2 Mental Blocks to Making Money (Blog)

[Savage]

Originally Posted by ZeHa

I think these are all perfect examples for providing value being the key element in your business. You might still fail for other reasons, but you can't really succeed if you got a "lick my a$$" attitude towards your customers (of course, if you happen to become a big, big corporation, it's possible again, as we all can see in lots of cases ).

Several years ago Erin and I were eating lunch at California Pizza Kitchen at the Topanga Mall in California. After eating a few slices, I noticed there was a fly baked right onto the top of the pizza. We told the waiter, and he apologized to us and brought me a new pizza. Then the manager came over, apologized again, offered an explanation for how it might have happened, and told us there would be no check. He seemed genuinely concerned about us rather than just trying to cover himself. We were even offered free dessert by the waiter later, although we didn't accept it -- they didn't have any vegan desserts.

While it wasn't pleasant to almost eat a fly, the way we were treated was so understanding and intelligent that we continued to eat at CPK over the years.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by impaul99

@Bruce: I found your post interesting and I now understand the subtle difference you mentioned between "draining" and "drawing me in". It's hard to explain, but I totally know what you mean. It's almost like I'm "leading", kind of like an attorney might "lead" a witness or a jury towards seeing things a certain way. I'll definitely give this distinction some thought.

You hit the nail right on the head with your "attorney" example. You already understand that "you get it", but I thought I'd confirm that for you so you know we're on the same page. Now that you have an awareness of what we/I talked about, you should be able to observe it in your experience (you probably didn't even know you were doing it before, or at least, it was very natural to you) and gleam some interesting insights into your inner workings. I find things work like this in my experience, and it's absolutely fascinating to watch it unfold.

Bridging the lightworker/darkworker gap

Short version:

On a side note I'll mention that, interestingly, I've started to explore the idea of darkworker/lightworker interaction/compatibility with the friend I mentioned in my post. It's not something I have to consciously focus on, it just kind of happens by default due to our rather unique situation (specifically, we've known each other for a long time, and generally keep in contact pretty often... the internet sure helps).

Long version:

To explain in a bit more detail, as I've started to diverge away from the path I used to sort of share with the friend I described in my post, our relationship experienced several changes. Only more recently as I've come to understand my own personal transition have I been able to give context to said changes instead of attributing them to more specific causes such as specific actions of either party (which never really seemed right, and indeed, it was not... playing the blame game or constantly questioning my own actions was not really getting me anywhere whenever a conflict or difference in ideologies was encountered).

Anyway, I mention this to you since it's something I'm currently exploring, and I thought you'd be interested to hear about it. I'm still very green when it comes to this particular area, so I don't want to talk about it much (I simply don't understand it enough) but preliminary results indicate that it is indeed possible for a darkworker-type to effectively associate with a lightworker-type, and vice versa, but it has to be on a different level to a darkworker + darkworker or lightworker + lightworker interaction.

I'll probably write about this at some point in the future once I get more of a grip on the various concepts.

Originally Posted by impaul99

@John Prophet: I went through like a month of discussions trying to figure out if I'm a "darkworker" or a "lightworker" when Steve first came out with the concepts and I have absolutely no problem admitting that I act like a darkworker sometimes and I am proud of it. I do also act like a lightworker sometimes and I am proud of that too.

In fact, I got so confused about the whole concept that after much discussions I realized that who I am doesn't fit into either of Steve's definitions but does fit into something just slightly different which I wrote about and illustrated on my old blog.

I don't want to take this thread any more off-topic then I already have, but I'll mention that it personally took me AGES to understand polarity. Ditto with subjective reality.

What really brought it home for me was not taking it so literally and also bringing in concepts such as "enlightenment" (which I only really understood once I read some books by Eckhart Tolle - I mention that to give context, btw).

Once I realised that Steve (A) was talking about enlightenment/non-duality when he talked about a "lightworker", and (B) was implying that polarising is a conscious, deliberate choice you make to gain more effectiveness, not necessarily a mechanic of the universe (as his original posts made it sound because of the examples he used to describe his visualisations which only serve as pointers to his experience as best), everything became easier.

I also had a much easier time understanding polarity once I stopped trying to slot myself into my incomplete version of the model Steve talked about when trying to figure out which side I was more predisposed to. FYI, I figured out that I'm very much unpolarised (well, sort of), but I'm leaning very much towards the lightworker side with a very interesting take on it (at least, it's VERY different to what Steve describes in his "love" this, "love" that examples... I know the examples supposed to refer to extremes for the sake of example, so don't take that statement too seriously). Ditto (once again) for subjective reality.

Anyway...

Moderator Bruce here:

Attn: All members --

I'm not saying that the thread is going too far off topic, but there's a bit of lean, partly caused by me. Please try your best to consider the thread topic when making a reponse (this topic is pretty general, I agree, but do try anyway).

As a rule of thumb, if you think something belongs in a new thread, it does.

You're all pretty intelligent and good at dealing with things like this, so I'll leave it to you guys to direct the direction of this thread (and of any threads that may stem from it).

[Savage]

Btw this career series will continue for at least another week, so there's plenty more to come. Next week's posts have already been written and future-posted -- they'll appear on Mon, Wed, and Fri. Those posts will address the challenge of choosing the right career, career apathy, and the self-employed mindset.

[jamestl2]

Other than the fact that it was another great blog post from Steve, I'm somewhat surprised that he still receives emails (and even moreso that Steve has a chance to read them). I'd figure they'd post those types of questions for him in the forums, like he mentions on his contact page.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Since abundance-orientation is an aspect of fulfillment, I would say that one will never be fulfilled in one's career without being aligned with one's inner truth. If that alignment is present, it cannot help but manifest, which (objectively speaking) shows up as the sharing of value with others.

It fascinates me how we can further align with our internal reality by working on our external reality (you'd think it'd be the other way around, and it kind of technically is, but that's the paradox). What an awesome interplay they have with each other! "Combing our consciousness" indeed (Steve will know what I mean by that... I'm too lazy to find where he said it so that others can find it as well... do a forum search for once! )

I tell you what, I really want to meet whoever is behind the design of this whole "life" thing and shake their hand (or the equivilent of that practice as it applies to whom I would be meeting with).

Now of course, you're all going to tell me to shake my own (or should I say My own) hand (damn you people and your subjective reality! ), but for now I'll just pretend that perspective doesn't exist and be entertained by the thought that someone was actually 1337 enough to design this thing we call life.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Bruce Achterberg

It fascinates me how we can further align with our internal reality by working on our external reality

Something simple I was fond of reminding my Chi Gung students was:

"If you can't get in the front door, try the back door."

Well I said it was simple . Sometimes things are so basic that we miss them in our rush to figure it all out at a higher level. Sometimes it's easier to access our inner energies and psyche through physical movement or other seemingly external means, like getting our daily life in order, or ensuring both feet are traveling in the same direction. Of course it works the other way around as well.

We often miss the easy routes and struggle on the difficult ones as a result. The intellect wants to make this a never-ending task of figuring it all out. The ego is all for that method because it uses it to avoid experiential learning, or silent knowledge. The mind is a tricky little devil at times.

Cheers,
John
Landscape Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I don't believe that you have to provide value in order to make money. I used to be a thief, remember. As previously mentioned, this series is about career fulfillment. Please see comment #10.

Do you have to provide value to make money without being criminal about it, without 'draining' the economy or generally hurting someone else though?

Meaning, are you saying that the only way to make money morally and legally is to provide value?

Since abundance-orientation is an aspect of fulfillment, I would say that one will never be fulfilled in one's career without being aligned with one's inner truth. If that alignment is present, it cannot help but manifest, which (objectively speaking) shows up as the sharing of value with others.

So a man stranded on an island for the rest of his life who doesn't have anyone else to share value with can never be fulfilled?

What about a Tibetian monk who goes into solitude and meditates for the well-being of the world for 20 years without technically providing any "value" in the physical world?

If I am fully aligned with my truest, deepest self, I can't help but express it because truth is itself creative.

Your truest self is directing you to creatively express yourself and provide value. THis alignment brings you fulfillment and abundance (monetary and otherwise).

What about the individual who aligns with his truest self and that self is directing him or her to NOT provide value to "others", but to take care of himself/herself in this moment in time. Is that individual doomed not to experience the ability to make money until his truest self directs him/her to provide value to others?

Said another way, how do you know just because your "path" here on earth is to provide tonnes of value to tonnes of people, that this is the path of everyone? What if their path is NOT to provide value to others at this time? Are they doomed to monetary scarcity?

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I suppose there is some kind of correlation between money and value, but it is definitely not very clear-cut.

Suppose you had taken your USD at the start of 2007, converted them into EUR or AUD and placed them in a EUR or AUD account.

You'd be richer now than you would have been, if you had simply kept your USD in a USD account. It wouldn't be obvious to most people though, that you had provided any value to anyone.

(Actually, you have, but i shall not elaborate on that one).

@Frans and @Acting Like Godot:

I think I just realized something. The only way Steve has ever made money and felt fulfilled in his life is by providing value. That is the only experience he's had with LoA. Meaning, using LoA he attracted the idea and resources to launch and grow his blog. His path was to provide lots of free value to the world and it attracted money into his pocket. In fact, it has brought in way more money than he has ever experienced, legally and in a moral way that makes him feel good.

It doesn't sound like he's ever made money "out of thin air" without providing value for it and felt "ok" with it. Acting, you just talked about how you made $22,000 within 24hours, and reading the story it clearly shows that it's not like you provided value for it. I've read other things on your blog where you just made money "out of thin air", and I've done that on several occasions as well. ALthough the majority of how I make money is by providing value, those times when it comes without providing value changed my mind about the whole value for money theory.

Anyway, I now see why Steve is saying this. He's just talking from his only experience. Perhaps he sees the theoretical possibility of making money without providing value, he's having too much fun doing it WITH providing value, which is fine.

My only concern is that when someone like him says that you must provide value to make money, it might create a limiting belief for others to later on overcome. I really prefer the way that Abraham/Hicks explains such questions where they basically say it in a way that you leave realizing you have to provide value right now, but there is a possibility to evolve to a point later on where you won't have to - if you choose to - without resorting to illegal, immoral or hurtful methods.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by jamestl2

Other than the fact that it was another great blog post from Steve, I'm somewhat surprised that he still receives emails (and even moreso that Steve has a chance to read them). I'd figure they'd post those types of questions for him in the forums, like he mentions on his contact page.

Not everyone wants to share certain information publicly, so the volume of private feedback remains high. This is true for Erin as well. As I'm sure you can imagine, many topics we address have a social bias against them, so some of the most interesting stories we receive are only discussed privately. A lot of those stories are rather amazing and would probably inspire many people, but I always respect people's desire for privacy.

Often it's the cards and letters that come by postal mail that contain the most interesting and detailed stories, probably because people know a letter is likely to get more attention than an email.

Probably the best part of getting so much feedback is that you see the same universal themes appearing again and again, even across different cultures. Deep down we really aren't so different.

[Savage]

@paul: Unfortunately you begin with assumptions that I consider untrue and then lay questions on top of them. How can such questions be answered truthfully when the underlying context is untrue?

As a simple example, you wrote: "The only way Steve has ever made money and felt fulfilled in his life is by providing value. That is the only experience he's had with LoA."

Those statements are untrue of course. I expressed essentially the opposite PoV in my writing on multiple occasions. You've also confused money with abundance... and financial value with creative value. This makes for some very muddled questions. Forgive me, but I don't know how to honestly answer questions that begin with assumptions that are false to me.

Just to give you another perspective, if I were to use a similar process to pose questions to you, it would look something like this:

Paul believes the best way to make money is to trick others into giving him something for nothing. He justifies this attitude and suppresses any feelings of guilt by telling himself that he's the most important person on earth and that therefore, other people and their needs don't really matter. He believes he deserves everything he can get for himself.

Q: Paul, how does conning people for a living help you feel happy and fulfilled? What are the best ways you've learned to trick people into giving you money without giving them anything in return?

Of course these statements and questions are unfair because they make assumptions about your context you may not agree with.

I think the underlying problem is that you're coming from a context that's different from mine, and you're projecting many assumptions from your context onto mine. Unfortunately, many of those assumptions are not true from one context to the next. This works both ways, since in order to understand your context, I have to let go of my own and see the world through your perspective. Otherwise I'd end up making a lot of false assumptions about your experience of reality, like assuming you must be an evil con artist. Obviously such an assumption won't lead to a deeper understanding.

If you'd truly like to understand the lightworker context in more depth -- which of course isn't the self-denying, make-life-harder-than-necessary context you seem to frame it as -- I encourage you to relax some of your assumptions first. Consider tackling the subject like a scientist as opposed to a cross-examining attorney.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If you'd truly like to understand the lightworker context in more depth -- which of course isn't the self-denying, make-life-harder-than-necessary context you seem to frame it as -- I encourage you to relax some of your assumptions first. Consider tackling the subject like a scientist as opposed to a cross-examining attorney.

Let me try to simplify and remove any assumptions and re-ask my questions.

Your post says:
"By focusing on trying to get money, you’re missing the point. The point is to provide value to others. "

Question1: Why do you assume that everyone in the world who wants to make money and be fulfilled has to 'provide value to others'?

Question2: Have you ever made money and felt fulfilled, without providing value to others?

Question3: When the person writes "I’ve posted hundreds of articles on my blog, and I keep adding stuff every week." in his question to you, why do you assume that he is not providing value with all those articles he is writing?

Question4: Do you think it's possible that this person is providing lots of value, but the reason he/she is unable to make money has nothing to do with that? Like, I don't know... maybe a belief like "Money is the root of all evil." is blocking him/her? Or perhaps, "Money is difficult to manage." etc?

Question5: Do you think that the only way to make an income stream legally, morally and in alignment with your true self is by providing value to other human beings? I don't mean for you, that answer is obvious, but I mean for every human on earth.

For example, what if I wanted to provide value to make money because it is quite a common and easy way to do it, but after deep meditation and connection with my true self I was pulled and directed to simply eliminate certain beliefs about the lack of abundance with money, and then directed to spend the next 10 years of my life perfecting my martial arts skills at home by myself, without providing any value to anyone else, yet almost like magic money began flowing to me from different sources as soon as I aligned with my "path" and eliminated whatever was blocking me?

As you can see, my biggest disagreement here flows from the assumption that providing value to others is the ONLY way to make money morally, legally, and in true alignment with ones true self. If your true self guides you in that direction, then great, I totally agree, but what if it doesn't? Is a person then crap-out-of-luck to live a life of poverty?

Notice also that I am NOT saying that the only way to make money is to NOT provide value, as that is ONE of the ways that I have made money in the past. All I'm saying is that it is not THE ONLY way I've made money in the past.

For example, I once set an intention to make $240k. I used certain visualization techniques to visualize myself already being in possession of that money. Here's the thing though. Before I could even figure out how I'm going to provide $240,000 worth of "value" to the world the money manifested itself in my life. My property assessment for my house came in and there was a huge jump from what it was worth before due to the high growth of the housing market in Vancouver, partly due to the 2010 Olympics coming to town. When I looked at the new value of the house, minus the outstanding mortgage the difference was exactly $240,000 (within a few bucks). A short while later I walked out of my lawyers office with a check for $240k in my hand. In that whole time I didn't really provide any value to anyone outside of what I normally do day to day.

The only thing I did was to set an intention, visualize it, eliminate blocks, and meditate. The next steps for me were to wait for "inspired action" to direct me what to do next, but I didn't have to do anything! The money just showed up out of the blue. However, if I was guided by my true self to provide value to others I would have gladly done that, but in this particular case my true self told me to do nothing except to accept the abundance offered to me.

This is just one example. I've had many others. And since I've been investigating this path, I've found many others having similar experiences where they don't provide value, but yet manifest the money they desire, with no guilt, no unhappiness, without hurting anyone, without doing anything illegal or wrong or immoral.

I used to have the same "value for money" RULE in my mind. If anyone showed me a lottery winner, I would always say "Oh well, they didn't provide any value for that money so they'll lose it very quickly anyways." and all I saw was proof of that assumption. However, since I've began opening up to that possibility that it is NOT EVIL to make money without providing value, I've seen some instances of evidence where people have won the lottery and it has improved their lives and they still have the money and nothing went wrong.

[JohnR]

I just want to say STOP!

Honestly, you guys would test the patience of a saint.

Can't you all see that the answers are not found in cognitive gymnastics? I know that you feel you are putting words to your innermost life philosophies and experiences, but really you are using your words and intellectual arguments to avoid experiential learning.

The upshot of your words and your supposed intent, are that we can become one with the forces of nature and existence. But cognitive processes and logical reasoning are only distractions. The juice of it is in developing actual ability to merge with and manipulate those forces of nature in a physical manner. The end goal isn't creating money abundance or perceived value to people. The end goal implied by all the talk here is to realize our potential as humans, as it relates to our presence here in this fascinating, and very deceptive life.

Right now I am here to say:

1. Act physically on what you feel is right in your heart, as well as in your mind. Don't get caught up in intellectual traps.
2. The laws of nature as the world perceives them are malleable. We can develop the ability to manipulate these laws of nature. If I told you that humans are able to defy, say, the law of gravity, what would that imply? The bottom line is that the upshot of the theories you are working with in your heads, are reality to some of us. We as humans are able to manipulate the forces of nature. But you'll never get there through logical intellectual processes.

Take the above for whatever you feel it is worth. Experience says that it won't be perceived as significant to many of you. But there might be some of you who have had real experiences that challenged common notions of human reality. At the very least I hope this serves as a notice that you are not alone. There are others, though I have no idea how many.

Well, this turned out out be a bit of an expose. Perhaps it's about time. Perhaps I'll regret it.

All the best,
John
Landscape Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[jamestl2]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Not everyone wants to share certain information publicly, so the volume of private feedback remains high. This is true for Erin as well. As I'm sure you can imagine, many topics we address have a social bias against them, so some of the most interesting stories we receive are only discussed privately. A lot of those stories are rather amazing and would probably inspire many people, but I always respect people's desire for privacy.

If your feedback numbers are really high, you could always add a private section to the forums.

If you wanted to do that, go to:
Admin CP > Forums and Moderators > Forum Manager > Add new forum
Then just name it something like "Private section" and put it under the appropriate category

Then go to:
Admin CP > Forums and Moderators > Forum Permissions
And then just "deny all" to the "Private Section" you just created, except for admins of course (maybe mods too, if you wanted them to see it also)

That way others don't have to worry about their questions, thoughts, opinions etc. being revealed to the public. Just a suggestion in case you wanted to have something like that

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by impaul99

For example, I once set an intention to make $240k. I used certain visualization techniques to visualize myself already being in possession of that money. Here's the thing though. Before I could even figure out how I'm going to provide $240,000 worth of "value" to the world the money manifested itself in my life. My property assessment for my house came in and there was a huge jump from what it was worth before due to the high growth of the housing market in Vancouver, partly due to the 2010 Olympics coming to town. When I looked at the new value of the house, minus the outstanding mortgage the difference was exactly $240,000 (within a few bucks). A short while later I walked out of my lawyers office with a check for $240k in my hand.

Wowee! Well done, Paul.

[Zukin]

Here's a way of combining the Law of Attraction/Abraham-Hicks, lightworking, and providing value. (This is New Age and non-scientific, so if that bothers you, ignore it).

1. According to Abraham-Hicks, the highest emotional vibration is love. According to Abraham-Hicks, if your predominant emotion is love, your desires will manifest faster.
2. When you genuinely provide value to others, you are acting with love.
3. As you act with love by providing genuine value to others, your desires will manifest faster.

From a conventional perspective, Steve's post is basic economics. And if that's true, are articles like the following just extraneous?
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...manifestation/
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...ions-manifest/

If that's the case, why do the inner work at all when you just need to provide something of value? Won't taking the time to visualize and do the LoA stuff just get in the way and take up time that could be used to develop and provide valuable services?

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Can't you all see that the answers are not found in cognitive gymnastics? I know that you feel you are putting words to your innermost life philosophies and experiences, but really you are using your words and intellectual arguments to avoid experiential learning.

I'm intrigued. 98% of the time I agree with what Steve writes and I enjoy it. Sometimes, however, I share a different point of view from my personal experience which disagrees with what Steve wrote.

Personally, in this case I don't really care if Steve agrees with me because I already know I can make money without providing value and I can do it without hurting anyone if it is in alignment with what my true self wants for me. It is not the only way I choose to make money, but it is an option I have.

My intention in disagreeing is to (1) possibly help someone else who is stuck in the place I was stuck at before, (2) possibly point out a limiting belief to Steve he may or may not have explored before, and (3) for me to learn something as well.

Do you think that it is fruitless for me to do this? Meaning, if I read a post that I disagree with should I just keep it to myself and ignore it? I don't really see a point to having a discussion forum though if the only purpose is for people to say "Excellent article Steve!" every time and those who disagree to remain silent.

The end goal isn't creating money abundance or perceived value to people. The end goal implied by all the talk here is to realize our potential as humans, as it relates to our presence here in this fascinating, and very deceptive life.

Absolutely.

Right now I am here to say:

1. Act physically on what you feel is right in your heart, as well as in your mind. Don't get caught up in intellectual traps.
2. The laws of nature as the world perceives them are malleable. We can develop the ability to manipulate these laws of nature. If I told you that humans are able to defy, say, the law of gravity, what would that imply? The bottom line is that the upshot of the theories you are working with in your heads, are reality to some of us. We as humans are able to manipulate the forces of nature. But you'll never get there through logical intellectual processes.

Woo. Very interesting. Perhaps this thread is not the place for this, but I would be interested in reading more of what you have to say. Do you have a blog?

Take the above for whatever you feel it is worth. Experience says that it won't be perceived as significant to many of you. But there might be some of you who have had real experiences that challenged common notions of human reality. At the very least I hope this serves as a notice that you are not alone. There are others, though I have no idea how many.

Well, this turned out out be a bit of an expose. Perhaps it's about time. Perhaps I'll regret it.

I hope not. I'm interested in more of what you have to say. Also, I really like your art. There seems to be a lot of positive energy infused in it.

[Acting Like Godot]

Steve had mentioned that his post is in the context of work/careers. So I shall skip examples relating to FX conversions, striking lottery and the appreciation of property prices.

I shall also avoid Steve's classic example of LOA at work - manifesting for money and then finding & picking up money that someone else had dropped on the street.

In the work/career context, Steve says that the way to make more money is to offer more value to others. While this is generally true, I think that there are enough exceptions to this proposition, to make them worth discussing.

The key point underlying most of these exceptions is that VALUE can be a nebulous concept.

Some everyday examples:

1. You have certain qualifications and experience. You apply for the same kind of job, at different companies. You get several offers. One of them is for a much higher salary than the rest (because it came from a company like Google, or Goldman Sachs, or Chevron Texaco).

Why should this be the case? You're still the same person, with those kinds of qualifications and that amount of experience. You're able to offer whatever value you are able to offer. Why is one company offering you so much more money than all the other companies?

2. You are an artist. You are not very rich. You never managed to sell any of your paintings for a very large sum of money. However, after you die, your paintings appreciate massively in value.

Why? They are the same paintings, after all. Did the painting offer less value when you were alive, than after you died?

3. You are a miner in Australia. You have been a miner all your working life, which has been many years. You are still doing more or less what you had been doing 15 years ago, when you first started - and you're a simple guy, you've never heard of "personal development" and you've never thought about trying to "add more value" to your work.

However, due to the worldwide commodities boom and the severe shortage of mine workers, you are now suddenly being paid a much, much higher salary, even higher than many white-collar professionals. And you're laughing all the way to the bank.

Why did this happen? Did you suddenly somehow start offering more value without your knowing it?

---

I've mentioned on the forum before that I once manifested an 82% salary increase. What were the physical-reality events that led to that?

Well, two rival firms were vaguely interested in poaching me from my employer. Word got around (I had nothing to do with it) that the two firms were hugely interested in poaching me. And when my employer heard, out of the blue they gave me an 82% salary increase.

Did I add any extra value to get that salary increase? Nah. I continued to do the same job as I had been doing, before i got that increase. I didn't have to offer any extra value to get that extra money.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Wowee! Well done, Paul.

Thanks! It was really cool, except that afterwords it broke my belief that you have to provide value to make money and confused the heck out of me because I had to change that global belief. With some mentoring and coaching work though I've been able to realize that the "must provide value for money" belief I had was simply rooted in feelings of not deserving abundance (God's Love, Universe's love, My True Selves Love, Whatever you want to call it).

The paradox was that I thought "If I don't have to provide value to make money, am I just going to become this wealthy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ that doesn't help anyone?" and then I realized that if the intention to "provide value" is simply to make money then it isn't really "providing value" that you're trying to do - you're trying to make money. It is then that I seperated "making money" and "providing value" in my mind and "providing value" became a choice, rather than a means to an end.

It also helped me understand why some multi-millionaires I know never need to work a day in their lives anymore, yet they still work.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by impaul99

The paradox was that I thought "If I don't have to provide value to make money, am I just going to become this wealthy ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ that doesn't help anyone?" and then I realized that if the intention to "provide value" is simply to make money then it isn't really "providing value" that you're trying to do - you're trying to make money. It is then that I seperated "making money" and "providing value" in my mind and "providing value" became a choice, rather than a means to an end.

Indeed it is perfectly possible to provide a lot of value without making any money (and this is a bad thing only if you WERE expecting to make money out of providing that value).

For example, people who volunteer their time and effort through charitable works are adding important value to society, however, they aren't getting paid anything.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Indeed it is perfectly possible to provide a lot of value without making any money (and this is a bad thing only if you WERE expecting to make money out of providing that value).

For example, people who volunteer their time and effort through charitable works are adding important value to society, however, they aren't getting paid anything.

Absolutely.

I was just thinking, also, do you think that the reason the belief in the requirement to provide "value for money" is so common is due to it's visibility? Meaning, if person A makes $40k/month by providing value to 10,000 people, and person B makes $40k/month without providing any extra value, the way person A makes money is visible to 10,000 people, but the way person B makes money is not. It may only be visible to those who closely know person B, people who are mentored or coached by person B or if person B decides to "go public" with the way he makes money.

Also, due to the "make money for nothing = evil person" bias, person B would probably be less likely to "go public" compared to person A who is in alignment with society's view of what makes a good "village member".

What book was I reading on this....hmmm... maybe "Blink" or "Tipping Point" or some marketing book. I can't remember now, but I remember the author talking about how certain "Stories" or beliefs spread and are believed by many people not because they are true, but because they inherently contain a self-reproducing quality in them. For example, consider these two beliefs:

Belief 1 - It is proven that by telling other people publicly in front your kids that your kids are really smart, it improves their IQ by an average of 20% within their lifetime.

compared to:

Belief 2 - It is best not to ever publicly talk about how smart your kids are as it talking about the subject could negatively affect their IQ levels.

These are of course just made up, ficticious beliefs, and they may not be the best example of what I'm trying to say, but what this author was trying to point out was that something like Belief 1 above might NOT be true but it would spread a lot faster than Belief 2 since it encourages "publicly talking" about something which other parents might ask about and you might tell them "By the way, in case you're wondering why I always praise my son at how smart he is, it's not because I'm showing off, but I read a study that said it improves their IQ levels to praise them publicly in front of people."

And then the other parent goes "Really? Man I gotta start doing that!" and the cycle continues.

So the author talks about the fact that beliefs which contain self-spreading mechanisms built into them are more likely to get accepted as truth.

I dont' know why I thought of that, but it could apply in this situation. Steve makes money by providing value to thousands, and so thousands see that as a way to make money. If I create money out of nothing, or you make money out of nothing, unless we talk about it publicly, nobody knows.

[wulph]

Originally Posted by impaul99

So the author talks about the fact that beliefs which contain self-spreading mechanisms built into them are more likely to get accepted as truth.

What an interesting concept. Your hypothetical "child's IQ" beliefs seem to be a great example -- I'd love to learn more about this; any chance you could narrow down the title or author a bit?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Woo. Very interesting. Perhaps this thread is not the place for this, but I would be interested in reading more of what you have to say. Do you have a blog?

I'm interested in more of what you have to say. Also, I really like your art. There seems to be a lot of positive energy infused in it.

I probably shouldn't have alluded to these things here and especially in that way. My impatience is definitely my own issue; something I get to deal with. You are right, it isn't the place.

For no doubt obvious reasons, I don't publicly divulge much of this part of my life, yet here I am on a public forum. The moment I hit "submit" I had this sinking feeling But maybe it is a step for me to be more open about this. I have spent a lifetime keeping things secret. It wears on you after so long. Thanks for easing my mind by your expression of curiosity.

You asked if I had a blog. No I don't. I will be building another web site, but I doubt it will center on these topics. We'll see though. I'm letting things gel of their own accord. I'll begin soon. Thanks for your comment on my paintings. I appreciate that.

I concur that disagreement in a forum is good for discussion. In disagreement, we often ferret out common ground that would not be realized otherwise. Also we learn more about ourselves in disagreements, than we do when everyone is on the same page to begin with. Now that's creating value

Cheers,
John
Landscape Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by wulph

What an interesting concept. Your hypothetical "child's IQ" beliefs seem to be a great example -- I'd love to learn more about this; any chance you could narrow down the title or author a bit?

Hmm.... For some reason Seth Godin, possibly "All Marketers Are Liars" pops into mind. That may not be the book/author though. If not that, perhaps it was "Blink" by the author of "Tipping Point" (name escapes me right now).

If I remember correctly, the author was talking about ideas that have a natural "reproductive" quality to them, meaning that they are self-spreadable, are generally much more accepted and quicker than ideas that don't have that quality - regardless if they are actually true.

As such, in the context of this thread, a person who was mentored by a multi-millionaire and told that all you need to do in order to be wealthy is to visualize, meditate, clear limiting beliefs and become comfortable with wealth, give away 10% of what you make anonymously, and then keep quiet about how you make money so as not to upset the general population who may not be ready to accept such a possibility would simply be invisible to most people.

However, a book author, musician, actor, or someone who makes money in the public eye is much more visible. As such, most people don't realize that when they go to a mall, they may typically walk by 30 multi-millionaires without ever even knowing that they are multi-millionaires. Just the other day someone told me of a guy who made millions with a single idea for a way to improve some machine to pour out the exact amount of cream/sugar every time it was used.

There was also another book I was reading at one time that mentioned another problem with learning about making money from successful people. The author talked about how a lot of successful people don't know what makes them successful. For example they may report that in order to be wealthy they focused on building solid relationships with their clients, and the number one reason their clients loved them was due to their unwavering dedication to honesty. However, when their clients were interviewed it was found that honestly wasn't even mentioned, but instead the clients reported that the reason they maintained a relationship was due to the fact that the guy always sent them a Christmas card and birthday card every single year, whether they bought something from him that year or not - or something like that.

This is just an example, but the point was that a lot of times successful people are clueless as to the real reasons for their success. They might do 100 different things, and think that 10 of them are the reason for their success, but the real reasons are actually not those 10 but a different 10. As such the author recommended not only studying what successful people say, but also what they do, because they may not be aware what they're doing that's working. In some instances what they do may even be opposite of what they say.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I probably shouldn't have alluded to these things here and especially in that way. My impatience is definitely my own issue; something I get to deal with. You are right, it isn't the place.

For no doubt obvious reasons, I don't publicly divulge much of this part of my life, yet here I am on a public forum. The moment I hit "submit" I had this sinking feeling But maybe it is a step for me to be more open about this. I have spent a lifetime keeping things secret. It wears on you after so long. Thanks for easing my mind by your expression of curiosity.

You asked if I had a blog. No I don't. I will be building another web site, but I doubt it will center on these topics. We'll see though. I'm letting things gel of their own accord. I'll begin soon. Thanks for your comment on my paintings. I appreciate that.

I concur that disagreement in a forum is good for discussion. In disagreement, we often ferret out common ground that would not be realized otherwise. Also we learn more about ourselves in disagreements, than we do when everyone is on the same page to begin with. Now that's creating value

Cheers,
John
Landscape Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

If you would be willing to share in private, I would love to learn about some of your experiences. Would you be willing to discuss some of these privately?

[JohnR]

impaul99,

Could that book have been "Unleashing the Idea Virus" by Seth Godin?

And re: your question on the other post about a private discussion, I'll keep that close to mind. I know where to find you


John
Landscape Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by JohnR

impaul99,

Could that book have been "Unleashing the Idea Virus" by Seth Godin?

It could be. I read that book as well. I don't have it here right now though to check.

And re: your question on the other post about a private discussion, I'll keep that close to mind. I know where to find you

I have been a student of martial arts for 2.5 years, although I haven't been training in the last few months. I have learned the importance of learning through physical experience, via the body etc. but am really attracted and fascinated with energy work. I'd love to experience more on this subject.

[Bruce Achterberg]

@ impaul99:

I'm going to share something with you that is hot off my figurative “personal development” presses. The reason I'm doing this is because it seems you're doing something similar to what I’ve been doing recently, and while I may not be able to provide you with all the answers, hopeful I can assist. Do note that I may have misinterpreted what you’ve been saying, but we won’t know that until I say what I have to say, so here goes...

----------------------------------------------
Thinking with doubt
----------------------------------------------

Firstly, when it comes to trying to understand what somebody is writing/talking about, as Steve says, I highly encourage you to think like a scientist (ie. think with doubt). That doesn't mean you need to be sceptical, but rather, doubt the hell out of what you understand (or think you understand) and constantly question it, as well as your motives and intentions behind your actions.

I've used this type of thinking all my life without really knowing I use it, and it's always led me to a very solid understanding of things. Lots of people use the tool of argument when trying to understand things, but to me argument is ineffective. Instead of seeing the words people use when they have an argument, this is what I really see:

Superman: “This is what I believe.”
Batman: “No, you are wrong, this is what I believe.”
Superman: “No, YOU are wrong, because this is what I believe.”

The whole process of argument is silly. Everything is relative and related to a particular perspective, so trying to “prove” your perspective to someone from his or her perspective is pretty futile. So, instead of argument (which, for the record, I’m not saying is bad, just ineffective relative to how most people use it), I favour what I call “expressing perspectives”.

With this model, instead of arguing with someone when you don’t understand them, you try to understand why they say what they do, as that will help give context to what they are saying. I’ll give you an example:

In this example, two people who don’t know each other are speaking on a phone.

George Cloony: “It’s hot”
Richard Gere: “No it’s not. Why do you say that?”
George Cloony: “Because I’m hot”
Richard Gere: “What is making you hot?”
George Cloony: “Well, the sun is in the middle of the sky, and the sky is cloudless. I’m also wearing a few layers of clothes.”

By focusing on questioning your understanding of things (ie. what you base your statements on) and trying to understand the perspective of the person you are speaking with, you cover ground much faster then you would if you are trying to “prove” something to the other person.

It’s much, much easier to accept that, from your own perspectives, you’re both right. This will allow you to focus your efforts on learning "why" they are right. Even people who are factually incorrect are right, because, from their perspective, they have a particular understanding that they base their statements on, so at the time they said what they did, regardless if they are factually correct, from their perspective what they are saying is true.

To give an example of how this might look in practice, if I was to ask Steve a question, it would look like this:

“Steve, in your article, you said X. How did you come to your understanding about X? What books did you read that influenced your thinking at that time? What experiences where you having? What were your current goals at the time that led you to be doing X? What model of reality did you have at that time?”

Interestingly, you are effectively asking him nothing about what he said. Instead, you’re exploring his perspective and giving depth to his statement so, instead of trying to slot it into your mental model (which usually won’t work), you load up a reasonably accurate version of Steve’s mental model and then try to understand what he said.

Now there’s a whole lot more I could go into with this, but I’ve effectively covered the essence. Give this model a try in your quest to understand what Steve talks about, and you’ll probably reach an understanding with much less effort and frustration.

----------------------------------------------
Becoming conscious of your desires
----------------------------------------------

Let me begin by saying that after spending a lot of time learning/applying things from the works of Eckhart Tolle, I've become really good at cutting through the surface of things and seeing what lies behind them. I seem to also somehow make use of my intuitive ability with this as well. I'm not always 100% accurate, but I'm good enough to see that something's off. (FYI, the reason I reference Eckhart Tolle there is to give you some insight into how I learned what I did. This meshes with what I talked about in the previous section.)

And this is what I feel/see when I read your posts. You are working very hard to try to understand something from Steve, but you're very much using a suboptimal way of doing this (it probably doesn’t seem so, but from my perspective, it seems to be the case). This leads me to believe that there is something unconsciously influencing your actions. Perhaps something’s bothering you. Perhaps you’re not really clear on what you want.

So, firstly, you need to become clear about what you are trying to do in your first place. What is your desire? You will find that the reason you want to understand what Steve has said is because you desire something. Instead of unconsciously trying to pursue that desire, I find it more efficient to bring it out into the light of my conscious awareness so I know what it is I’m looking for. Then I can look at how I’m going about fulfilling that desire and make changes as necessary.

If you’re anything like me, though, a lot of the time you’re going to find that your desire is less about what you want, and more about resisting what you currently have. Essentially, you then interact with the present moment through the lens of “I don’t want to be here”, and so your actions are tainted with that thought. To give you an example, I’ll share a personal story with you:

I was putting some dishes in the kitchen cupboard one night after dinner. Suffice to say that our cupboards very full, so if you don’t put things in properly, you won’t fit things in and/or the door won’t close. Anyway, at the time I was doing this, I really wanted to get back to my room, which has my computer in it. I was doing something on my computer, so I saw putting these dishes away as an annoyance that I wanted dealt with.

So, unsurprisingly, I put the dishes in the cupboard and the door wouldn’t close. I opened the door, shifted the dishes around a bit, and tried again. No good. At this point my frustration was starting to grow. Frustrated, I began to try to slam the door, venting my frustration. The fact that I had to deal with a cupboard door when I could be in my room doing something more productive was quite annoying.

But then, thanks to recently listening to some material by Eckhart Tolle, it occurred to me that in my hurry to deal with the cupboard and get to my room, I could be taking much longer then I needed to be. I saw that I was trying to take the quickest logical route to closing the door (shifting the dishes around), and I tried this many times, but it simply wasn’t working. So, I focused my attention on my situation, forgot about going to my room, and then noticed that the reason the door wouldn’t close was because the dishes weren’t stacked as efficiently as they could be. I didn’t notice this before because my attention was not on the moment; instead, it was stuck in my mind, absorbed in the thought of “I want to get to my room”. Long story short, I took the dishes out, stacked them properly, put them in, and the door closed first time – almost magically!

While my story may seem simplistic, you’d probably be surprised at how often you use the same type of thinking when it comes to both large scale and small scale things. More recently I’ve found that, while I no longer do this with small scale things, this type of “I must get somewhere else; I don’t want to be here” thinking has been impacting my large scale actions.

For me, this manifested as an excessive amount of analysis. To give you a specific example, I was trying to become more organised, but I didn’t want to take a lot of effort learning how to do this effectively. So I took a lot of time trying to think of ways I could get organised while still meeting my preferences. Suffice to say I met with nothing but failure. Eventually I realised that, instead of resisting my current situation, things are much, much easier (and much more enjoyable) when you accept it, and accept what you have to do to reach your desire. I noticed that my desire to get organised with little effort was less about not wasting time and more abut my resistance to my current position. Once I let go of that resistance, things started flowing again, and this area of my life has started becoming much easier.

I’m not sure how much of this will apply to you, but my advice is that, whenever you try to do something, regardless of what it is, take a moment to step back and think about what it is you are trying to do. Think about why you want to do that.

Like me, I think you’ll begin to find life to be much more cooperative, not because of some sort of magical force, but simply because you are paying attention to what you are doing and what you want to do rather then unconsciously letting it drift around, which isn’t very effective at all.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Something simple I was fond of reminding my Chi Gung students was:

"If you can't get in the front door, try the back door."

Well I said it was simple . Sometimes things are so basic that we miss them in our rush to figure it all out at a higher level. Sometimes it's easier to access our inner energies and psyche through physical movement or other seemingly external means, like getting our daily life in order, or ensuring both feet are traveling in the same direction. Of course it works the other way around as well.

We often miss the easy routes and struggle on the difficult ones as a result. The intellect wants to make this a never-ending task of figuring it all out. The ego is all for that method because it uses it to avoid experiential learning, or silent knowledge. The mind is a tricky little devil at times.
[/url]

John, reading your post was like opening the door to some eerie alternate reality that is beckoning me to drop my current model of doing things so I can embrace a new, more effective model (regardless of how crazy it seems). Interestingly, I always suspected this model existed, but it just seems so damn impractical and difficult to use, but perhaps the difficulty comes from my resistance to it.

You also appear to be some sort of Yoda-like emissary for the universe, ha!. Your post is all too timely and synchronistic for me. It's kind of thrown me for a loop. Hmmm.

In most cases I'd go off on a "I must understand this" tangent and not really get anywhere. I now know better (failure is wonderfully educational), but hmmm... lets just say that I sense something very interesting from you.

I hope I don't sound too forthcoming in saying this, but I sense that you aren't expressing yourself fully. The fact you mention chi gung is even more interesting in that context, since, well, I know enough about energy work to know that there's a good chance you've had some "interesting" experiences. It's kind of like when Steve didn't really write about psychic-related topics. There was a certain quality to his energy that seemed to be missing... as if he was only telling part of the story.

Anyway, I wanted to thank you for posting what you did. I'd love to pepper you with questions, but for now, I'm going to contemplate what you've said. I will add, however, that I feel extremely drawn to you. I don't know if this is a wink from the universe, my voracious appetite for information, or some sort of structural egoic process I'm not aware of, but either way, I'm pretty willing to take a stab in the dark and see where it leads me. As Wayne Gretzky said, "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

If you have anything you feel compelled to share with me/the forum, or if you'd like to speak with me more privately (via PM, instant messenger, or something like that), please send me a PM and let me know. Maybe there's even something I can share that will be of use to you. (I'm not implying anything there, just speculating.)

[Addict]

I've seen these forums flooded with people complaining that they're doing "everything right" and checks aren't showing up in the mail.

I'm so glad you wrote this one, Steve. I'm not into LOA, so it seems like a no brainer to me. But I can see it from the LOA perspective: if you want something real, you need to do something real. I hope your readers take this to heart.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Question1: Why do you assume that everyone in the world who wants to make money and be fulfilled has to 'provide value to others'?

I don't assume that. This post specifically espouses a lightworker philosophy. While I'm perfectly accepting of other philosophies, I'm not as interested in teaching them because I find them unsound, either from one perspective or another. For example, the non-contributor mindset may look OK subjectively, but it's objectively unsound. In other words if everyone on earth adopted a non-contributor mindset vs. a contributor mindset, which would make the planet a better place to live? That itself is a subjective question, but having experienced both mindsets for myself, I'd much rather experience the contributor world. Consequently, that's the model I choose to teach.

Question2: Have you ever made money and felt fulfilled, without providing value to others?

Not after making the decision to polarize. Before polarizing I would have said yes. However, what I once labeled as fulfillment was more of an emotional addiction in my opinion. Today it feels more like being "filled" by spirit or energy or some other positive force. It's similar to confusing infatuation with unconditional love. Fulfillment (as I define it today) is more like the latter than the former. It's a feeling of an energetic flow rather than an emotion.

Also, providing value didn't "cause" the experience of fulfillment. Both were a natural consequence of aligning my thoughts and actions in a certain direction. You could say that providing value in the physical world is merely a manifestation of that alignment.

What provides the most value to others, in my opinion, is who you become when you're fully aligned. I could say that my writing provides value, but the writing came about after I became a certain kind of person on the inside.

Question3: When the person writes "I’ve posted hundreds of articles on my blog, and I keep adding stuff every week." in his question to you, why do you assume that he is not providing value with all those articles he is writing?

I don't assume that either. People tell me this is what's holding them back. This was a composite example based on much longer emails I've received over a period of many months. I tried to keep the example short and simple.

I find that such bloggers often suffer from being out of touch with their own sense of value. They post links to other blogs or rehash ideas others have already written instead of sitting down to share their own truths and ideas. For example, if I ask them, "What's the worst thing that ever happened to you?" or "What was your most difficult life lesson?" 9 times out of 10 they won't have come close to sharing anything like that in their blogs. If I ask them why, the answer is usually fear.

Question4: Do you think it's possible that this person is providing lots of value, but the reason he/she is unable to make money has nothing to do with that? Like, I don't know... maybe a belief like "Money is the root of all evil." is blocking him/her? Or perhaps, "Money is difficult to manage." etc?

Not exactly -- we have to separate the concept of abundance from the substance of money. I notice you often tie those together, but I prefer to keep them separate.

Making money isn't particularly important (at least to me). Money is just one of many ways more interesting things can manifest. If you have negative beliefs about money but are in tune with your value and with the concept of abundance, you'll find plenty of other ways to manifest abundance. I think I could enjoy a very abundant lifestyle without any money at all, although it would take on a different form.

On the other hand, if you equate money with abundance and are out of sync with your own value, then you'll likely hold yourself back quite a bit. Whether you have money or not, it won't feel abundant to you because you won't have clear access to the source of real abundance.

In my experience limiting beliefs about money are rarely the core issue. I know millionaires who practically scorn the notion of money altogether, but they have no financial scarcity and they enjoy what they're expressing in other areas.

Personally I don't recall meeting someone who's held back by negative beliefs about money who isn't also totally out of touch with their inner value. But I've met plenty of people who seem fairly free of negative money associations but who aren't enjoying abundance -- financial or otherwise.

Question5: Do you think that the only way to make an income stream legally, morally and in alignment with your true self is by providing value to other human beings? I don't mean for you, that answer is obvious, but I mean for every human on earth.

What is an income stream? An income stream is nothing but a flow of social debt to you.

Is it legal to acquire social debt without expressing your deepest value to others? Obviously.

Is it moral? That depends on your morals. I doubt most people would have a problem with it though, but the later spending of that social debt may feel rather hollow if you sense you provided little or nothing for it. However, that also depends on your morals and values.

Is it in alignment with your true self? There I must answer no, but not for the reason this question begs me to assume. By definition your value IS your alignment with your true self. This question has a very muddled context because you're mixing non-physical and physical constructs in the same sentence. You imply that value transfer is something that occurs at the physical level, while I see it as a non-physical transfer. I think any value transfer at the physical level is merely a projection of what's happening at the non-physical level. So within that context, I must answer no. Within your original context I can't really answer the question at all because that context is too muddled for the question to have the same meaning.

For example, what if I wanted to provide value to make money because it is quite a common and easy way to do it, but after deep meditation and connection with my true self I was pulled and directed to simply eliminate certain beliefs about the lack of abundance with money, and then directed to spend the next 10 years of my life perfecting my martial arts skills at home by myself, without providing any value to anyone else, yet almost like magic money began flowing to me from different sources as soon as I aligned with my "path" and eliminated whatever was blocking me?

If money is all you're after, you needn't create or share value at all. An accomplished darkworker could train you to become even better at that.

I cannot assist you in this area because your statements register as false to me. You're taking the physical construct of money, projecting it onto the non-physical, and giving it your power. That will lead you down a rather dark path IMO. This will corrupt your understanding of limiting financial beliefs, and you'll end up fighting with some of those beliefs that may in fact be important truths to you. It's your choice to pursue that path of course.

Consider reflecting on the idea that you can experience total abundance and fulfillment with no money at all. If you see that as possible, what roles would value and alignment play then?

As you can see, my biggest disagreement here flows from the assumption that providing value to others is the ONLY way to make money morally, legally, and in true alignment with ones true self. If your true self guides you in that direction, then great, I totally agree, but what if it doesn't? Is a person then crap-out-of-luck to live a life of poverty?

This particular guidance isn't coming from your true self IMO. What does your true self need with money? What does God need with a Starship?

When we bring fear (such as your above stated fear of poverty) into our meditations, we receive fear-based guidance. Now even fear-based guidance can be physically effective (meaning that it can produce a desired result); however, that result will only further reinforce the fear that spawned it.

It's good you are building skill at manifesting. It sounds like you're doing a great job at building your power. It's also good that you're working to eliminate blocks and negative beliefs that limit your power. Now what will you do with that power? What guides it? Love or fear? Truth or falsehood? Do you use your power only to serve your ego? Or do you use it for the highest good of all?