So what's the deal with Steve?

[razorcar123]

A lot of his posts talk about how people can achieve their goals through hard work and self-discipline. I think that's a great message. However, he also has a lot of other posts saying things like "Let's make money magically appear with our mind powers!" Besides from being crazy, those posts seems contradictory to the posts advocating hard work. How does he justify pushing for both these lines of thought?

[drama07]

I believe posts about hardwork & self-discipline came before he experienced his magical powers. .

I guess those who think his stuff on mind power, spirituality is bogus, can go work their butts off accomplishing goals that cant fulfill them.

[Savage]

It takes a lot of hard work to become a good mage.

I espouse both lines of thought (and many others) because I've found both to be effective. Hard work is a way to get things done within physical reality. Intention-manifestation is a way to work within energetic reality. Since physical reality can be seen as a projection of energetic reality, both methods are working on the same reality but from different perspectives.

I prefer to combine both together.

If you want to have a nice dinner, you can cook it yourself or go out to eat. Most people enjoy both in different ways. You aren't limited to just home cooking or just eating out. You can even do take-out if you want to eat someone else's cooking at home.

I suggest you dump the either-or thinking. It only limits your options. There's more than one way to achieve a goal.

[Daffy Duck]

When people use the word magic, a few thoughts come into mind. Some people see "magic" as something appearing out of thin air in front of your eyes, like in a fantasy movie, like Lord of the Rings kind of stuff. I haven't seen many Gandalfs in my life...

Others use the word "magic" when talking about energy or the "law of attraction." This type of definition seems to be more of how Steve would use it. Notice above when he talked about food, he wasn't talking about making it appear out of thin air. He was talking about cooking or going to a restaurant, which is something that normal non-magicians do every day.

[bluedragon]

However, most people use the word "luck" easily - as if things happening by accident are a plausible thing. Some mysterious forces in the Universe made someone be lucky - "oh... he just got lucky" - it's not because he believed in his objectives, it's not because he aligned his thoughts and his vibration to match the success he desired... it's simply because he got lucky. Who creates luck? Some guy with a pair of dices ? I don't think so.

Steve mixes both perspectives because all are perfectly logical ones. It's just that, for most people, logic stops where other people have failed. Smart people's exploration of both the conventional productivity techniques, the Law of Attraction, and even the idea of a totally Subjective Reality, only shows that a logical and truly skeptical person is able to comprehend that the LoA is not just mambo jumbo - it's a perfectly viable principle, which works, and cannot be logically proved wrong. It can only be proved wrong after we first abandon logic. If the hypothesis is that intentions affect reality, then trying to investigate "IF this principle works OR NOT" is like saying "OK, we're gonna start our logical reasoning by first denying the hypothesis, and based upon this denial being correct, we're gonna prove that the hypothesis is indeed wrong".

[James81]

Because the power of your thoughts manifests itself in physical reactions.

Every action, every thing that is DONE first started as a thought.

So, the importance behind Steve's dual message is that you get your thinking, beliefs, and inner situation straight FIRST, and then you work your ass off to make those new beliefs become a reality.

[SimonaRich]

I got very similar question from my reader, because I wrote about persistence and self-disclipline and then I talked about LOA.

I wrote about both ways because some people do not believe in LOA, so they would rather work hard to succeed. And that's okay. This is one way (harder, of course) of achieving things.

But LOA is much easier to use if you consciously apply it. Therefore for those that believe in universal laws I write the articles about intentional manifestations and other powers of the mind.

[cylon]

I'm really surprised there's been no follow-up from the OP.

[escapee]

IMO, IM (in combination with action) is a great tool for PD and wealth creation. Just make sure the tool is utilized within the boundary of all laws in the "physical" universe ( Ie. Law of probability, law of thermodynamics, Law of biology, Law of economics and so on). For instance, You cannot manifest a reality that you'd be hitting a huge jackpot everyday in a casino without rigging the system illegally, you can't do this because the operator has set a certain payout rate in the system.

USE WISELY to your benefits.

[razorcar123]

I agree that there are multiple ways to do things, but I think there's a difference between wanting something and then trying to get it and what you call "intention manifestation." Now you'll have to excuse me if I've mis-informed about intention manifestation. I haven't looked into it in depth as its non-sense, but from what I've read of it in Steve's blog, it doesn't have to do with "If you want a meal, you can make one or go out and buy one." It seems to have more to do with your external reality altering in supernatural ways to give you what you desire.

Sure, if you want to eat, you can make a meal or go out to a restaurant. Those are both goals achieved by you getting up and doing them, there's nothing magical about that. I can tell you what's not going to happen is you deciding you want to eat, and then someone suddenly comes to your door handing out free meals. Really, you can try it right now if you want. I'm sure things like that have happened to somebody, but it's what we call a "coincidence." It's not your thoughts manifesting into reality.

If you can't alter laws of the physical universe or laws of probability or anything like that, then you're admitting full well that you can't alter anything. For your intentions to manifest in physical ways, the laws of the physical universe will have to be altered. Again, talking about money, Steve will talk about how he received money with intention manifestation. But the truth is that his intentions alone weren't responsible for this other person going and writing him a check unless his intentions somehow reached this other person's brain and altered it in a way that had this man wanting to write Steve a check.

Working hard and achieving your goals is a good thing. Devoting your life to noticing when something coincidentally happens to you is not.

[Liveformx64]

Originally Posted by razorcar123

I agree that there are multiple ways to do things, but I think there's a difference between wanting something and then trying to get it and what you call "intention manifestation." Now you'll have to excuse me if I've mis-informed about intention manifestation. I haven't looked into it in depth as its non-sense, but from what I've read of it in Steve's blog, it doesn't have to do with "If you want a meal, you can make one or go out and buy one." It seems to have more to do with your external reality altering in supernatural ways to give you what you desire.

Sure, if you want to eat, you can make a meal or go out to a restaurant. Those are both goals achieved by you getting up and doing them, there's nothing magical about that. I can tell you what's not going to happen is you deciding you want to eat, and then someone suddenly comes to your door handing out free meals. Really, you can try it right now if you want. I'm sure things like that have happened to somebody, but it's what we call a "coincidence." It's not your thoughts manifesting into reality.

If you can't alter laws of the physical universe or laws of probability or anything like that, then you're admitting full well that you can't alter anything. For your intentions to manifest in physical ways, the laws of the physical universe will have to be altered. Again, talking about money, Steve will talk about how he received money with intention manifestation. But the truth is that his intentions alone weren't responsible for this other person going and writing him a check unless his intentions somehow reached this other person's brain and altered it in a way that had this man wanting to write Steve a check.

Working hard and achieving your goals is a good thing. Devoting your life to noticing when something coincidentally happens to you is not.

It is indisputable that focusing mentally on your goals for a period of time each day will help you open to new ways and methods of achieving your goals. Is it "magic" like you say Steve says? Or is it just a physical result of your physical actions. Either way it doesn't matter, does it? So long as the results are the same.

What you consider everyday commonplace technology that we all take for granted, many in uneducated or tribal societies would consider the technology we use to be "magic".

Could there not be a higher degree of "technology" being used by the biological receiver that is the human body? Some of which you or empirical science are yet to understand, and seems so far fetched to you that you could say it would even be like magic.

There was a time where only 1 man in the entire world believed the earth was round.

If you don't believe you can alter physical reality, you never will.

If you don't believe your thoughts have physical power to change the physical world. No big deal.

People who believe in a subjective reality would say you are mentally shut off from the possibility of any experience outside of your 5 senses therefore you wont experience anything outside of your senses.

Have you ever tried to open up your psychic creative abilities? Have you ever tried or experimented with it?

if you haven't I would say you are the Queen sitting on her throne calling the scientists heretics for saying that the earth is round. Did she get off her ass and explore the boundaries of the world they knew? No, it was easy to trust in the religious leaders of the time, and take their word for it.

[Savage]

Some goals are easy to achieve via I-M. Others are more suitable for hard work and persistence. Which approach is best depends on the nature of the goal.

Do you want to attract something or create something?

I used hard work and persistence to write my book. A lot of effort went into it. I didn't manifest the book out of thin air, although some good ideas came to me via synchronicities. But for the most part, I created it with a lot of work.

However, I used I-M to attract a book publishing deal with the world's #1 self-help publisher. I never had to get a literary agent. My book was never rejected by anyone. The publisher came to me. It was easy. Good luck pulling that off with the hard work approach. This was something I wanted to attract, not create per se, so I-M was the more appropriate choice here.

I've used I-M to attract my house, plenty of cash, and lots of other stuff. When I want to bring something into my reality, I-M is awesome.

But when I want to create something and put it out into my reality, that's where I use hard work and effort. I can't attract it from "out there" when I'm the one who wants to create it.

If you don't believe in I-M, that's okay, but generally the people who don't believe in it are those who simply suck at it, so they complain about I-M not working to excuse their own failings. But just because you suck at it doesn't negate its existence.

[alkemisty]

Those that suck at I-M are those who are still unwittingly (or not) investing energy into it ...it's the tail wagging the dog :-)

Steves site has all the clues for those who need to learn to wag the tail.
Woof woof!

[cylon]

Originally Posted by razorcar123

I'm sure things like that have happened to somebody, but it's what we call a "coincidence." It's not your thoughts manifesting into reality.

Thank god you are here to tell us these things. Where have you been all this time?

[alkemisty]

Originally Posted by razorcar123

I agree that there are multiple ways to do things...then ...
Working hard and achieving your goals is a good thing. Devoting your life to noticing when something coincidentally happens to you is not.

Devoting your life to doing that is a good thing indeed when it leads you well. Surely.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by razorcar123

Besides from being crazy, those posts seems contradictory to the posts advocating hard work.

But they're not. In fact, the hardest work you'll ever have in this reality is managing your own thoughts.

Even in the conventional sense of "hard work", the essential difference between a determined, diligent, disciplined person and a lazy, passive, person lies in their head ... in the way they think, basically.

[razorcar123]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

However, I used I-M to attract a book publishing deal with the world's #1 self-help publisher. I never had to get a literary agent. My book was never rejected by anyone. The publisher came to me. It was easy. Good luck pulling that off with the hard work approach. This was something I wanted to attract, not create per se, so I-M was the more appropriate choice here.

Is it really that hard to believe that something like that could happen naturally? You have one of the most popular blogs on the internet. You have the most popular self-help blog. Why it is so hard to believe that a self-help publisher would be interested in working with you to publish a self- help book? There's nothing mystical going on here. It's just a book publisher looking to increase revenue. This is a clear example of mistaking a coincidence for something of a higher power.

I read your posting about religion. About how people have to be idiots to believe that man-made nonsense. How religion only exists to exploit. But that's exactly how I feel about what you've done here. You tell these people that if they follow your advice, they can have anything they want by somehow altering reality with their minds. Then you have a little link on your blog where I can donate my money to the man who is teaching me to accept the universe. I'm not trying to criticize you making money, but I am trying to criticize you criticizing churches for doing exactly what you're doing.

How do you know it's "the universe" and not "god" or "Allah" giving you what you want? All those terms seem interchangeable here. You can probably justify it to yourself by saying that what you're trying to teach people is right and true unlike all those other religions, but those people in those religions feel that their way is right and true. But I know I can't change your mind of what you believe anymore than you could change the mind of a Scientologist and their wacky beliefs.

Quite frankly Steve, you just seem too smart to believe all of this nonsense that you spout out about altering reality. Oh and as for your last point:

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If you don't believe in I-M, that's okay, but generally the people who don't believe in it are those who simply suck at it, so they complain about I-M not working to excuse their own failings. But just because you suck at it doesn't negate its existence.

I just want to point out that it's okay if you don't believe in Jesus. Generally, the people who don't believe in him are those who simply suck at being Christian, so they complain about god not helping them to excuse their own failings. But just because you suck at it doesn't negate his existence.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by razorcar123

But I know I can't change your mind of what you believe anymore than you could change the mind of a Scientologist and their wacky beliefs.

But you're willing to make a fool of yourself in the attempt.

I'm really trying to understand what the point of this thread is when you yourself acknowledge that it's not going to change anything. But that makes me foolish too.

Definitely a lesson there.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Even in the conventional sense of "hard work", the essential difference between a determined, diligent, disciplined person and a lazy, passive, person lies in their head ... in the way they think, basically.

This concept of HARD WORK needs updating. Steve said he worked hard on his book, but I am sure there were times when it was very pleasurable to write the book and that it just flowed through him.

So right there it wasn't ALL "hard" work. There was pleasurable work mixed in.

This hard work concept is going to destroy everyone who comes into contact with it unless they can realize it doesn't mean the entire journey is MEANT to be painful.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by razorcar123

Is it really that hard to believe that something like that could happen naturally? You have one of the most popular blogs on the internet. You have the most popular self-help blog. Why it is so hard to believe that a self-help publisher would be interested in working with you to publish a self- help book? There's nothing mystical going on here. It's just a book publisher looking to increase revenue. This is a clear example of mistaking a coincidence for something of a higher power.

Not mystical -- natural.

You're confusing cause and effect. My website was another effect, not a cause.

What you're not seeing is that I envisioned this would happen before my website was even started. I saw it in my mind's eye in 2004 when I was sitting in the audience at a Hay House conference, watching Dr. Wayne Dyer speak. I knew I'd be speaking at that conference too someday. But at the time, I was running a computer game company. I wasn't even working in this field.

Last year I spoke at that conference in Vegas and Tampa. I also chatted a bit with Dr. Dyer.

However, I can tell you that your POV is completely fine. It's not wrong. You're just explaining the same phenomena from an alternate perspective. There's really nothing wrong with that if you have a perspective that works for you.

I don't hold that same perspective because personally I find it less effective. I used to hold your POV, and I found that my results were weaker when I did. Life was more of a struggle. I find a belief in I-M to be more effective and useful on a purely practical level. It generates better results for me.

Quite frankly Steve, you just seem too smart to believe all of this nonsense that you spout out about altering reality.

And therein you may find some clues.

I use these ideas because they work for me. That's all the reason I need. I test various beliefs and ways of interacting with reality. If they generate positive results, I continue to apply them, and I share them with others. If they don't work, I dump them and move on.

If these ideas don't work for you, I see no reason to convince you otherwise. Just dismiss them and move on to something that does work for you.

If your POV generated better results for me, I'd use it. But since it generated weaker results, I see no point in reverting back.

Now... if you can demonstrate that your beliefs, should I choose to adopt them, would generate superior results for me in some areas of my life, then I'd be curious. How do you think my life would improve if I dropped the I-M model completely and reverted to a physical cause-effect model of reality?

If your model of reality is more accurate than mine, then it stands to reason that you should be able to help me generate superior results. A more accurate belief system should be more empowering and practical, wouldn't you agree?

I just want to point out that it's okay if you don't believe in Jesus. Generally, the people who don't believe in him are those who simply suck at being Christian, so they complain about god not helping them to excuse their own failings. But just because you suck at it doesn't negate his existence.

I connect with Jesus often. I just don't need a religion to do so.

[Brutha]

I just want to point out that it's okay if you don't believe in Jesus. Generally, the people who don't believe in him are those who simply suck at being Christian, so they complain about god not helping them to excuse their own failings. But just because you suck at it doesn't negate his existence.

Steve never said that he doesn't believe in Jesus.
If you believe that he doesn't you have misunderstood Steve position as Steve wrote multiple times that he does believe in Jesus.

I read your posting about religion. About how people have to be idiots to believe that man-made nonsense. How religion only exists to exploit.

The post is about religion but isn't about believing in God, in Allah or in Jesus.

[Savage]

Jesus is a powerful character in my reality because of what he represents to me -- the ideal of unconditional love.

It doesn't make sense for me to say, "I believe in Jesus." It makes more sense to say that he represents something I like to connect with.

Historically speaking I have no idea whether he even really existed, but either way it doesn't change what he represents to me personally.

You can connect just as well with a fictional character if s/he represents something meaningful to you.

[edith]

Originally Posted by cylon

This concept of HARD WORK needs updating. Steve said he worked hard on his book, but I am sure there were times when it was very pleasurable to write the book and that it just flowed through him.

I like to call it "hard fun".

[Andreas]

Makes perfect sense.

It's also worth mentioning that the phrase "I believe in Jesus." is pretty vague and could mean one of many things. Do you believe he existed? Do you believe he did something for you? etc.

Those are but two different perspectives among many. The word "believe" needs some specificity to avoid being vague, and I think this is one reason Steve says it doesn't make sense to him to say this.


Another thing I find curious is that the greek translation/distortion of his name (who is probably the most popular figure in history) got more popular than his actual name... which was Yeshua. And I have a feeling he isn't be so pleased to see that organized religion hasn't changed much since the Pharisees of his day.


Oh well, at least the rate of stoning has gone down.
And the overall level of peace is up.

Yeah, I like to use Creative Observation...

[edith]

Beyond the basic, mostly-accepted description of Jesus, I think that each person defines Jesus and God in whatever way they find useful to them. For me, his ideas are useful for improving the inner life, while others want to use him to beat other people over the head. His identifications as rock star and car buyer haven't been all that handy for me. Really an interesting phenomenon, Jesus, or the idea of Jesus, is.

[vMike]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Not mystical -- natural.

You're confusing cause and effect. My website was another effect, not a cause.

What you're not seeing is that I envisioned this would happen before my website was even started. I saw it in my mind's eye in 2004 when I was sitting in the audience at a Hay House conference, watching Dr. Wayne Dyer speak. I knew I'd be speaking at that conference too someday. But at the time, I was running a computer game company. I wasn't even working in this field.

Last year I spoke at that conference in Vegas and Tampa. I also chatted a bit with Dr. Dyer.

However, I can tell you that your POV is completely fine. It's not wrong. You're just explaining the same phenomena from an alternate perspective. There's really nothing wrong with that if you have a perspective that works for you.

I don't hold that same perspective because personally I find it less effective. I used to hold your POV, and I found that my results were weaker when I did. Life was more of a struggle. I find a belief in I-M to be more effective and useful on a purely practical level. It generates better results for me.

Now... if you can demonstrate that your beliefs, should I choose to adopt them, would generate superior results for me in some areas of my life, then I'd be curious. How do you think my life would improve if I dropped the I-M model completely and reverted to a physical cause-effect model of reality?

If your model of reality is more accurate than mine, then it stands to reason that you should be able to help me generate superior results. A more accurate belief system should be more empowering and practical, wouldn't you agree?

I tend to agree with the OP, except the Jesus part.

I see this simply as a plan you had in your mind. The goals that created the vision. Hardly any magic, simply the power to control your own thoughts and actions that yields the results - which is the product of years of self development and improvement.
Rockefeller had the vision of capitalizing the oil industry, Bill Gates envisioned personal computers in every home in US etc. I-M? Hardly any. Each likely had his own motives and explanations.

However I can also see how the I-M model can be beneficial, but I have a hard time to accept it without any proof.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by vMike

However I can also see how the I-M model can be beneficial, but I have a hard time to accept it without any proof.

The model is such that you cannot generate proof unless you adopt it and test it from the inside. If you doubt it, then you'll effectively manifest only non-proof.

I see it as an experiential thing to test. The only way you can test it is from the inside. Any doubt will simply turn it against you.

From the inside looking out, people who doubt I-M appear as those who are manifesting non-proof of the model, which is perfectly consistent with their intentions. So from my perspective, I-M is still working perfectly as it should for you.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

The model is such that you cannot generate proof unless you adopt it and test it from the inside. If you doubt it, then you'll effectively manifest only non-proof.

Exactly. This is why all the skeptics stumble.

If you look at it closely, you'll see that their stumbling actually represents a kind of fear too. The fear is of being forced to abandon their prevailing worldview.

If they were not fearful, it would be quite easy for them to decide: "Well, I'm just going to investigate and try out this IM thing, sincerely and wholeheartedly, say, for six months, and in one specific area of my life. After that, if it doesn't work, I can always revert to my "rational", conventional way of thinking."

But it is not easy for them. They struggle with their fears.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

But it is not easy for them. They struggle with their fears.

That and some go so far as to register an account on a discussion forum, just to inform you that they exist and that they have no intention of trying it out, as if you were waiting for clarification on where they stood.

[razorcar123]

I'd like to clarify my Jesus statement. I wasn't trying to get into a religious debate, I was just attempting to point out Steve's faulty logic in claiming that I must suck at intention manifestation because I don't believe in it. I was pointing out that's like saying you don't believe in god because you suck at praying or you don't believe in Santa Claus because you suck at asking for presents.

I don't believe in intention manifestation for the same reason that all of you don't believe in the almighty Zeus. And I'm not going to try it out just to prove that it doesn't exist, anymore than the rest of you are going to start praying to the almighty Zeus in order to find out whether or not he'll answer your prayers. It's not about being afraid, it's just being logical. We all know whether or not Zeus will answer our prayers without us having even to do it.

I understand that this isn't the right place to try to debunk intention manifestation, but I figured that at least there would be an understanding as to why someone would be skeptical. I do believe that intention manifestation works, but not in the way most of you think it does. I think it helps you come up with a plan to achieve your goals and can also be a strong motivator, but I assure you that you're not altering reality with your mind.