, we have different ideas and opinions. Yet the discussion goes on!

I didn't quote everybody whose posts struck me here, just a few...I surely agree with you, Paul-- and I suppose that is why these forums exist......Now that would be an intention, wouldn't it? How hard might it be to attract people like those on this board/forum? Sounds like a perfect focus for an intention some time

On the political side, just as an example, not to veer the conversation into any specific change of topic, Noam Chomsky's response to people who ask what can they do to improve the world situation--again and again, comes back to the idea of building a community of people around you who have the interest and will to put energy into thinking and communicating creatively and constructively together.

all best to all of you!