Law of Attraction Article doesn't make sense

[cylon]

Originally Posted by James81

Fair enough. I disagree, but that's just me.

I'm not sure what you disagree with. When people are talking about LOA, 99.999% of the time, they are talking about creating something with their minds, NOT action. So to tell them that they are wrong about LOA seems a bit strange to me. You're talking about goal setting, maybe the reticular activating system, but you aren't talking about LOA.

Originally Posted by James81

Find me a case like that, and you'll make a believer out of me.

Sorry, you're responsible for how you believe, not me.

Originally Posted by James81

Until then, I'll choose to believe that my thoughts guide my actions, and that without my actions, my thoughts are never going to truly manifest my desires. But if I choose to act, then and only then will my thinking attract the things I desire because my thoughts will ultimately guide my actions.

Totally fine, I just wouldn't call it LOA. You don't want people lumping you in with those crazy new age people when you don't even agree with the premise of their beliefs.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by drama07

How do you know what's subjective and what's objective? Can they both be one?

I think we could go on and on and it would eventually boil down to this: how do we know anything?

And then I would ask, "Well, why do you believe in SR then?"

Originally Posted by James81

And, for that matter, calling it a "law" is also deceptive and wrong. In order for something to be a law, it has to be proven beyond any shadow of doubt.

For something to be a "law," it also implies objectivity. So the LoA is always at work, even if you don't think it is.

[drama07]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

And then I would ask, "Well, why do you believe in SR then?"

Because all I know is I exist. Not as my body and not my mind, but the presence that makes everything there

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by drama07

Because all I know is I exist. Not as my body and not my mind, but the presence that makes everything there

And you're sure it's not just your mind telling you that?

[drama07]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

And you're sure it's not just your mind telling you that?

Why would I listen to the mind when I can perceive it? The mind is itself part of the illusion. If I were the mind then Id listen to it. I make the mind possible.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by drama07

Why would I listen to the mind when I can perceive it? The mind is itself part of the illusion. If I were the mind then Id listen to it. I make the mind possible.

How do you know the mind isn't perceiving itself, and it is going, "Aha, I see you there mind!"

To be more blunt: You think and say you are a presence outside of your mind, that the mind is part of the illusion (who put this illusion here anyway?) but isn't it just your mind thinking such things?

[drama07]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

How do you know the mind isn't perceiving itself, and it is going, "Aha, I see you there mind!"

To be more blunt: You think and say you are a presence outside of your mind, that the mind is part of the illusion (who put this illusion here anyway?) but isn't it just your mind thinking such things?

Presence is formless so its hard to say that there is this other 'thing' looking at the mind. Your mind is unable to interpret, so your mind will say such things as the mind perceiving the mind. The mind can only support itself.
Its like a dreamless sleep. You as presence are still there but can you make sense of through mind that you were in fact present? of course not.

[Daffy Duck]

Alrighty. Drama, you are clearly out of your mind. We're in agreement.

[drama07]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Alrighty. Drama, you are clearly out of your mind. We're in agreement.

haha, its more of a experience sense rather than using your mind to understand it.

[Daffy Duck]

Do you believe in Universal Laws, like these?

[drama07]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Do you believe in Universal Laws, like these?

Sure why not. Doesnt matter to me. The ego can believe what it wants. I as presence have no control. And that is why I feel free

[James81]

Originally Posted by drama07

LOA is proven. You attracted everything you perceive this moment.

Yes, but I attracted it by joining what I think and believe through what I have done.

My thoughts alone have not brought me anything physical. My thoughts prepare me mentally, so that I can act on those thoughts and manifest those thoughts physically through action.

Originally Posted by cylon

I'm not sure what you disagree with. When people are talking about LOA, 99.999% of the time, they are talking about creating something with their minds, NOT action. So to tell them that they are wrong about LOA seems a bit strange to me. You're talking about goal setting, maybe the reticular activating system, but you aren't talking about LOA.



Sorry, you're responsible for how you believe, not me.



Totally fine, I just wouldn't call it LOA. You don't want people lumping you in with those crazy new age people when you don't even agree with the premise of their beliefs.

That's the typical cop-out answer I expect from people who believe in loopy concepts like this.

I wasn't saying that they are wrong about LOA. I am saying that LOA as it is, is, to put it delicately, useless and wrong.

In a sense, I am redefining LOA to encompass the idea of action. No, it's not pure LOA, but I do not believe pure LOA. And I think that trying to pass a concept off such as pure LOA is damaging to the people who want to change their circumstances. It's akin to giving them hope that one day they'll win the lottery.

I'm not challenging the definition of LOA and what it's about. I'm challenging the idea of LOA itself.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by James81

That's the typical cop-out answer I expect from people who believe in loopy concepts like this.

You expect other people to make your decisions for you? LOA is something you experience. Try it for yourself. That way you don't have to rely on second hand information. It's all first person. If you want to know for sure, do it yourself. That's the only way. But don't expect others to do your work for you. That's the definition of a cop-out.

Originally Posted by James81

I wasn't saying that they are wrong about LOA. I am saying that LOA as it is, is, to put it delicately, useless and wrong.

That was my error. When I first read your post for some reason I thought you were re-defining LOA like many others do, but you weren't, you were just drawing loose parallels between LOA and traditional goal setting.

Originally Posted by James81

I'm challenging the idea of LOA itself.

I understand that. I would like to ask if I could, why you feel it's necessary to challenge it though. If it's not an active part of your life, then why do you feel the need to challenge it in the first place?

[drama07]

Yes, but I attracted it by joining what I think and believe through what I have done.

My thoughts alone have not brought me anything physical. My thoughts prepare me mentally, so that I can act on those thoughts and manifest those thoughts physically through action.

Is it possible that you attracted thoughts as well? ANd im not saying as if you were the thinker, if thats even true at all. Are you the thinker?

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by James81

For example, if I decide to adjust my thinking to attract large sums of money to me, how can it be proven that it was just my thoughts that did it or the fact that by changing my thoughts, I changed my actions in tune with my thoughts which set me on a path toward acheiving large sums of money?

I would think that, for this theory to be true, there would have to be a case where someone literally sat around in a room on their ass, adjusted their thoughts toward acheiving something, and that something came to them even though they were just sitting in that room the whole time.

Find me a case like that, and you'll make a believer out of me.

In my experience, when people do present a case anything like this, the skeptics find a reason to say it doesn't fit the criteria. I guess it's hard to literally sit around in a room and not interact with the world whatsoever. I've used the example here whenever somebody says "You can't win the lottery without buying a ticket," and mentioned that I've won the lottery three times now (although not large amounts) without buying a ticket. But the skeptics don't seem to think that counts.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

So which was it?

It's all subjective. You can count on me not to believe my own thoughts as if they were Ultimate Truth. Even that one. And that one. D'oh!

But that's not a problem for me, viewing my thoughts as living free from any objective truth -- only: what works, and what doesn't work? So, when I say something like, "ALG is an aspect of you," I don't mean: That is The Truth. I mean, why not try this on. Your conscious mind will accept it or reject it, and your unconscious mind will record that you read those words. The only experience you have of me (or ALG) is a subjective one. Your experience of Angela and ALG is in your head, only.

So, in the face of believing a thought like "Acting Like Godot just keeps attracting me to topics like this, probably so he can practice more. It's all his fault." I ask you to try on another thought: "I attract ALG so I can practice more. It's all my responsibility." and see which thought works better in getting the results you want. If you believe the thought that others happen to you, and are at fault for your experience, then you are at the mercy of others, aren't you? Like the fist in the dark. And if you believe that you are the cause of your experience, then there is opportunity for expansion in every encounter, isn't there? More choice, and more power. (...she said, speaking subjectively.)

You ask, why believe in SR? And I say, it's not a matter of believing in SR -- it's a matter of using a perspective that works well for me in getting the results I want. It works well for me to notice that the world is my mirror, just like it works really well for you, I think, it noticing that the world is as it is and you have to work within that framework.

The difference might be that you think I am crazy, delusional, dangerous, or just plain wrong for looking through a subjective lens; just like the commenters who argue that anyone who thinks they can switch the direction that the spinning ballerina appears to spin are crazy, delusional, dangerous, or just plain wrong. Objectively speaking, they say you she just doesn't change. And they're right. SHE doesn't change. WE change.... our perspective. Or we don't.

[Daffy Duck]

I've found that a good thing to do when running into a belief is to ask yourself these questions (from Steve Pavlina):

Is this belief accurate? Is it consistent with my observations of reality?

Is this belief all-inclusive? Is there anything it cannot explain properly?

Is this belief flexible? Does it adapt well to different circumstances?

Is this belief ethical? Does it encourage me to do no harm?

Is this belief congruent? Is it consistent with my other beliefs?

Is this belief consciously chosen? Or did I blindly inherit it from others?

Is this belief pleasure-increasing and/or pain-reducing? Do I feel good about it?

Is this belief empowering? Does it expand my options or limit them?

Then, after answering those questions, if you want to discuss it with others, go ahead. After the discussion ends, ask yourself these questions again.

[Daffy Duck]

Thanks for your detailed clarification, Angela.

Originally Posted by Angela

Your experience of Angela and ALG is in your head, only.

I agree, my experience. But Angela is not only in my head. Just my experience of her.

So, in the face of believing a thought like "Acting Like Godot just keeps attracting me to topics like this, probably so he can practice more. It's all his fault."

Please note that I'm just joking with ALG when I say that.

If you believe the thought that others happen to you, and are at fault for your experience, then you are at the mercy of others, aren't you?

Agreed.

just like it works really well for you, I think, it noticing that the world is as it is and you have to work within that framework.

I think I can change a lot of things in the world, but not everything. For example, I can't stop every single drop of rain from falling this very instant. Not that I need to...

The spinning girl is something we can look at from multiple angles. This to me is about perspective/attitude, which is a totally different topic than objective reality.

How we experience the world: subjective.
Many things in the world itself: objective.

Believing that some things are objective and others are subjective has served me very well. It also leads me to believe that certain things (like lifting weights) will help me achieve certain results (like stronger muscles). These things are dependable, testable, and consistently work (even if other people say it doesn't). I like having such predictability. Most of us do. We like knowing our heart continues to beat.

Note to all: I do not wish to continue with the subjective/objective reality discussion tomorrow, so if you say something to me and I don't reply, I apologize. As some of you know, we've already had many discussions like this. Like a broken record. A part of me feels like it's a waste of time. Thanks.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I've used the example here whenever somebody says "You can't win the lottery without buying a ticket," and mentioned that I've won the lottery three times now (although not large amounts) without buying a ticket. But the skeptics don't seem to think that counts.

There are many ways to win the lottery without buying a ticket. You could steal a ticket. Or you could find a ticket. But I don't think that's the point James meant.

[cylon]

Actually, that's the entire point. The LOA isn't limited by how we think reality is supposed to work.

Only we are limited by how we think reality is supposed to work.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

There are many ways to win the lottery without buying a ticket. You could steal a ticket. Or you could find a ticket. But I don't think that's the point James meant.

Cylon's right -- that's the entire point. James says he'll believe, if we can show that somebody attracted money while just sitting on their ass and not doing anything active to get it.

[Daffy Duck]

If that's what he meant, he needs to pick something that doesn't happen so often. I know a couple people who have found winning tickets.

Someone needs to sit on their ass and throw a cow at Angela's house. I suggested we throw it through a window last time, but I'd settle for any part of the house.

Would insurance cover that?

[cylon]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Cylon's right -- that's the entire point. James says he'll believe, if we can show that somebody attracted money while just sitting on their ass and not doing anything active to get it.

But don't you know that's not REAL? I read it a bunch of times just today. LOA isn't real.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

If that's what he meant, he needs to pick something that doesn't happen so often. I know a couple people who have found winning tickets.

Someone needs to sit on their ass and throw a cow at Angela's house. I suggested we throw it through a window last time, but I'd settle for any part of the house.

Would insurance cover that?

I'd rather it be your house. I wouldn't be surprised if something with a cow on it came flying through your window. Or if you see a cow crashing into someone else's house. Or if I SEE it since I just posted about it.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

If that's what he meant, he needs to pick something that doesn't happen so often. I know a couple people who have found winning tickets.

You see what I mean -- you're already disregarding it, saying it doesn't count.

If the money doesn't just go *poof* and appear in a big pile of cash out of nowhere on the dining room table, that's apparently the only way some people will admit there might be LoA without action.

Actually I think I'm up to four winning tickets now that I didn't buy. And I didn't find them, nor steal them either. A couple times they just *poof* appeared on my dining room table.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

You see what I mean -- you're already disregarding it, saying it doesn't count.

You can't just take something that happens every day and use it to prove some sort of concept. There has to be a clear difference between people who are using LOA compared to those who are not.

I'm not saying it doesn't count. On some level it does. I'm just saying it could be more convincing and would need to be for the scientific community to accept it.

I could make up some theory about life and use every day things to "prove" it too. For example, did you know about the Law of Blue Shirts? Every time I wear a blue shirt, someone is more likely to trip over their own feet. Ah, I know a lot of toddlers right now are tripping in their homes! That's because of my Blue Shirt! What more proof do you skeptics want?!

Cylon, come to think of it, I'd rather it be my house too, though Angela wouldn't mind too much I think. And no -- not something with a cow on it. I mean a real big heavy cow. Can't I have that?

[cylon]

I really hope that in things other than LOA, people don't look to the scientific community to give them permission to use it. That could become a huge burden.

Whatever happened to the good old fashioned adventure of personal exploration, and trying stuff out for yourself?

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Cylon, come to think of it, I'd rather it be my house too, though Angela wouldn't mind too much I think. And no -- not something with a cow on it. I mean a real big heavy cow. Can't I have that?

Be careful what you wish for. I really doubt you want a large animal in your home causing damage. But if you focus on it enough.... then you can tell us what happens.

[Daffy Duck]

I don't think people look to the scientific community for permission. In fact, people often ignore the scientific community.

"Oh, those doctors say we should eat a balanced diet of fruits, vegetables, water, grains, and very little sweets. Aw, fcuk that. Let's go to McDonalds!"

Some stuff we should definitely try out for ourselves. Other things, like rat poison, well... no thanks. I'll trust the warning labels.

A cow flying through my house would be a small price to pay for such a great lesson. And it would make me laugh. That'd be a great story.

[cylon]

Yeah, I guess so.