The Beginning of the End for The Secret?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Actually I think it does, and I've explained it before. It does take some time for me to retype the explanation, so maybe you may want to do a search.

I'll give a few simplified answers in point form:

1. The reasons why not all your scary fears manifest into reality are the same reasons why not all your joyful hopes manifest into reality.

2. It is correct that a fear may compel you to take certain precautions, such that the feared outcome is prevented from occurring. This works the same way as a positive intention being counteracted by a limiting belief.

3. People are repulsed by the idea that they create such terrible,tragic events in their reality. What they don't see is the flip side - all the most positive, beautiful and wonderful things in their reality are also created by them.

4. People are also repulsed by the idea that they are responsible for creating tragedies - in that the idea would entail some sense of moral culpability in them, which they cannot accept. However, as I've also previously explained, your moral culpability only exists to the extent that:

(a) you were aware that your thoughts/beliefs had such negative effect;
(b) you had the ability to change your thoughts/beliefs on such matters; AND
(c) you refused to change your thoughts and beliefs,

Vast majority of people on this planet don't meet the (a) criterion, much less (b) and (c), and therefore you need not feel personally responsible for the famines in Africa, or the New Orleans disaster, or the massive snowfalls in China.

(5) Also you must understand that a specific circumstance in your life does not usually occur as a result of your specific thought about such a specific circumstance. For example, a person may get lung cancer not because he is always thinking about lung cancer, but because of a combination of different thoughts not related to lung cancer. Eg that he has done certain bad things in his life and will one day be punished for it; or that life is not worth living and he doesn't have much worth looking forward to; or that his relationship with his family members is rotten and he wishes that (something will happen) such that they will really pay attention to him and take care of him. Etc etc.

---------

We digress briefly to a Big Question which no doubt all religious persons have considered, in one form or another:

"If God exists, why do bad things happen to mankind?"

There is a relationship between the above question, and this one:

"If my thoughts create reality, why do bad things happen to mankind?"

And the answer(s) to the first question will shed light on the second.

You're explaining why bad things happen, but not necessarily supporting the idea that people create what they're afraid of.

My point was that bad things happen to people all the time that they never were afraid of, that they didn't worry about, that came completely out of nowhere.

And all the irrational and unlikely things that people are afraid of, heart-pounding palpitation fear, almost never happen.

If people created what they fear, we would have routine shark attacks, planes falling from the sky, elevators plummeting 100 floors on a regular basis, and there'd be a gigantic bird flu epidemic.

Tornadoes don't come through and pick out the houses of people who've always been frightened of tornadoes.

3. People are repulsed by the idea that they create such terrible,tragic events in their reality. What they don't see is the flip side - all the most positive, beautiful and wonderful things in their reality are also created by them.

I do think that people can create terrible events in their reality. But this isn't at all the same as attracting something by being afraid of it.

1. The reasons why not all your scary fears manifest into reality are the same reasons why not all your joyful hopes manifest into reality.

Almost none of people's scary fears manifest into reality. If that is part of the "law" of attraction, it's not much of a law.

[Akashic_Librarian]

moonrambler, I see where you are coming from. However think about it in a different way.

Person A is a sensible, middle aged person who has a comfortable life and is not particularly odd. Now the one thing that is odd about them is their irrational fear of the dark. Stemming from a childhood trauma they are afraid of monsters under the bed for example.

What your saying is that those monsters never appear suddenly. And quite rightly, because undetlying that fear is a more powerful beleif that there is nothing really scary about the dark and its all nonsense.

To truly utlilize the LoA you have to understand and deconstruct the complex hierarchy of thouhts you have accumulated and re-build a more empowering one.

[Acting Like Godot]

See - this is the key point that most people miss.

Why do I say that it's a key point? Because what keeps most of your negative thoughts from manifesting is the same as what keeps most of your positive thoughts from manifesting.

Let's take two examples - the Negative Example Negated and the Positive Example Negated.

Positive Example Negated

The person begins with a few positive thoughts. "I want to be healthy. I am going to exercise regularly. I'll work out in the gym! I'll go running three times a week. I'll look great and feel great .."

Why this doesn't manifest - the positive thoughts is countered by subsequent negative thoughts. For example: "I just don't have the time to exercise. I need to stay a little late in the office today. I'm just too tired now. I hate going to the gym anyway, I look so flabby and all those muscle types are all around - it's embarrassing."

Therefore the person has no time. He stays a little later in the office. He's tired and therefore goes home to watch TV and sleep. In his mind, the idea that it's embarrassing to go to the gym when you are flabby, has been slightly reinforced, once again by him thinking such thoughts.

Net effect: Reality stays unchanged. He remains fat and unhealthy, and never makes it to the gym.

Negative Example Negated

The person begins with his irrational fears (I use MR's example): "I am so afraid of shark attacks. I even get nightmares about being eaten by a shark."

Why this doesn't manifest - the thoughts are neutralised by other thoughts. Eg:

"I am afraid of shark attacks, therefore I do NOT go swimming in the ocean. I will only swim in a swimming pool". Effect on reality - the person will never be bitten by a shark.

Some of My Personal Fears

When I was a kid, around seven or eight years old, I played soccer and another kid kicked the ball straight into my face, smashing my spectacles. I was pretty scared (because these were new spectacles and they cost money and my parents were not rich people and I thought that my parents would be furious).

Looking back, I see how this developed into a kind of irrational fear for me. I had this idea that if I played contact sports, something bad would happen.

This thought never manifested into reality. Reason is that I avoided contact sports for the rest of my life. Instead I ran, swam, played table tennis and badminton.

If you analyse this in LOA terms, you could set out the thoughts as follows:

This thought - "if I played contact sports, something bad would happen"

has been neutralised by this thought:

"if I avoid playing contact sports, then no such thing will happen."

So the reality is the non-event. The bad thing never happens, because it is counteracted by another belief that if I simply avoid playing contact sports, then I can suffer no damage or losses related to playing contact sports.

As for this point:

My point was that bad things happen to people all the time that they never were afraid of, that they didn't worry about, that came completely out of nowhere.

... actually, I'd already explained them. You see, Event A does not necessarily occur because you are thinking of Event A. Event A occurs instead because you are thinking thoughts X, Y and Z, and the net effect of thoughts X, Y and Z is that Event A occurs.

Therefore Event A can be a real surprise to you. But it is merely the net result of your different thoughts X, Y and Z.

This is the same process WHETHER Event A is positive or negative.

For example, suppose I manifest for money. I do not know where it will come from - I could strike the lottery, or a new job offer could come, or someone will give me money, or I could pick it up on the street, or I could suddenly be promoted or someone may repay a debt I'd long forgotten about.

When it happens - it is a surprise ("Oh, how come the company is promoting me at this time of the year!? Usually no one is promoted until December"). I may not have thought about getting promoted at all. I just wanted money. Nevertheless Event A (the promotion) has come.

[mncz]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

See - this is the key point that most people miss. You see, Event A does not necessarily occur because you are thinking of Event A. Event A occurs instead because you are thinking thoughts X, Y and Z, and the net effect of thoughts X, Y and Z is that Event A occurs. Therefore Event A can be a real surprise to you. But it is merely the net result of your different thoughts X, Y and Z.

Yes, and this is precisely the reason people get sick with unexpected illnesses - they are always the result of their overall negative thoughts about their lives, and by the character of the illness much about those thoughts can be told. When very young children get sick or are born with an illness, it is a direct result of their parents negative thinking about themselves, their relationship or their lives. They haven't wished directly for their child to be sick, of course. But they have had enough negativity in their lives so that it manifests as a sickness in their child in order to give them a lesson.

This type of thinking can sound overly harsh at first, but when you really look at it, you can see how it always is true, even when the first fast facts seem to tell otherwise.

I haven't yet figured out the reasons for wars and collective disasters, thus I can't comment on them yet. But I suspect something similar is at work there, although on a collective level.

[Vasilisa]

Originally Posted by mncz

Yes, and this is precisely the reason people get sick with unexpected illnesses - they are always the result of their overall negative thoughts about their lives, and by the character of the illness much about those thoughts can be told. When very young children get sick or are born with an illness, it is a direct result of their parents negative thinking about themselves, their relationship or their lives. They haven't wished directly for their child to be sick, of course. But they have had enough negativity in their lives so that it manifests as a sickness in their child in order to give them a lesson.

This type of thinking can sound overly harsh at first, but when you really look at it, you can see how it always is true, even when the first fast facts seem to tell otherwise.

I haven't yet figured out the reasons for wars and collective disasters, thus I can't comment on them yet. But I suspect something similar is at work there, although on a collective level.

Ekhart Tolle considers it to be a result of egoistic mind.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

See - this is the key point that most people miss.

Why do I say that it's a key point? Because what keeps most of your negative thoughts from manifesting is the same as what keeps most of your positive thoughts from manifesting.

Earlier you said this is why not all the negative thoughts manifest, the same way not all of the positive thoughts manifest, and now we are looking at most of the positive thoughts not manifesting.

I think most of the positive thoughts do manifest because for the most part life goes pretty smoothly. The electricity stays on, the car starts, and so on. What we see people struggling with here typically are bigger problem issues they're trying to get a handle on. Relationships, career, and money, most frequently.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Negative Example Negated

The person begins with his irrational fears (I use MR's example): "I am so afraid of shark attacks. I even get nightmares about being eaten by a shark."

Why this doesn't manifest - the thoughts are neutralised by other thoughts. Eg:

"I am afraid of shark attacks, therefore I do NOT go swimming in the ocean. I will only swim in a swimming pool". Effect on reality - the person will never be bitten by a shark.

A shark attack is one thing, but what about the person who's terrified of elevators, and has to ride in an elevator every week or two? What about the person who's terrified of tornadoes, and lives in Kansas? How come their house is still standing, even though they are very well aware that tornadoes come and obliterate entire towns once in awhile? What about the person who hates driving and is scared to drive because she's afraid she's going to get in an accident? Even though she's careful to the point of obsession, why hasn't some truck careened out of control and wiped out her car?

You can say this happens all the time . . . but really, it doesn't happen a lot more often than it does happen.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

... actually, I'd already explained them. You see, Event A does not necessarily occur because you are thinking of Event A. Event A occurs instead because you are thinking thoughts X, Y and Z, and the net effect of thoughts X, Y and Z is that Event A occurs.

Therefore Event A can be a real surprise to you. But it is merely the net result of your different thoughts X, Y and Z.

The reason I discounted this part of the explanation is because it doesn't seem to relate to this particular discussion -- about fear being a magnet. I specifically set out the guideline that bad things happen even when a person wasn't afraid of the particular possibility that did occur. And some other things they were really afraid of all their lives never did occur. This is how life typically goes. While a person's busy being all worried and afraid of their car breaking down on the highway at night, one day a tree falls down on their house instead, and they go man, I never imagined that would ever happen.

[Acting Like Godot]

Perhaps the easiest way to understand this would be to be stop using the words "positive" and "negative". Then we can describe the process like this:

1. Your thoughts create your reality.

2. The sum total of your reality reflects the sum total of your thoughts.

3. Thoughts affect each other. For example, depending on the nature and substance of a thought, it may strengthen or weaken the effect of another thought on reality.

4. Thoughts also work in combinations. They do not necessarily strengthen or weaken each other, but combine to produce circumstances that reflect the features of each thought.

And that is all to say about it really.

The labels "positive" and "negative" can be misleading because there can be a strong subjective element in deciding whether an event is "positive" or "negative".

For example, we may think of being "poor" as a negative event, but then studies on happiness consistently show that the average person in poverty-&-disaster stricken Bangladesh are happier than the average American.

Not all thoughts have equal effect on reality. I believe for example that thoughts accompanied by strong emotion have extra effect on reality. It could be intense fear, or it could be intense joy, or it could be intense anger, or it could be very deep calm.

Deeply-ingrained beliefs also have extra effect on reality, because they are working in the background all the time.

Steve Irwin believed that he would die young, and suddenly. And so he did. It was not a belief that was accompanied with fear. It was just a deeply ingrained belief, that is all.

In December, my daughter landed up in hospital. It was an extremely stressful time for my family. I later analysed how I manifested it. In retrospect I saw that ALL of us had manifested it - me, my wife, my son, my parents and my daughter herself.

We were co-creators in this experience, which occurred in each of our lives, because we had individually attracted it, even though none of us were thinking the same kind of thoughts (and certainly none of us wre expecting my daughter to fall ill like that, or thinking such thoughts). Analysis here:

Creation & Other Adventures: Cause & Effect

This is the remarkable interplay of the universe. Just as the victim and the robber attract each other, so in any situation involving many human beings acting in different capacities and doing different things, EVERY person attracts exactly what he thinks about, out of the situation.

The idea has been described in different terms, in different philosophies where you'll never hear the phrase "Law of Attraction". For example, the Zen saying that:

"When the student is ready, the teacher will appear"

illustrates the same idea as Abraham Hicks illustration of the robber and victim attracting each other. The student and the teacher attract each other into their respective realities, just as the robber and victim do.

[supertom]

yeah im sick of this negative postive stuff. you cant label the universe.

[dave marshall]

I agree about labelling the 'universe' negative or positive, but the effects of our beleifs can be seen in light of whether we like their effects or not. The uiverse, 'reality' is a reflection of your belielfs and emotions, this has effects, some we like some we don't.

The key is to create a belief system that reflects all that is best within you: you do that by altering your ideas and understanding your broader identity: you just cannot get away from it, whatever label you put on it. The skill is to fully understand yourself and how you interact with your reality.

dave

[moonrambler]

A couple questions. ALG -- with your intentions about your kids, what happened to the phrase "in an easy and relaxed manner, in a healthy and positive way" ?

Another. I don't have kids, but I do have a cat and used to have a dog, dependents who apparently aren't able to come up with sophisticated ideas about how to get what they want. I got the beagle from a shelter when she was middle-aged, and a couple years later she got sudden acquired retinal degeneration, which means she went blind all of a sudden. My cat last year was diagnosed with feline diabetes at 15 years old. Are these examples of law of attraction? Animals aren't themselves attracting these diseases, are they? I have my own theories about the diabetes, but I never thought about it with the dog's problem.

[RT Wolf]

Originally Posted by supertom

yeah im sick of this negative postive stuff. you cant label the universe.

Ahhh, but what about labelling labelling as good or bad? Is labelling not part of the universe?

[dave marshall]

sure,but it is labeling it wisely in a way that helps someone create what they want to have. We cannot avoid language totaly but we can be disciplined in how we use it.

dave

[Jason S]

I just read through this thread... seems kind of a closed loop... I didn't see anyone trying to reconcile LOA with other concepts such as FREE WILL... or what happens when two people with conflicting goals come into contact with one another...

...maybe I missed this part of the discussion, but it seems that there is more that needs to be put on the table here... ??

Personally I thought The Secret put a coat of too-glossy paint on an otherwise good, but not-yet-fully-understood concept; judging from the film itself (as well as the reaction), the intention of the people behind it had to have been to get rich--not to help people--and they achieved it. I'd caution against trying to answer bigger questions within the framework of LOA, b/c the theory isn't complete enough to handle such situations... or put another way, science isn't developed enough to test the hypothesis. Abraham seems much more geared toward helping people, and is much less sweeping in "his" claims of what LOA can do.

I recently wrote a blog post comparing today's discourse on leadership to a pre-Pasteur discussion about staying healthy. The same analogy could be made of LOA... there's something going on here, but we have neither the insight nor the science to understand it... so rather than rehash the same old debate, let's broaden the discussion... let's work together to brainstorm new questions to spur new thinking and new investigations.

Heck, Steve's wife Erin writes about life plans that we write before we are born. How could we test that theory? Maybe that theory holds the key to why bad things happen to good kids: because they attracted it before they were born.

Anyone here a scientist? Geneticist? Psychologist? That could get interesting...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

A couple questions. ALG -- with your intentions about your kids, what happened to the phrase "in an easy and relaxed manner, in a healthy and positive way" ?

Dang .... I never used that one.

Another. I don't have kids, but I do have a cat and used to have a dog, dependents who apparently aren't able to come up with sophisticated ideas about how to get what they want. I got the beagle from a shelter when she was middle-aged, and a couple years later she got sudden acquired retinal degeneration, which means she went blind all of a sudden. My cat last year was diagnosed with feline diabetes at 15 years old. Are these examples of law of attraction? Animals aren't themselves attracting these diseases, are they? I have my own theories about the diabetes, but I never thought about it with the dog's problem.

Not sure .... If you look into more esoteric texts like Buddhist theory or Gary Zukav's "The Seat of the Soul", you get some explanation of animal consciousness etc, but I never considered those explanations in detail. I have enough challenges with my own human consciousness.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Not sure .... If you look into more esoteric texts like Buddhist theory or Gary Zukav's "The Seat of the Soul", you get some explanation of animal consciousness etc, but I never considered those explanations in detail. I have enough challenges with my own human consciousness.

I am thinking more along the lines of, was I attracting specific problems for my animals for some reason or another. I don't believe so. However -- the cat came down with feline diabetes while I was terribly stressed for months on end about money. I hadn't really put those two things together until the day when my furnace bit the dust in December and that was about the most stressed I got during all that timeframe, and when I went to check her blood sugar that day, it was sky-high even with the insulin.

(Off-topic, on the feline diabetes forum, there's plenty of evidence to indicate that many diabetic cats have spikes in blood sugar during full moons. I don't see any logical reason for this, but there it is. They call them "moon cats.")

The dog, though, I have no idea what that was about.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Jason S

I just read through this thread... seems kind of a closed loop... I didn't see anyone trying to reconcile LOA with other concepts such as FREE WILL...

This is quite easy to reconcile.

(As a matter of fact, if you have some experience in meditation, you won't even need to reconcile it intellectually. Your direct experience in meditation will explain this matter).

All of us have free will. But the ability to exercise it is another question. We can expand and develop this ability, but it certainly has limits. And that's because we are habit-forming creatures.

When we have thought a certain thought, it becomes easier to repeat it. When we have repeated the thought many times, it becomes a habit, a conditioning.

A habit, or a conditioned pattern of thinking, may serve us well, or it may serve us badly. Or it may be appropriate for certain situations, and inappropriate for other situations. The problem is, once the habit is formed, we cannot escape it so easily, even if we wanted. We lapse automatically into the habit / pattern.

And there goes our free will - our ability to consciously choose our response.

By "habit", you may think of easily observable, external forms of behaviour. Such as smoking, or regular exercise, or swearing, or brushing your teeth. Instead we actually form habits, or patterns, about just anything and everything in our lives.

For example, the way you spend money is a habit. The way you treat your spouse is a habit. The way you tidy your home is a habit. The way you trust or do not trust certain people is a habit. The way you regard your job is a habit. The way you walk is a habit. The way you respond to bosses, or peers, or old ladies, or sales staff, or pastors, or rude drivers, is also a habit

We form patterns, habits, around all these things.

So patterns / habits / conditioning all zap our free will. They make us respond in a certain automated way. We are unconscious, so to speak.

Free will is when you are sufficiently conscious, to consciously choose your response. For example, suppose your colleague criticises you in front of everyone. Depending on your personality, your automatic response may be to get angry, or to retreat and sulk.

But if you have a high degree of free will, you are able to decide consciously on your response. Then a range of other possibilities open up:

(a) you could ignore your colleague;

(b) you could pause to consider the possible reasons why your colleague said such a thing;

(c) you could ask everyone else for their honest feedback on what your colleague had just said;

(d) you could decide to punch your colleague in the nose;

(e) you could deliver a calm, sharp, witty rebuttal to your colleague's comment;

(f) you could calmly explain to everyone why you do not think your colleague's comment is justified.

Whatever. My point is to illustrate free will.

Now in a LOA/IM context, free will really relates to your ability to choose your thoughts. Given any situation, instead of automatically thinking what immediately comes to your mind, you choose only to think the most helpful, constructive, pleasing or positive thoughts.

And because thoughts create reality (this is the assumption in our discussion), such positive thoughts would translate into reality.

Of course, the problem is that we all have, to a lesser or greater degree, negative patterns of thoughts which make it challenging to exercise this free will, all the time.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Jason S

Personally I thought The Secret put a coat of too-glossy paint on an otherwise good, but not-yet-fully-understood concept; judging from the film itself (as well as the reaction), the intention of the people behind it had to have been to get rich--not to help people--and they achieved it. I'd caution against trying to answer bigger questions within the framework of LOA, b/c the theory isn't complete enough to handle such situations... or put another way, science isn't developed enough to test the hypothesis. Abraham seems much more geared toward helping people, and is much less sweeping in "his" claims of what LOA can do.

I recently wrote a blog post comparing today's discourse on leadership to a pre-Pasteur discussion about staying healthy. The same analogy could be made of LOA... there's something going on here, but we have neither the insight nor the science to understand it... so rather than rehash the same old debate, let's broaden the discussion... let's work together to brainstorm new questions to spur new thinking and new investigations.

You have to appreciate that in the final analysis, we're discussing the ultimate nature of reality here. There is no way that a 2-hour DVD is going to satisfactorily address that, for any viewer who really thinks. "The Secret" should, at most, be viewed as an entertaining and inspiring introduction to the topic.

Your suggestion to investigate LOA from a variety of different perspectives is something that I'd seriously commenced on, from about a year and a half ago. (Hey, you didn't think I'd just believe something as crazy as LOA, just like that, did you).

You'd want to look at hypnosis; Jungian psychology; Buddhism; Hinduism; the collapse of the wavefunction; technical analysis in the stock market; biofeedback; Jesus; neuroscience on the operations of the brain at different frequencies; Ramtha; Seth; Abraham Hicks; reiki; Princeton Engineering Anomalies Lab; the Silva Method; ESP studies; Masaru Emoto; witchcraft and magickal practices; conventional personal development books; the Rosenthal experiments; Roger Penrose; Krishnamurti; studies on meditation ... for starters.

[Jason S]

AGL, I think you may have missed me... Your explanation above, while nice, doesn't offer anything new, and leaves the same questions unasked. Such as, what happens when you and I, in exercising our own free will, make decisions that are in conflict--what is the mechanism by which those moments are reconciled?

In a forum such as this, I think we should debate, lecture, and expound less and ask, explore, and experiment more. We should embrace our collective incompetence in this area; let's not quibble about who amongst us is most versed in LOA by offering alternative theories and counter-arguments--in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--but rather let's work together to refine all of our knowledge.

I get the LOA concept... don't assume the level of my ignorance... but there's also a lot here that we don't understand, and no amount of referencing Siddartha, the Bible, Jung, or The Secret, Hicks/Abraham, or anything else is going to make it any more clear to us at this point--you and me included!--because we're not yet asking the right questions.

So let's get the questions on the table, and rather than try to answer them, let's just catalog them... then let's make some hypotheses and go from there. This is what scientific inquiry is about. This is what a learning orientation is about. This is what development is about. THIS is what this discussion is about.


All my best,
Jason

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Jason S

AGL, I think you may have missed me... Your explanation above, while nice, doesn't offer anything new, and leaves the same questions unasked. Such as, what happens when you and I, in exercising our own free will, make decisions that are in conflict--what is the mechanism by which those moments are reconciled?

This is hardly a new question. It simply crops up in different forms, and all these forms have been and are frequently discussed, in books as well as in this forum. Examples of these different forms:

1. X wants to attract a lover, Y, but Y is not interested. What happens? (Search for Rockchick26's posts)

2. P and Q, a divorced couple, have a battle in court. P wants visitation right; Q does not want P to have visitation rights. (Search for Cdn2wheeler's posts).

3. A wants to improve his appearance to attract girls. Girls are just not interested. (Search for Muah's posts).

4. B wants to be on good terms with his ex-wife. However, his ex-wife is just not interested. (Search for Robc's posts)

5. The competition situation. Ten people compete, all intend to win the first prize. What happens? (Explained in Abraham Hicks)

Statements like:

"Don't focus on the how, focus on the what"

and

'You cannot co-create in another person's reality"

or

Wallace Wattles' advice to avoid competitive situations , and rather, focus on creative situations (in other words, create anew what you want, rather than fight with someone else for it)

all reflect different aspects of the problem (and possible solutions).

The free-will question doesn't really bug me personally, because this is not one of those questions which, in a practical sense, have a lot of significance for me. I am not inclined to coerce, or attempt to coerce, people into giving me what I want, especially when there are usually multiple, non-coercive ways to get what I want (especially with LOA). Various LOA-related systems also display a caution when working with intentions that may have a coercive element on other people (eg Threefold Law in witchcraft, or the standard exhortation in Silva Mind Control that your intentions must be for the "highest good of all" and shall fail if you use them to "harm others").

But if you really want to know, I think of LOA functioning as a kind of vector system; also, I think of it as a perfect system with no loss (like the Law of Conservation of Energy in physics). The energy can't disappear; it can only move from one place to another place, or change form.

Thus for example if X and Y both have strong opposite intentions such that only one intention can manifest in the given context (eg it's a sports competition and both want to win the first prize), only one will win (say, X), but the vibrational essence of Y's thoughts still has to find expression somewhere, eventually. Meaning that if Y holds on to those thoughts and does not alter them (eg by giving up on the sport), Y must eventually attract the vibrational equivalent into his reality (eg he wins another sports competition).

Of course if Y suddenly dies, the essence of the left-over, unexpressed thoughts simply carry over to his next life. That is popularly known as karma, although really karma happens continually, in real time, and is not merely a matter of what happens in the next life.

----

The alternative type of explanation derives from two different sources:

(a) Seth's explanation of multiple dimensions
(b) quantum physicist Hugh Everitt's Many Worlds theory (with some extrapolation)

and it goes something like this; the universe splits and divides whenever there are several possible outcomes, into an equal number of new realities.

So for example, we toss a coin and you strongly intend for heads, while I intend, just as strongly, for tails ... the universe then splits into two. In one universe, the coin comes up heads and in the other reality, the coin comes up tails.

-----

And the 3rd sort of explanation is that the truly irreconciliable intentions simply do not (cannot) occur in the same context.

Just as the victim and the robber always attract each other, so it must be that the non-victim does not attract a robbery from a robber, and so it must be that the victim does not attract a robbery from a non-robber.

-----

And the 4th sort of explanation is the original version of subjective reality offered by Steve Pavlina. There is only one consciousness, therefore there is no question of conflicting free wills. Whatever you get in your reality, is what you intended. No one impinges on it, because no one else exists.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Jason S

--in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--

Yesterday after mentioning my blind beagle here, I got to reminiscing about how for a few years there, one of my best girlfriends had a one-eyed dog, and her dog and my dog were buddies. And another of our friends, one evening at a Christmas dinner here solemnly intoned, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed dog is king," causing everybody to laugh until we were practically rolling around on the floor.

Thank you for another synkro, Jason!

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

By "habit", you may think of easily observable, external forms of behaviour. Such as smoking, or regular exercise, or swearing, or brushing your teeth. Instead we actually form habits, or patterns, about just anything and everything in our lives.

For example, the way you spend money is a habit. The way you treat your spouse is a habit. The way you tidy your home is a habit. The way you trust or do not trust certain people is a habit. The way you regard your job is a habit. The way you walk is a habit. The way you respond to bosses, or peers, or old ladies, or sales staff, or pastors, or rude drivers, is also a habit

We form patterns, habits, around all these things.

So patterns / habits / conditioning all zap our free will. They make us respond in a certain automated way. We are unconscious, so to speak.

I'm not going to quote your entire post here, but you make excellent points. It's a good idea for people to get off "automatic," even in small ways. Take a different way to work. Go in a different door than you usually do. Order something on the menu you've never tried. Go through the grocery store in a different order than you typically do. Start your day differently. Move the wastebasket and see how disorienting that is.

In regard to the question of free will --

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This is hardly a new question. It simply crops up in different forms, and all these forms have been and are frequently discussed, in books as well as in this forum. Examples of these different forms:

1. X wants to attract a lover, Y, but Y is not interested. What happens? (Search for Rockchick26's posts)

2. P and Q, a divorced couple, have a battle in court. P wants visitation right; Q does not want P to have visitation rights. (Search for Cdn2wheeler's posts).

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Wallace Wattles' advice to avoid competitive situations , and rather, focus on creative situations (in other words, create anew what you want, rather than fight with someone else for it)

I have found Wallace Wattles' book inspiring. I like that advice about creating anew what you want, rather than competing for it, because there is plenty to go around, and many ways to achieve what is desired. I was interested in Cdn2wheeler's posts about his friend who's fighting against visitation, because I'm hoping it turns out there is another way to resolve this, through creation rather than competition.

It can be a really different way to look at things. People tend to find it hard to look at things creatively rather than competitively. If somebody wants to win a million dollars in the lottery, they're competing against bazillions of other people. But the answer to the fundamental desire there doesn't have to be the lottery, does it?

A bunch of people compete on American Idol and everybody wants to win it really badly. But what they really want isn't so much to win American Idol, as it is to be successful in music.

[RT Wolf]

Its not like there's a limited amount of money or wealth to go around. There's an ever growing amount:

I Will Teach You To Be Rich » Some people think there’s only a limited amount of money

Mind-Manual » “Some people think there’s only a limited amount of money”

Back in the good ol' days of simple manufacturing, you created wealth by actually taking a raw material and removing what you don't want. Nowadays, you can go ahead and make an ebook or a program of which the actual physical cost might be a few dollars in total, but the social value of that might be hundreds of dollars. That's creation.

[FrancescoBellafante]

The "problem" with the "secret" is its marketing...

there is no secret... is the secret, I think....

Originally Posted by JPX

Some of the panelists from The Secret were on Larry King Live tonight. I was looking forward to another LKL filled with positive energy, but was surprised to see a very negative tone developing throughout the entire show.

The phone calls and the emails Larry fielded live were mostly from people doubting the concept of the Law of Attraction, asking questions and throwing shots about 9/11, Katrina, and illness.

- James Ray was asked how come his seminar is so expensive. He was visibly shocked and caught off-guard by the question.

- John Assaraf was asked if he is a neuroscientist or qualified to be discussing the human brain.

- Lisa Nichols said that 100% of lottery winners end up worse off financially than before winning the loterry. That is obviously not true. Studies have found that a large percentage of lottery winners blow their money and end up back in debt, but it's not 100%. That comment took some credibility away from her.

- Joe Vitale said that Jessica Lunsford, the little girl who was raped and killed in Florida, attracted that to herself (a very controversial subject of course), and then mentioned that there are "more secrets" that will be revealed in the sequel to The Secret. Larry King was not very impressed with that, and it made the entire Secret sound even more commercial than it really is.

- Dr. Robi Ludwick tried to be very politically correct about it, but sounded very skeptical about the entire concept.

There is obviously an enormous backlash going on against The Secret, and I don't think tonight's LKL helped the cause. I think tonight was the night that many people said "screw this" and are going back to their old ways.

And that is a true shame. I believe in the Law of Attraction because I'm living it and seeing amazing results in my own life, and I liked The Secret, but I think the Law of Attraction is so wildly misunderstood that it's getting a bad rap.

And of course, the way the movie and book have been comercialized, and the way some of the "teachers" commercialize their own products and services, hasn't helped convert the skeptics.

The Secret, and unfortunately the Law of Attraction, took a brutal beating tonight on Larry King Live. I think The Secret (movie and book) had it coming, but the LoA needs to be studied more before it can be applied effectively.

So I hate to be so negative about something that is supposed to be so positive, but the writing is on the wall. Stick a fork in it. The Secret is done.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by FrancescoBellafante

there is no secret... is the secret, I think....

It's really up to you. I do get tired of arguing with skeptics. I've "converted" a few in my time - utter strangers on the Internet. We discuss, they say "Rubbish! You're a superstitious villager" and they disappear from the relevant forum.

Five months later, they send me a warm, thankful email saying, "Hey remember me? We emailed each other about the LOA once. Then one day, I just started trying the LOA, not that I actually believe it, but what's the harm. I had this big personal problem, details are X, Y, Z and then I started to change my thoughts about the matter. And you're NEVER gonna believe what happened NEXT ..... !"

I always laugh. I find the emails quite heartwarming of course, but also a little comical. The part where they will say something about how I am not going to believe what happened next. As if I were the skeptic, LOL.

Me, I just manifested a quarter of a million dollars a few weeks ago. And wrote all about it on this forum. Time spent arguing with skeptics is really wasted time for me. I'm better off closing my eyes and manifesting more good things for myself and my family.

Everyone has to find their own kind of LOA. Some come through prayer. Some come through NLP. Some come through quantum physics or neuroscience. Some come through personal development. Some come through hypnosis. Some come through magick. Some come through meditation. Some come through regular reflection and introspection, eg through journalling.

Eventually all who persevere discover, in one form or another, the idea that Buddha expressed a very long time ago:

"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world."

Lots of people just don't understand that the Buddha was being literal. That is all.

[MrLawofAttraction]

Amen Brother Godot,

Here's the straight skinny , are you ready?

The Secret Was a Mis- interpretation and representation of a non denominational spiritual movement / revival in this country. Most people mis-understood the under lying message that each of the teachers was trying to make . That manifestation was a natural by product of developing a deeper spiritual connection to your source , how ever you may define that for yourself. That pathway comes at a price of self discipline , self observation , faith and by recognizing the abundance that really surrounds you and when you get that, having "things" aint all that important.The movie has garnered a lot of criticism because it lead a great many people into "magical" thinking and was being presented by an ignorant media. It completely agree with Godot. Educate yourself and conduct the experiment yourself ,don't take the word of someone trying to self you the keys to the universe. If you apply sound principles to your life , you will realize success in your life based upon sound practices and spiritual principles . If you really embrace the path , you might even become enlightened.

I can tell you from my own personal experience , that it works.

I let go of post traumatic stress disorder left form military service.(thanks Hale)

My relationships have improved dramatically ,by being grateful for having those people in my life (GEE)

Success , I had that already , porsche , vette, six figure job ... so what ! those externals arent really a recipe for happiness ,more often a source a misery.

Happiness comes from within.

Try the experiment for yourself.

Michael

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Time spent arguing with skeptics is really wasted time for me. I'm better off closing my eyes and manifesting more good things for myself and my family.

Hopefully it's really not wasted time. It's valuable around here anyways. I think it helps clarify things for people. Personally I like the topics where people are being skeptical and getting responses from non-skeptics.

[bf1983]

Very thought-provoking post.

I'm somewhere in between on all this - just cant make my mind up.

A lot of the theories seem so twee and perfect but when you just throw in the whole "famine issue" the argument seems to fall down.

Bob Proctor did say that people in Darfur had brought the crisis on themselves;

The Secret (2006 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but anyway, I am on the fence.

I've tried using it and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. My biggest issue with it is the whole Africa thing and people being murdered or victims of crime - all because of attraction? I don't think so.

Brian

[WealthyAndContent]

Not sure what all the manifestation stuff means but The Secret sure was a good movie.
Great special effects and music - well done.

Phil.

[Akashic_Librarian]

What I can't understand about some people, is they happily say wealthy people attract wealth, and good people get nice things etc...etc... in that secenario LoA is perfectly valid, but as soon as we talk about poverty, or abuse, or genocide...suddenly its not real! Make up your minds!

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

What I can't understand about some people, is they happily say wealthy people attract wealth, and good people get nice things etc...etc... in that secenario LoA is perfectly valid, but as soon as we talk about poverty, or abuse, or genocide...suddenly its not real! Make up your minds!

It's because "wealthy people attract wealth" and "good people get nice things" are statements that are logical. It gets very contradictory when you see a wonderfully good and happy and lucky and fortunate person have their entire family suddenly get wiped out in a horrible accident. That doesn't make any sense.