The Wrath of the Secretrons

[mjukr]

I'd like your thoughts on this recent article, Steve:

The Wrath of the Secretrons

I am open to the ideas in The Secret, but the author here makes some interesting points, particularly the whole "backwards projection" of success statements.

[Zukin]

It's an interesting article, but the author:
A. Doesn't seem that successful and probably isn't a good source on how to get what you want, whether through the LoA or other conventional means.
B. Doesn't talk about any positive alternatives to the LoA.

At least she doesn't call fans of the Secret "secretards" like some other bloggers I've seen.

[geekchic9]

I read that title as "The Wrath of the Secretions"

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by mjukr

I'd like your thoughts on this recent article, Steve:

The Wrath of the Secretrons

I am open to the ideas in The Secret, but the author here makes some interesting points, particularly the whole "backwards projection" of success statements.

I'm sorry, but there are a few things which the author doesn't understand.

1. You don't just buy a book or DVD about the Law of Attraction and become phenomenally successful overnight. It doesn't work that way. Among other things, you have to learn how to use the Law of Attraction, and that takes time (and practice).

2. The author's point seems to be that the "LOA experts" were not phenomenally successful from Day One. The big hole in her argument is that she doesn't know when the "LOA experts" started using LOA, and what happened thereafter. She is doing the "backward projection" - unfortunately she has no idea which point in time she should project backwards to.

3. The general impression she tries to convey is that the LOA is a nonsensical fad recently invented to achieve widespread success through "viral marketing" - something like that notoriously bad singer William Hung from American Idol some years back. However, LOA isn't a fad - it's been around for a long time, in different forms. It is one of the eight or nine ancient Hindu siddhis (note - it is only one of the eight or nine siddhis (or powers)); you see an early description of LOA in 1932 by Napoleon Hill; while Jane Roberts' Seth talked a lot about the same sort of thing in the 1960s or 1970s except that Seth didn't call it "Law of Attraction"; then in the 1980s and 1990s, you had Abraham Hicks. Extensive descriptions of how "thoughts create reality" and "reality is illusion" etc show up long, long ago in Buddhism.

[Zukin]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The general impression she tries to convey is that the LOA is a nonsensical fad recently invented to achieve widespread success through "viral marketing" - something like that notoriously bad singer William Hung from American Idol some years back.

I'm sure some people think that Sanjaya used the LoA to get on American Idol.

[MartialDev]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

However, LOA isn't a fad - it's been around for a long time, in different forms. It is one of the eight or nine ancient Hindu siddhis (note - it is only one of the eight or nine siddhis (or powers)); you see an early description of LOA in 1932 by Napoleon Hill; while Jane Roberts' Seth talked a lot about the same sort of thing in the 1960s or 1970s except that Seth didn't call it "Law of Attraction"; then in the 1980s and 1990s, you had Abraham Hicks. Extensive descriptions of how "thoughts create reality" and "reality is illusion" etc show up long, long ago in Buddhism.

There is a reason Shakyamuni never said "Food cannot cause you to put on weight, unless you think it can." There is a reason Krishna never advised people how to use cheap tricks to obtain a diamond necklace.

This reason seems to be the Real Secret.

[mjukr]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I'm sorry, but there are a few things which the author doesn't understand.
1. You don't just buy a book or DVD about the Law of Attraction and become phenomenally successful overnight. It doesn't work that way. Among other things, you have to learn how to use the Law of Attraction, and that takes time (and practice).

The thing is, most people who buy the DVD probably *do* think that just watching the DVD will bring them great riches. Which is why she sees the LOA folks as taking financial advantage of the gullible. Not to mention that the DVD focuses almost exclusively on the wanting and not on the doing.

As for the backward projection, I think her point is that many of these people made their riches through years of hard work and sacrifice. You can't sell hard work and sacrifice to most people, but you sure can sell them an Oprah-endorsed DVD that tells you how to obtain a new car by fantasizing about.

Really, her point isn't that LOA is a sham. Just the recent sensationalist distillation of its complexities into consumerist pap.

I'm an LOA fan, but I like to read critics as well so as not to lose my perspective

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by mjukr

The thing is, most people who buy the DVD probably *do* think that just watching the DVD will bring them great riches. Which is why she sees the LOA folks as taking financial advantage of the gullible. Not to mention that the DVD focuses almost exclusively on the wanting and not on the doing.

As for the backward projection, I think her point is that many of these people made their riches through years of hard work and sacrifice. You can't sell hard work and sacrifice to most people, but you sure can sell them an Oprah-endorsed DVD that tells you how to obtain a new car by fantasizing about.

Really, her point isn't that LOA is a sham. Just the recent sensationalist distillation of its complexities into consumerist pap.

I'm an LOA fan, but I like to read critics as well so as not to lose my perspective

Let me tell you guys a funny story about LoA and skeptics.

Anyone hear of Simpleology? It's a website I heard about lately that's becoming popular as an answer to "everything". I was curious what it was about so I registered. Simpleology, is basically a total attack on LoA and you can totally tell. The creator of it is a military trained man who obviously is a very conservative thinking and is into "doing" not into "intending" or "creating". I think LoA bothered him so much that he created this "Simpleology" to rid the world of this "LoA nonsense". Just imagine the implications LoA would have on military thinking The soldier that just got killed beside you ATTRACTED the bullet? See what I mean.

Anyways, I register for the site, not knowing what it is about and there is a demo there explaining the FIRST LAW OF SIMPLEOLOGY. Here's how it works.

They tell you to do this. Get a glass of water, and a stopwatch. They say you must actually do it to learn. So I did. I went and grabbed a glass of water and a stopwatch. When you're ready you click continue. So I did. The little animation then tells you stuff like this:

"Ok, start your stop watch. Now, don't pick up the glass of water and drink it but do this instead. Imagine the water in your mouth. Imagine the water already being in your mouth without you picking it up. Ok, now beg the water to go into your mouth. Now plead for water to go into your mouth. Ok, now get mad at the water. Ok, now think POSITIVE thoughts about the water being in your mouth. Ok, now stop your stopwatch. Take note of the time it took (30seconds) and the result (no water in mouth)."

"Now we're going to use Simpleology to accomplish this feat. Start your stopwatch. Ok now grab the glass of water and take a sip. You now have water in your mouth. Stop the stopwatch. Take note of the time it took (5 seconds) and the result (water in mouth)."

*THIS* experiment is the way this dude is trying to prove to people that LoA doesn't work. Some people will just never get it.


********** OK, now, do you guys want to hear the real kicker? *******

Get this. During the first experiment, when they asked me to "imagine water in your mouth", my fricken salivary glands started salivating like crazy, so that by the time they finished talking about all this water in my mouth I actually HAD lots of water in my mouth!!!! Without touching the glass! Did they not SEE the possibility that some people (those good at visualizing) would be able to control their salivary glands to produce water in their mouths? Is this the type of INTELLIGENCE that these "skeptics" use to design an experiment to prove LoA doesn't work? Man...I had a good laugh.

Such a funny experiment. The very thing that they try to use to prove to me that LoA doesn't work, just re-inforced to me that it does work. LOL.

Anyways, I had a good laugh. Then I removed myself from all emails, deleted my account and I hope I never hear from them again.

[carenkh]

Not to take the thread off-topic - but I believe Simpleology and LoA are not exclusive of each other. Here's a quote from Joe Vitale, one of the teachers from The Secret:

Mark [Joyner, founder of Simpleology] is a genius. Within one hour he turned on the lights in my brain about my marketing, my websites, and even my life's direction.''

- Dr. Joe Vitale

Simpleology (which I have not practiced, but have read extensively on the site, and get the e-mails) breaks down the *action* steps you need to take to achieve what you want. I remember James Ray saying the 3 steps to achieve anything were: visualize what you want, feel how it would feel to achieve that, then take action to achieve it. Action is a necessary component.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by carenkh

Not to take the thread off-topic - but I believe Simpleology and LoA are not exclusive of each other. Here's a quote from Joe Vitale, one of the teachers from The Secret:



Simpleology (which I have not practiced, but have read extensively on the site, and get the e-mails) breaks down the *action* steps you need to take to achieve what you want. I remember James Ray saying the 3 steps to achieve anything were: visualize what you want, feel how it would feel to achieve that, then take action to achieve it. Action is a necessary component.

Visualize, Feel how it would feel to achive, and Take Action is never the arguement of LoA believers/disbelievers. If you want to see if someone truly believes in LoA or not you have to ask questions like:
(1) If Mr. Smith visualizes having a car that he loves with great intensity, connecting to his vision in such a way as to feel the car in his possession, but has NOT YET taken ANY action whatsoever - hasn't told anyone that he wants the car, hasn't ordred any brochures, hasn't changed ANYTHING, just visualized it in his mind and connected to it; prior to taking ANY action, has ANYTHING happened in the world to bring the car closer to him? Or does NOTHING happen until he takes some form of action towards attaining the car?

- LoA Believers believe the universe shifts when someone visualizes and re-arranges itself to help this person get what he wants in the easiest way. YES there might be actions required to bring him what he wants, but they are like 1% of the work. 99% of the work is done by the "universe" to arrange for it to happen.

(2) Can something be manifested purely by visualizing correctly and connecting, without taking action?

- LoA believers believe that in some (actualy quite a few) cases there is no actions required outside of what the person normally does anyways. For example, lets say that you have a grandpa who buys a scratch and win EVERY FRIDAY but hasn't won anything in 50 years. He then learns about LoA and does a visualization exercise to attract a $40k car he wants. While waiting to hear from the universe as to what actions he should take he goes on about his day to day business as normal. On Friday, when he goes to scratch his scratch and win ticket he wins $50k. YES he took action, but LoA believers believe that the universe put the ticket into his possession.

(3) Is there always a logical process you can set for your actions at the time of visualizing?

- LoA believers believe the answer is NO. YES you can plan out some details, but by trying to plan things out TOO much, you restrict yourself as to how you will accomplish what you want. For example, in the above example lets say the Grandpa visualized the car and then thought to himself "How can I get this car?" and thought "My pension doesn't afford me such a car, but I can get a job at Walmart because I know the manager and I'm sure he could pay me $10/hour, and I'll save everything I earn and in 5-6 years and I'll save all my other money as well, every dollar, including those stupid scratch and wins I always get that I haven't won anything on in 50 years, and I'll be able to buy the car!"

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a thread about LoA. But if you believe that Simpleology believes in LoA, you might want to ask the creator a few of these questions. I signed up, watched the video's and it became abundantly clear to me that he not only didn't believe in LoA or anything along those lines, but also that it tried to detract people from what's important (Figuring out who you are, what you want, visualizing it, working on your beliefs, taking *right* action) and focusing them on the last step of LoA which is "Action".

I saw the endorsement by Joe Vitale as well, and to be honest, I'm totally confused why he would do such a thing. I know him and the creator of Simpleology worked on stuff before, but I think it was before Vitale started really going down the path of LoA. I don't know why he would endorse this.

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by impaul99

But if you believe that Simpleology believes in LoA, you might want to ask the creator a few of these questions.

My point is that they're not exclusive from each other, not whether Mark Joyner believes in LoA. Action is required for LoA to work, and Simpleology is an *action* plan. Are you working toward your goals, or away from them? is a question frequently asked in a myriad of ways in the e-mails. For me, it's one of those "take what you need and leave the rest" kinds of things.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by carenkh

Are you working toward your goals, or away from them?

That question in itself moves you away from LoA results. It limits you to only 2 possibilities, and it asks you (your ego self) to judge whether an activity is moving you towards your target or away from it, whereas LoA believers know that when your intuition tells you to DO something, you just DO it, even if the action doesn't seem to logically move you towards your goals.

I'll give you an example. Lets say my GOAL (according to simpleology) is to get a black belt in my martial arts by such and such date. My Thursday training day arrives and I'm about to go to class, but I get a really bad feeling about going. I search my soul to see if this is fear or my intuition telling me something. I decide to skip class and go home that day. Simpleology would tell you that you "failed" because you moved AWAY from your goal that day by "skipping class". HOWEVER, LoA is different. Perhaps that night I was going to get INJURED in class which would have set me back 6 months. OR there was an accident on the bridge and I would have gotten stuck in traffic and missed class anyways, so instead LoA / Intuition moved me towards going home instead and watching a DVD on my martial arts training from our Grandmaster.

My point is that making a list of ACTIONS and then forcing yourself to either (1) DO THEM or (2) Feel ♥♥♥♥♥♥ about not doing them, will not get you anywhere.

At the same time, I am not saying that I should continue to skip all my classes and expect to get a black belt. That would be dumb. I am saying that I (my ego self) don't always have all the wisdom that my intuition does to make an accurate judgement whether taking a specific action or not taking it will move me towards or away from my goal.

Instead of asking yourself "Am I moving toward/away from the goal?" perhaps it might be more LoA condusive to ask yourself "If I am not taking this next action step towards my goal right now, is it because (1) My ego is being fearfull or (2) My intuition is sending out red alerts and perhaps it's best not to act in this moment."

Anyway, just my 2c.

[cylon]

Interesting points, Paul. I am learning to use my intuition. It's weird, because before I would constantly analyze what to do, now I can hear/feel myself say "do this--now" and I don't even think anymore. I just do it. Things have been interesting since.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by cylon

Interesting points, Paul. I am learning to use my intuition. It's weird, because before I would constantly analyze what to do, now I can hear/feel myself say "do this--now" and I don't even think anymore. I just do it. Things have been interesting since.

On my way back from lunch today I saw a scene of an accident. One car was up the butt of another, and the one in front had it's front end ripped off with a third car half way into the house of the person living on the corner of the intersection.

I would be willing to bet that somebody wasn't listening to their intuition this morning, instead electing to listen to their ego saying "I *have* to drive over to ___________ this morning, I just have to."

When your actions are effortless and feel right, you are on the right track. If you *know* you should be doing something, but arent, don't look at the actions, look at yourself. Why am I blocking this? Is it a belief system problem? Why am I creating this? What's my intuition telling me?

Of course, there are times when we're all lazy and comfortable, and we don't take action when we should because we're being lazy, but you have to learn to discern between that and intuitive blockage. That is why I don't like ANY kind of system that forces me to take specific actions like a robot.

Even Tony Robbins Rapid Planning Method doesn't focus on action, and he is the *action* guru. His system focuses you on things like "Make great progress on improving my health", as opposed to "Drive to gym at 9am". This way you can feel your way into which actions are best taken to "make great progress on improving my health" which may very well be to "Drive to gym at 9am" but they also may be "Stay at home and relax today" or "Go shopping for a home gym which will allow me to workout daily instead of 2-3 times a week" or "Resolve my relationship issues with my wife so I'm not so stressed out". Do you see the difference? ACTION is needed, but RIGHT ACTION, not just ANY ACTION.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by impaul99

...When your actions are effortless and feel right, you are on the right track. If you *know* you should be doing something, but arent, don't look at the actions, look at yourself. Why am I blocking this? Is it a belief system problem? Why am I creating this? What's my intuition telling me?..

Absolutely. I'm learning to distinguish between forced action, and just doing what's "right".

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by cylon

Absolutely. I'm learning to distinguish between forced action, and just doing what's "right".

You're on the right track. Just stick with it.

Here's a thought. Imagine if everyone on earth stopped what they were doing right now and just did "right action"? Holy crap. Our planet would evolve like never before.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by carenkh

Action is required for LoA to work

Not really. On numerous occasions, LOA has delivered the things I want, faster than I could start taking action to get them. I've discussed many of these examples on this forum before.

Thought affects reality, and reality does include your own action. However it includes many things other than your own actions. When you think a thought, reality changes - how it changes could be through your actions, or through other things beyond your action, or a combination of both.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Not really. On numerous occasions, LOA has delivered the things I want, faster than I could start taking action to get them. I've discussed many of these examples on this forum before.

Thought affects reality, and reality does include your own action. However it includes many things other than your own actions. When you think a thought, reality changes - how it changes could be through your actions, or through other things beyond your action, or a combination of both.

I totally agree. Also, I see thoughts as actions in themselves. For example "Mary thought about it for 2 hours." <--- the word "thought" is a verb, which is an action. What did Mary DO? She "thought". There are lots of people that get paid to "think".

So, sometimes all it takes is a little bit of thinking and you can manifest your desires. Sometimes even that doesn't seem to be required.