Polarity (Blog)

[Angela]

I was just this morning wondering what was up with you... he don't call, he don't write..... nice to see your post here again!

Angela

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Angela

I was just this morning wondering what was up with you... he don't call, he don't write..... nice to see your post here again!

Angela

I'm working with a life/spiritual coach right now and she suggested that I take a brief break from reading and posting for a while to kind of allow my intellect to quiet down for a while so I'm not thinking so much, and instead do a bit of balancing by listening to my feelings and intuition for a while, not my thinking mind.

Anyway, I'm still here, progressing on my path, and loving it. Just haven't been focusing on on my thinking and debating mind for a while, that's all.

Anyone can always reach me via my blog/email, BTW.

[Acting Like Godot]

No, no, no.

Steve is wrong. Where he went wrong is that he failed to see that energy is of different frequencies.

To manifest a single intention, I can use energies at different frequencies. If the energies are of different frequencies, they won't hinder or impede each other whether they're going in or out of your consciousness.

It is also quite possible to manipulate large amounts of energy, without much emotion. Eg martial arts stunts. The guy doesn't have to be gleeful or exhilarated or furious - he can just do the stunts.

Also, it is possible to have large amounts of energy that don't move anywhere. The energy just builds up in one place, until it eventually finds an outlet. Like, sexual tension.

Also, you don't necessarily need a lot of energy to successfully manifest an intention. Sometimes you need just a little energy, at a precise frequency. That works a lot better than a lot of energy, at the wrong frequencies.

Additionally there are many ways to manipulate energy, and all of us are doing it (without necessarily knowing that we are doing it). Some of us become quite adept at doing it in a certain way, without knowing how to do it in other ways. Even cheerleading pom-pom girls are energy manipulators.

Some of us are very good at detecting and interpreting energy in particular contexts, but not at all in others. For example, some of us are very good at sensing the energy in music. Some of us can walk into a roomful of people and quickly sense the mood energies. Some of us are very conscious of our bodily energies.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

No, no, no.

Steve is wrong. Where he went wrong is that he failed to see that energy is of different frequencies.

To manifest a single intention, I can use energies at different frequencies. If the energies are of different frequencies, they won't hinder or impede each other whether they're going in or out of your consciousness.

It is also quite possible to manipulate large amounts of energy, without much emotion. Eg martial arts stunts. The guy doesn't have to be gleeful or exhilarated or furious - he can just do the stunts.

Also, it is possible to have large amounts of energy that don't move anywhere. The energy just builds up in one place, until it eventually finds an outlet. Like, sexual tension.

Also, you don't necessarily need a lot of energy to successfully manifest an intention. Sometimes you need just a little energy, at a precise frequency. That works a lot better than a lot of energy, at the wrong frequencies.

Additionally there are many ways to manipulate energy, and all of us are doing it (without necessarily knowing that we are doing it). Some of us become quite adept at doing it in a certain way, without knowing how to do it in other ways. Even cheerleading pom-pom girls are energy manipulators.

Some of us are very good at detecting and interpreting energy in particular contexts, but not at all in others. For example, some of us are very good at sensing the energy in music. Some of us can walk into a roomful of people and quickly sense the mood energies. Some of us are very conscious of our bodily energies.

Yup, hence what I said about different intentions with different polarities not interfering with eachother. In your analogy they are at different frequencies so it doesn't matter. It's like 2 radio stations at two frequencies. Just because one radio station at one frequency might be playing crappy music, it doesn't mean it cancels out good music on another frequency. It's only if 2 radio stations decided to broadcast at the same frequency that there would be interference.

In my example that's where I was talking about creating one intention and then canceling it out with opposite energy FOR THE SAME INTENTION. Ie, believing "I WANT A NEW CAR!" with lots of energy and at the same time believing "I DON'T WANT A NEW CAR!" with equal energy in the opposite direction.

[munish]

This question makes no sense.

Originally Posted by impaul99

I agree with your first and second post as well and also disagree with Steve on this one. However, since I largely agree with Steve's model of a subjective reality, it could simply be that in Steve's reality he's right and in our reality we are right. In his, energy can only flow in one direction at one time, whereas in ours we might have the ability or intention for it to flow in both directions at the same time.

Also being a martial artist like yourself, I've seen where PUSH/PULL energy can be twice as powerful as PUSH/PUSH or PULL/PULL energy. I think the innacuracy might lie in Steve's assumption that if you have 2 units of energy going in one direction and 2 units of energy going in another opposite direction that there is a 0 net effect. That is NOT true. If you believe that, take your fist and punch someone elses fist really hard and you tell me if there was 0 energy at the point of impact.

Maybe my analogy is not the best, but I think that all energy is positive and negative at the same time just depending on what we pay attention to about it. For example Steve might say that writing a book is an OUTFLOWING energy, but in my opinion it could be INFLOWING. If Steve disagrees with me on that, then his subjective reality model must be flawed. Either he's right in this article and wrong in the subjective reality one, or vice versa. He can't have it both ways.

In my reality, lets say I wanted to put energy towards 4 endeavours at one time. Lets say that Steve consider 2 of those endeavours OUTFLOW and 2 of them INFLOW. In Steve's opinion he would say that my energy would cancel itself out and I would achieve very little. In my REALITY though I could simply CHOOSE to label all 4 of them as either INFLOW or OUTFLOW and achieve results since my subjective reality is mine and I can do whatever I want with it.

SO, having said that, if I wanted to WRITE A BOOK and WIN A CONTEST which Steve labeled in his article as "OUTFLOW" and "INFLOW" energies, I can still do it by CHOOSING to align the INFLOW/OUTFLOW energy of both things in one direction. Meaning, I believe that writing a book is equally INFLOW and OUTFLOW energy. *I* choose which energy to focus and make real. The same thing with WINNING A CONTEST. So all I have to do is to CHOOSE to believe that WRITING A BOOK and WINNING A CONTEST are both OUTFLOW or both INFLOW and I'll be able to achieve both at the same time.

If Steve is right, then it would be impossible (or at least very difficult) to WIN A CONTEST for WRITING A BOOK. It would also be hard to WRITE A BOOK and GET A CAR at the same time. Give me a break, can you imagine how complicated life would be if we had to consult a universal book of judgements to see if the intentions we're trying to acquire are OUTFLOWING or INFLOWING so that we don't accidentally cancel our energy expenditure?

What's more probable is that if you BELIEVE that one thing you're doing like WRITING A BOOK is interfering with something else you're doing like GETTING A CAR, then that is what you will create. If, however, you believe that WRITING A BOOK and GETTING A CAR are aligned in the same direction (Positive), then they will help each other out.

The only way I can see INFLOW/OUTFLOW energy canceling itself out is within the same intention. For example if I create an intention of "I want to get a new car." and at the same time I also have an intention of "I don't want a new car" then those two intention will cancel eachother out. Don't laugh, a lot of people including me have done that before. You might be thinking "I want to win a million dollars in the lottery." but then you also think "If I win the lottery my friends will only love me for my money." or "Someone might try to kill me for my money." etc. That kind of alignment I think is imperative, but I really don't think one intention of WRITING A BOOK and another intention of WINNING A CONTEST really create problems of cancelled energy, unless of course we BELIEVE that they are interfering with eachother.








Anyway, just my 2 bits, but I do agree with you Edward.

[borisg]

Is the Law of Attraction not the same as the concept of will?

I mean, if we can agree that the basis of the law of attraction is thought and directed energy (choose your polarity) in conjuction with thought... then I would venture to describe "will" with the same words. When we "will" something, are we not thinking of an idea and then utilizing or focusing energy to make our will come to fruition? The more directed (polarized) our focus is..the more likely that our will, will come to pass, no? Seems to me many people are looking at LOA as some magic silver bullet that will allow them to obtain their desires in some magical (effortless) manner, when in reality we are talking about that old word.."will". just throwing it out there people.

[edwardmills]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Also, you don't necessarily need a lot of energy to successfully manifest an intention. Sometimes you need just a little energy, at a precise frequency. That works a lot better than a lot of energy, at the wrong frequencies.

This is an excellent point although, in this case, I believe you are looking at a great example of the power of focused, directional energy. A laser-focused intention supported by accurately aligned energy is a formula for very efficient manifestation.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by edwardmills

This really gets to the heart of my disagreement. I don't think that breathing, or any dualist, on/off, in/out, light/dark analogy can accurately describe the flow of energy.

A better analogy from our physical world, in my opinion would be the human heart. With each beat, blood flows in AND simultaneously flows out. (It's more complicated than that of course, but for the sake of this discussion, you get the point).

This morning, during my meditation, I did some experimenting with this idea. And, while it was difficult to consciously hold the perception of inward flowing and outward flowing energy simultaneously, the experience for brief moments, was exquisite.

I've got to tell you that if that feeling I started to connect with this morning is an indication of inefficiency, I'll take a whole lot more of it!

Now, once again, I will reiterate that agree with Steve that there are times when focusing your energy in one or the other direction can absolutely empower your actions.

And I continue to respectfully disagree that it's a polarity.

The easiest way I can say it is that the physical component of our existence is about Either/Or, while the energetic component is about Both/And.

Edward,
You mentioned about the human heart pumping in and outward but if you look at it on a per valve basis then it would be inefficient to pump blood in and out of the same valve at the same time.

I believe you to be arguing that opposite polarities can exist at the same time but your perspective of within the same body or within the same organ is on a much broader realm than what Steve was disussing. I believe he is discussing motivation and intention. If you have a motivation at a given time then it is less efficent to have a contrary motivation at the same time.

Its so interesting how two people can be speaking about the same subject but from different realities.

This does not mean that you are wrong but you are responding to his article so it is important that you aborb his point and focus on the inflow of his information and then you can more accurate respond with an outflow of your reaction. Since you did not fully import his points then you cannot accurately retort his point of view. This is ironic given your position.

Although he did make some absolute statements you are really arguing a different point.

You also stated that while meditating it was difficult to hold the thought of in-flow and out-flow but that you were able to do it. You were delighted about being able to do so.... But your difficulty in doing so both at the same time is evidence of the two thought countering each other.

It is great you are exploring you mind and I am sure that you could contribute greatly to these posts however to really retort Steve's opinion you must first understand his position.

Your position is valid in your reality however in the reality of Steve's position it is false. Its about perspective.

[songwriter]

Again an article of Steve has influenced me... after he wrote it but before I read it.

Steve, you send very well.

[Sunsingh]

Steve, I'm still feeling a bit confused.

So when I want to manifest something, let's say really great study habits, does that mean I focus on one polarity only, every single time I want to manifest those habits? (but I can think of the results to help me, but should focus mainly on my habits?)

Also, Does this mean that if I want to manifest other things than I should focus on all those other things using the same polarity for all of my intentions? Or do I only need to maintain consistency of polarity on an intention by intention basis?

Thanks for the fascinating article.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by Sunsingh

Steve, I'm still feeling a bit confused.

So when I want to manifest something, let's say really great study habits, does that mean I focus on one polarity only, every single time I want to manifest those habits? (but I can think of the results to help me, but should focus mainly on my habits?)

Also, Does this mean that if I want to manifest other things than I should focus on all those other things using the same polarity for all of my intentions? Or do I only need to maintain consistency of polarity on an intention by intention basis?

Thanks for the fascinating article.

I think Steve means like, in an intention such as "really great study habits," somebody who could effectively manifest such a desire would choose to focus on being motivated by either (A) "GIVING a better effort to studying, to take himself to the next level," or (B) "GETTING better at studying, to overcome his classes." Both would work, but not both at the same time. For example. That's the way it seems to me. I hope Steve will explain further and hopefully give some more examples.

[Melanie Peace]

Hi!! I am new here so "HELLO WORLD".

I became interested in steve's writing when my daughter sent me the famous posting *10 reason you sould never get a job*. She thought I would like it - and she was right - I did. I liked it because 12 years ago when I discovered the sheer incredible unadulterated POWER of the internet, I turned to my son and husband and I said: "In 10 years I am going to be a millionaire."

They both looked at me like I had completely gone bonkers. The best part of that night I will never forget - I didn't CARE that they thought I had gone bonkers and I KNEW it would happen because I was going to MAKE it happen.

I digress - this is the polarity page so I will discuss that.

polarity = positive and negative charges. I believe steve said something about being either on the dark side or the *light* side. If you decide to sit on the fence post in betwitx the two, you will not ge very far in either direction....

That creates a real VISUAL. Obviously if one is sitting on a fence post, one is not running, fast or otherwise, in any direction - postive (light) or negative (dark). Whilst this visual is powerful, it is also inaccurate on several levels.

Do others see that?

I am going to pose that question and see if there is any interest in discussing it before I decide to post on why I believe that to be inaccurate.

I believe I am going to enjoy this place!

Melanie

[judge45]

Steve,

I either just don't get it or you're not explaining it very well, a third option could be that I'm stupid, but me no likey that one

I've always seen LoA as a circle, I think something often enough, it sinks down, binds with cosmic goo and comes back to me in full circle.

I suppose this could be seen as sending a message out and getting a response, but the whole polarity thing seesm to be contradictive.

If you want money you send energy out for that and then it comes back to you as a business idea?? You give then get then give to get again??

You say that it can't go both ways, but I've sent my desire out, got my alphas and now I have a very exciting business idea that I'm developing that will presumably deliver my desire/intention.

This whole polarity idea needs more simplistic clarity please.

Can you dumb it down a little for us mortals

If I have to read 10,000 words again and not get it, my head is going to explode

Thanks

Jeff

[impaul99]

My personal opinion is that Steve's looking for other reasons why the Law of Attraction is not working for people so he's inventing new distinctions others might not be aware of.

However, I think the reason the Law doesn't work people is not because there's something new that they don't know, but rather that they are not APPLYING what they already know.

It's kind of like being healthy and fit. Most people already know exactly what they need to do to be healthy, but they just don't do it. I don't know too many massively overweight and unhealthy people who eat a sensible diet and exercise daily.

Yes there are other distinctions that might help people who are already getting results with LoA to get slightly better results, just like there are tonnes of little tricks in health and fitness to help you improve your results once you've already implemented the fundamentals, but those are all "tweaking" techniques that the majority of people don't really need because they aren't even doing the basics yet.

Anyway, just my two cents. I've been getting and continue to get results with LoA and a lot of my intentions that I've manifested are polarly opposite according to Steve's article.

[magickmystik]

well, i'll just wait for Steve's next follow up articles then or explanations on this thread...

I can think many examples in my life when i received, like winning a contest, or meeting someone i think about few hours before in unlikely place, just happens to be in the right place and right time, for example. If i start actively looking for that person, probably won't meet them.

[VacMan]

Ok...

Here's my confusion.

In the article it states that you should not mix the "outflow" intentions with "inflow" intentions.

Outflow being creative/getting intentions.

Inflow being receiving/consumption intentions.

So...

What if you wanted to CREATE a website, business, relationship, a great body etc. (outflow intention.) And then GET money, love, health etc. (inflow intention) out of your "creation."

Essentially you are crossing signals here aren’t you?

You are saying: "I want to create something to get something."

That is directly mixing outflow with inflow and according to the article, you would be crossing signals and possibly nullifying your entire intention.

I would argue that everyone CREATING something is ultimately attempting to GET something out of the deal.

So wouldn’t everyone always be crossing intentions?

And how do you focus on wanting something and know that you must create something to get it? Or how do you focus on creating something and not want anything out of the deal? Even simply happiness?

Any ideas?

[Nikos Sokin]

Hi, and thanks for this post. Since you are working on a follow up to the polarity article, the questions I'm posing right now are posted in hopes you might be able to incorporate this into your follow up polarity article.

Using the concept of polarity, how would one classify wanting to change a personal habit or trait? For instance, procrastination. If I want to change procrastination, which is a change that is inherently in the inward or outward direction, are you saying the key is to focus on why I want to change procrastination? For instance, outward direction might be: to benefit others by the information my report will contain, or inward direction might be: so that my status and perceived value to the company will increase at work?

Thanks

[Antemeridian]

Originally Posted by impaul99

SO, having said that, if I wanted to WRITE A BOOK and WIN A CONTEST which Steve labeled in his article as "OUTFLOW" and "INFLOW" energies, I can still do it by CHOOSING to align the INFLOW/OUTFLOW energy of both things in one direction. Meaning, I believe that writing a book is equally INFLOW and OUTFLOW energy. *I* choose which energy to focus and make real. The same thing with WINNING A CONTEST. So all I have to do is to CHOOSE to believe that WRITING A BOOK and WINNING A CONTEST are both OUTFLOW or both INFLOW and I'll be able to achieve both at the same time.

If Steve is right, then it would be impossible (or at least very difficult) to WIN A CONTEST for WRITING A BOOK. It would also be hard to WRITE A BOOK and GET A CAR at the same time. Give me a break, can you imagine how complicated life would be if we had to consult a universal book of judgements to see if the intentions we're trying to acquire are OUTFLOWING or INFLOWING so that we don't accidentally cancel our energy expenditure?

I just wanted to make a quick comment, (well, two actually, but the first pertains to the quote above )

The analogy above I think can actually be used to describe (my interpretation of) what Steve is saying. The way I see it, if you are trying to WIN A CONTEST by WRITING A BOOK, you kind of need to pick one to focus on, and the other will happen. Such as, if you focus on writing the book, then things should work out well to win the contest, and vice versa, if you're trying to win a writing contest, really focusing on winning the contest could lead to writing the winning entry. However, if you focus on both at the same time, you could be wasting potential energy and focus and thus end up without the hoped for/intended success.

Now, the other comment I wanted to make actually relates back to something in the article. Steve mentioned that one analogy for this is to picture this process as a vacuum cleaner with suck and blow settings. The key to this image, I find, is that regardless of which setting it is in, its creating a vacuum which is causing the opposite to also occur. To use the analogy, in the suck setting, the vacuum is sucking air through the hose, but to do this, it is having to blow air out of the exhaust. So, while you're focusing on the sucking factor, there is blowing going on as well. (Bear with me on the diction ) Vice versa, if using the vacuum as a leaf blower, its sucking in air through the old exhaust . . . Thus, while you're focusing on one, the other is happening to fill the void. So it kind of ties the image of only being able to do one thing at a time, and the circular notion together.

Cheers,

Adam

[VacMan]

Antemeridian,

I agree that if you want to WIN A CONTEST by WRITING A BOOK, it would help to focus on one or the other.

There are two ways of doing this:

1.) Focus on winning the contest.

2.) Focus on writing the book.

But you probably wont win the contest and write the book without focusing on both.

If you simply write a book without wanting to actually win the contest you may not actually write a book that is in alignment with the requirements of the contest. Or you may not write the book to be the best book you can possibly write in order to win. You might simply write a book... and that's it, just a book.

OR you could simply focus on winning the contest and not on writing the book. If you simply do that then your attention won't be focused on actually writing the book, therefore you probably won't write the best book and probably won't win.

So don't you essentially have to focus on BOTH not just one or the other?

Maybe you can send out two, yet separate intentions that don't interfere with eachother.

1.) Win the contest (Inflow)

2.) Create the best book possible within the requirements of the contest (Outflow)

By making sure that they are separate intentions and not mixed together in one intention, can you manifest both intentions? Even if they are inflow and outflow?

[wolfgang]

I'm not sure about this polarity idea of intentions. Sounds like too much thinking about it too me as an initial reaction.

Also, what happened to the Subjective Reality model during this? If we are all one, then there really isn't an in and out "flow" for intentions. It's as if where every you draw your personal self boundary is where the flow is but at the ultimate universe boundary there's no in and out - maybe there's a wax and wane of vibes.

I could think, maybe, this in/out intention idea helps distill the goal and helps your focus and that may be what produces better results. And that's all it is - a technique that makes it easier to focus on the intention.

But also if it makes sense to amplify your energy of a thought (to make it more than just content) it seems like anything that makes you feel more excited would be invited into thoughts - regardless of the in/out flow.

If I intened to have a great meal I can be jazzed about creating it and also how it will feel to eat it - and I actually do that all the time while preparing food. I enjoy the chopping, all the while imagining that when I sit to eat that salad it will be fullfilling. Those two in and outs don't cancel at all!! If I just tried to stop thinking about what it would be like to eat what I'm creating I'd feel cut off and detached and I don't think my experience would be as rich.

I had a little idea about this in/out that if one has an intention and found the two parts of this intention - then while doing meditation on it one could inhale the ins and exhale the outs of it and feel the emotions of both sides of the polarities. Like, if I intend a smooth/satisfiying relationship - I could exhale what it feels like to give to the other person and inhale what it would feel like to be loved.

I still don't see why in/out would cancel each other - expecially if both in and out are for the greater good of all involved!!


Has Steve written more on this one? Seems like a while ago the blog was posted.