Steve please reconsider this article.

[Sologretto]

A few years ago I stopped using forums due to a realization that words fail, people will misunderstand "the truth" I am trying to convey.

Somehow in reading this thread I got it:

It doesn't matter if it's imperfect... because it's still perfect. The words may fail, but spirit will ensure that what needs to be shared will be and in the process of being involved I gain what I need.

Thank you everyone :-)

Apparently the fundamental topic is a debate with one side arguing the merit of different "truths" and the other side making light (heheh) of the other sides fundamental limitation in believing there is only one.

And now... after getting my value from this I trust spirit and press submit instead of the "X" :-P

[Weena]

Originally Posted by st33med

I am a little more strict. I need face to face contact, hand written signature with a fingerprint on the contract that he is signing, photo ID, social security, blood, sweat, email, voice recording for recognition, eye scan, and a casual hand shake to show I am friendly.

Can't help quoting this one as it made me laugh!!!! Beautiful bit of humour to lighten up this topic Be blessed (by Allah, God, or the one who managed to pass all the security requirements ).

[Aiden]

Awesome thread. Steve's ability to deal with opposition is really admirable, I have to say.

[SmartAlx]

But he doesn't seem to be willing to accept that he is capable of making mistakes.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

But he doesn't seem to be willing to accept that he is capable of making mistakes.

Duh... I'm an Aries.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

But he doesn't seem to be willing to accept that he is capable of making mistakes.

Yes, it's interesting. I mean we all hold the beliefs we do because we believe we're right. Hence we believe it! Yet Steve claims not to be attached to any beliefs, but his responses seem to indicate a high level of attachment to some.

It's an interesting position for a guy who's still learning and still exploring. Such certainty seems counterproductive to the process of growth and questioning. "The more I learn, the less I know."

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

Yes, it's interesting. I mean we all hold the beliefs we do because we believe we're right. Hence we believe it! Yet Steve claims not to be attached to any beliefs, but his responses seem to indicate a high level of attachment to some.

LOL. I agree.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

It's an interesting position for a guy who's still learning and still exploring. Such certainty seems counterproductive to the process of growth and questioning. "The more I learn, the less I know."

Such are the vicissitudes of the missionary position.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Such are the vicissitudes of the missionary position.

Don't get funny with me sunshine, I'm an Aries too!!!

[Brutha]

Yet Steve claims not to be attached to any beliefs, but his responses seem to indicate a high level of attachment to some.

Here Steve probably has way more fun with his response than he would have with the responses that the OP wanted to get.
You don't need attachment to beliefs to choose to have fun.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Here Steve probably has way more fun with his response than he would have with the responses that the OP wanted to get.
You don't need attachment to beliefs to choose to have fun.

Very productive in a PD forum
But you probably hit the nail on the head!

[Brutha]

Very productive in a PD forum

Playing with ideas is indeed productive.
It's the opposite of being serious and of being completely attached to beliefs.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Playing with ideas is indeed productive.
It's the opposite of being serious and of being completely attached to beliefs.

I'd agree only to an extent. There's absolutely milage to be gained in challenging ones own ideas and being prepared to admit you are wrong. Especialy the latter.

What I think is worrying, and I have said this before, is that these forums seem centred around LOA/ abundance mentality and often a kind of selfish approach where at times the mood seems to be that you can do what you like, and everyone else is only responsible for themselves. I should point out tha my interests are firmly routed in PD and not in being critical for its own sake.

Now take the business forums- many of the discussions there are an indirect result of articles written by Steve- SBI, abundance mentality, LOA, passions, purposes etc. Now in the interests of PD it would seem only right to assess whether these approaches were getting better results, and making a MAJORITY of people happier and more successful than other methods. I doubt it, in fact our business and financial section of the forum seems more like a spiritual workshop than what it's designed to do. If it's getting better results then great- but assess and be critical.

If you are going to attach beliefs or write articles about abundance mentaility etc, then at least also view perspectives through the lens of the OP as well. Who knows, his religion may indeed provide better results. Now before you tell me to try it out myself (the religion) I can assure you I have no desire to, but nor am I writing articles that only promote one way of thinking while claiming to be open-minded.

All this belief swapping often just causes confusion anyway and arguments can sound convincing on many sides of the fence. Such is the case when you allow beliefs in without scientific verification- and even that causes enough debate! Sure change perspectives, but challenge your ideas, admit mistakes and keep striving for better results.

[Brutha]

I'd agree only to an extent. There's absolutely milage to be gained in challenging ones own ideas and being prepared to admit you are wrong. Especialy the latter.

The notion of admitting that you are wrong makes only sense if you actually are attached to a belief that's shown to be wrong.

All this belief swapping often just causes confusion anyway

Just because you don't understand Steve's concept of reality and it confuses you doesn't mean that it's wrong.
It's not easy to understand.

If you don't understand the relevant ideas swapping beliefs around leads to confusion. If you understand the ideas it doesn't.
If you do it enough you get better insight into the ideas you are playing with.

I can assure you I have no desire to, but nor am I writing articles that only promote one way of thinking while claiming to be open-minded.

You make the assumption there that people either disagree with an article and gain nothing from the article or agree with the article and reap the benefits from implementing the advice of the article.

But it's rather about increasing scope of the perspectives that are available to the reader to allow the reader afterwards to make a more conscious choice about what lens he wants to use.

If a person who previously was religious by default because of the way his or her parents raised him makes a conscious choice about being religious after reading the article the article is a success.
If the person instead chooses to leave his religion simply because "Steve said so", the article isn't successful because the person still doesn't make a conscious choice.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

What I think is worrying, and I have said this before, is that these forums seem centred around LOA/ abundance mentality and often a kind of selfish approach where at times the mood seems to be that you can do what you like, and everyone else is only responsible for themselves.

The LoA/abundance mentality is indeed about how everyone is responsible for creating their own reality . . . but I'm surprised you see the approach as selfish, considering how generous people are with their time here at answering questions, and offering encouragement and support to people struggling with the concept and trying to improve their lives.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

The LoA/abundance mentality is indeed about how everyone is responsible for creating their own reality . . . but I'm surprised you see the approach as selfish, considering how generous people are with their time here at answering questions, and offering encouragement and support to people struggling with the concept and trying to improve their lives.

I said kinda selfish. I meant when comparing it to a "pure" Christian mindset which involves looking out for others. Not saying LOA followers are selfish but by necessity it does kind of create a self-orientated approach. Look at the LOA forums to see examples of manifestations that show this. You don't see many posters claiming they've become the proverbial good samaritan- it's more about attracting purple cars and twenty dollar bills!

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

I said kinda selfish. I meant when comparing it to a "pure" Christian mindset which involves looking out for others. Not saying LOA followers are selfish but by necessity it does kind of create a self-orientated approach. Look at the LOA forums to see examples of manifestations that show this. You don't see many posters claiming they've become the proverbial good samaritan- it's more about attracting purple cars and twenty dollar bills!

The idea isn't necessarily to become the proverbial good Samaritan, but to show others how they can learn to attract their own purple cars and twenty dollar bills. And yet . . . weren't you protesting when Michelle offered to buy somebody Steve's next book? You see, LoA/abundance mentality doesn't exclude being a good Samaritan sometimes either.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

The idea isn't necessarily to become the proverbial good Samaritan, but to show others how they can learn to attract their own purple cars and twenty dollar bills. And yet . . . weren't you protesting when Michelle offered to buy somebody Steve's next book? You see, LoA/abundance mentality doesn't exclude being a good Samaritan sometimes either.

Look, in the UK right now, while many provide value and pay taxes, there is a growing army of people on benefits who do not contribute. They want something for nothing. I do take objection that these people can be justified as using the LOA to fund their lazy lifestyle while others contribute and work hard to do so. Michelle no doubt offered generosity but I very much doubt our LOA master who attracted the book will go through life finding it that easy.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

Look, in the UK right now, while many provide value and pay taxes, there is a growing army of people on benefits who do not contribute. They want something for nothing. I do take objection that these people can be justified as using the LOA to fund their lazy lifestyle while others contribute and work hard to do so. Michelle no doubt offered generosity but I very much doubt our LOA master who attracted the book will go through life finding it that easy.

But do you see a growing army of people on the forum here promoting the idea of using the LoA to do nothing? It seems just the opposite to me . . .

About the book gift -- I think the idea would be that the guy who attracted the book will then buy a book for another person sometime in the future, remembering Michelle's generosity.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

But do you see a growing army of people on the forum here promoting the idea of using the LoA to do nothing? It seems just the opposite to me . . .

About the book gift -- I think the idea would be that the guy who attracted the book will then buy a book for another person sometime in the future, remembering Michelle's generosity.

What I see is a lack of evidence and honest, open evaluation for the LOA. I also see a reluctance from LOA followers to (as Angela would say), shift perspectives and try different approaches that may work better. I doubt all LOA followers have tried everything else on offer, because they KNOW they are right.

[carenkh]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

I also see a reluctance from LOA followers to (as Angela would say), shift perspectives and try different approaches that may work better. I doubt all LOA followers have tried everything else on offer, because they KNOW they are right.

I tried other approaches for 40 years!! I stick with LoA because it works in my life - I am very, very happy. Why would I want to try a different approach once I found what works for me?

I do not need "evidence" that is provable to others. My happiness and ease of BEing are enough for me.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by carenkh

I tried other approaches for 40 years!! I stick with LoA because it works in my life - I am very, very happy. Why would I want to try a different approach once I found what works for me?

I do not need "evidence" that is provable to others. My happiness and ease of BEing are enough for me.

Yeah, f'real. I know plenty of people who was born religious and follow it blindly. I don't know anyone who was indoctrinated into LOA from birth - they all tried other belief systems before.

[Brutha]

I said kinda selfish. I meant when comparing it to a "pure" Christian mindset which involves looking out for others.
[...] Michelle no doubt offered generosity but I very much doubt our LOA master who attracted the book will go through life finding it that easy.

You don't consider empiric results to matter but instead are obsessed about platonic ideals and consider the proof of platonic ideals to be important.
You can certainly have those priorities but other people don't have to share those priorities.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

Yes, it's interesting. I mean we all hold the beliefs we do because we believe we're right. Hence we believe it! Yet Steve claims not to be attached to any beliefs, but his responses seem to indicate a high level of attachment to some.

It's an interesting position for a guy who's still learning and still exploring. Such certainty seems counterproductive to the process of growth and questioning. "The more I learn, the less I know."

I think the error here is believing that Steve should agree to change his beliefs in order to prove not to be attached to them. Someone can hold on to his beliefs as long as they serve him, without being attached to them. You need a reason to replace your beliefs with someone else's beliefs (or even with the belief that you should not have a position in that specific matter, which is also a belief). I don't think anyone has offered sufficient arguments in order to determine Steve or others to change those beliefs regarding the matter in question.

[Sologretto]

In multiple different articles Steve recommends accepting different models for the purpose of seeing what works. This would argue an idea that everything has truth and that he proposes using whatever belief or model most empowers ones in their current situation.

If I'm in Saudi Arabia it would make sense for me to maintain connection to a heavily Islamic mindset, not necessarily for the concepts as much as for the ability to relate to other persons around me. I often find myself putting on layers of belief models in order to relate to the persons I'm around. If I'm around an Athiest Engineer it makes sense to "take off" my metaphysical, spiritual, ex-christian, artist and crazy inventor "masks" and focus on my Athiest, Engineer, Musician, American, Product of American Public Education, and other masks we either share or which are close enough to actually be able to interact with this person. When it comes to problem solving if one can put on and take off Masks of Beliefs than one can look at situations from multiple different lights.

Why would one need to "stand by" their beliefs if they consider them to be mere masks that be changed out? Saying that someone is changing by merely changing their beliefs would be like claiming that by wearing a leather jacket they suddenly become a biker. A person is more than their clothes, their skin, their hair and their beliefs. They are conglomerations of unique untangibles and a VERY long list of experiences. Letting go of beliefs might seem scary, but so is getting a makeover for some people. The person is still the same person afterwards, they've just changed how they choose to experience the world.

[Dextrous]

You could argue over and over, lamenting and debating what is right or wrong or superior until the end of time itself..........

all the while it was right there in front of you but you all failed to realise it

Unity

[Reverend Keith]

ALL truth is contextual including the truth that all truth is contextual Even the supposedly "objective" viewpoint of science relies on layer upon layer of mental constructs and contexts.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Sologretto

Why would one need to "stand by" their beliefs if they consider them to be mere masks that be changed out?

But that means they don't really believe. In the article in question Steve makes a lot of comments that do seem to indicate that he truly believes that all religion is bad and his responses seem to indicate that he is attached to the belief and his strategy of claiming no attachment to belief is just a ruse to sidestep the argument. He does appear to have strong beliefs and he does seem attached to them. His whole philosophy is dependent upon those beliefs so I don't blame him being attached to them. But the answer to honest debate should not be to ignore the questions and reasonable arguments, especially when they get difficult. That's just pulling the wool over your eyes and burying your head in the sand.

We are all here to learn, the guru Steve Pavlina included.

[Raymd]

Here's what I've learned about Islam. One has 3 choices if one is not presently a Muslim. Convert to Islam. Become a slave to someone who is a Muslim. Or die. Historically speaking, Islam, at first, had a live and let live policy. Oddly enough, however, as the membership grew, that changed to a conquer and spread the word policy. Or am I mistaken about the "religion of peace?"

[theorique]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

But that means they don't really believe. In the article in question Steve makes a lot of comments that do seem to indicate that he truly believes that all religion is bad and his responses seem to indicate that he is attached to the belief and his strategy of claiming no attachment to belief is just a ruse to sidestep the argument. He does appear to have strong beliefs and he does seem attached to them. His whole philosophy is dependent upon those beliefs so I don't blame him being attached to them. But the answer to honest debate should not be to ignore the questions and reasonable arguments, especially when they get difficult. That's just pulling the wool over your eyes and burying your head in the sand.

We are all here to learn, the guru Steve Pavlina included.

It may be more useful to examine beliefs in the context of how they help or hinder your progress toward your intended goals.

For example, if I hold the belief "I am an unworthy person and G-d hates me", I am unlikely to behave in a confident manner or to relate positively to other people. Conversely, if I hold the belief "I am a worthy person and loved by G-d" then I am much more likely to experience states of happiness and confidence and to relate well to other people.

Am I "attached" to the second belief if I choose to install it as opposed to the first one, or am I merely making use of a belief that delivers access to more desirable mind states?

-jack