opinions about Steve's ideas

[SecretSeven]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I think Steve comes up with a lot of faulty ideas. We might all come from the same consciousness, but we are also very seperate and distinct. We all lead individual lives, and have seperate experiences. We all have different perspectives, and see things differently. Just because we can't perceive other consciousness does not mean that they don't exist. Just because we can't see other people's thoughts does not mean that they don't exist. Steve says that everything in this world is a projection, or a manifestation of your own thoughts. But a lot of this world was created way before I was even born, therefore I didn't create it all. The house that I live in was built a hundred years ago, and existed before I was even aware of it. I still believe in subjective reality, because in the end our perceptions, and personalities shape how we see the world. But I disagree with Steve's idea that the whole world is just some dream.

[SecretSeven]

In one of Steve's posts he says that you can fly if you truly believe it is possible, and that you could change the laws of gravity. I hope some naive person doesn't read that and try to fly off a building or something...that would be terrible.

If everyone on this earth had the capability to do so (like Steve says), then the world would be really crazy and reality would change everyday. So one day you would wake up to find that gravity ceased to exist, and the next day you'd look up into the sky and see someone flying.

The only way that someone could alter reality in such a profound way is if the world was infact a dream, and people were just projections, and not conscious. Otherwise, everyone would be trying that method, and the world would be a crazy place.

What do you guys think?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by SecretSeven

Steve says that everything in this world is a projection, or a manifestation of your own thoughts.

I think more like you do than what Steve wrote. Steve saying everything is a projection of my own thoughts is using two different models at the same time, the ego model and the oneness (SR) model. Everything is a projection is a ego based bounadry. Manifestation of my own thoughts should be the thoughts or will or consciousness of oneness. This is how I've reconciled what Steve wrote to makes sense to me.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by SecretSeven

In one of Steve's posts he says that you can fly if you truly believe it is possible, and that you could change the laws of gravity. I hope some naive person doesn't read that and try to fly off a building or something...that would be terrible.

If everyone on this earth had the capability to do so (like Steve says), then the world would be really crazy and reality would change everyday. So one day you would wake up to find that gravity ceased to exist, and the next day you'd look up into the sky and see someone flying.

The only way that someone could alter reality in such a profound way is if the world was infact a dream, and people were just projections, and not conscious. Otherwise, everyone would be trying that method, and the world would be a crazy place.

What do you guys think?

I think this 3d world is rather weighty and is influencable by our consciousness and definelty is up for interpretation through our filters of belief. I think of how Einstein said - "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." That I take as meaning we are stuck with some amount of momentum or direction that we took on when we incarnated, insilled in belief and as something our soul decided was ok with us, and are shooting along a trajectory that is like a big boat with speed, going in a certain direction that a little tug boat would have trouble redirecting - and that, in my ideas, applies to the way we experience much of 3d and time.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SecretSeven

If everyone on this earth had the capability to do so (like Steve says), then the world would be really crazy and reality would change everyday.

It does. Don't you notice the changes? I recommend reading Heraclitus.

The world is rather crazy, and reality changes constantly.

On the other hand, the world is also perfectly logical, and reality is absolutely constant.

These statements are not contradictory.

[Cantando]

Well done, SecretSeven! You've thrown down the gauntlet. Give it to 'em! You're a real spiritual trooper now!
When we perceive something, we interpret it in our mind - that interpretation is a form of creation, I suppose, and that is subjective reality.
The thing we perceive still exists whether we are there or not - that is objective reality.
The earth is a real world - solidified energy created millions of years ago by god knows what advanced beings. There are many physical laws at work which we cannot currently alter as we are not spiritually advanced enough. If, however, you were on the same level as Jesus Christ, for example, yes, you could suspend the laws of nature and walk on water, or raise the dead.
But I don't think anyone on earth is close to doing that just yet.
How about a little experiment?
Who would like to volunteer to stand on the edge of a cliff then step off? A thousand of us will sit around and meditate and will that person to float. Any takers?

[SecretSeven]

Lol! I think I'll pass on that one

Lol, I don't think anyone is on the level of Jesus Christ lol.


.......On another note....I'm still not sure if I believe in LOA. Last week I tried it out, and I got almost everything that I "ordered." It could have been just a series of coinsidences, but I'm going to try it out this week and see if it's actually true. LOA seems almost identical to prayer, accept you have to imagine it as though it already happened. Has anyone had any success with it?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Cantando

When we perceive something, we interpret it in our mind - that interpretation is a form of creation, I suppose, and that is subjective reality.

So, in which blog entry or forum post did Steve say that?

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So, in which blog entry or forum post did Steve say that?

??? Steve didn't say it, I did. That's what I (currently) believe.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Cantando

??? Steve didn't say it, I did. That's what I (currently) believe.

My mistake. I thought you were talking about the subjective reality Steve talks about.

[Earendil]

Dare I ask - is there a scrap of scientific evidence for all these claims Steve is making about subjectivity and polarisation?

It all seems to be operating in the same way as a religion, with people believing things because they want them to be true, not because they actually are.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Earendil

Dare I ask - is there a scrap of scientific evidence for all these claims Steve is making about subjectivity and polarisation?

It all seems to be operating in the same way as a religion, with people believing things because they want them to be true, not because they actually are.

All things are ultimately reduced to beliefs. It is not possible, not even through science, to determine actual truth. Because you must necessarily begin with an axiom that cannot be proven: that's Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Science, for example, assumes that repeatability (discovered by empirical confirmation of hypotheses) results in predictability (which is what scientific theories are).

As religious nuts have brought up over and over again, it could just be that some omnipotent God is right there changing the results of the data with His Noodly Appendage. You can't tell.

[Earendil]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

All things are ultimately reduced to beliefs. It is not possible, not even through science, to determine actual truth. Because you must necessarily begin with an axiom that cannot be proven: that's Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Science, for example, assumes that repeatability (discovered by empirical confirmation of hypotheses) results in predictability (which is what scientific theories are).

Fair enough. However if we accept, as virtually anyone would (including the religious), that the scientific method is valid, is there any scientific evidence for Steve's ideas? (By the way this is not Godel's Incompleteness Theorem - that states that we cannot prove any logical system to be consistant.)

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

As religious nuts have brought up over and over again, it could just be that some omnipotent God is right there changing the results of the data with His Noodly Appendage. You can't tell.

True, but this theory is at the least not falsifiable, and so not scientifically valid.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Earendil

Fair enough. However if we accept, as virtually anyone would (including the religious), that the scientific method is valid, is there any scientific evidence for Steve's ideas?

Not to my knowledge.

Originally Posted by Earendil

(By the way this is not Godel's Incompleteness Theorem - that states that we cannot prove any logical system to be consistant.)

Yeah, I slipped up. I'm pretty sure it fits in there somewhere, but I couldn't remember the exact placement, and I can't recall right now.

Originally Posted by Earendil

True, but this theory is at the least not falsifiable, and so not scientifically valid.

Correct.

[CeciL]

SecretSeven, it is only obvious you just watched the secret not long ago... your posts and your handle reflect this well...

You dismiss the concepts of subjective reality, then in the end you say you still believe? WHAT?! That is like saying I don't believe in Jesus, but I'm Christian.

I will not argue the topic point as it is fruitless, because proof cannot be presented so it then falls in the line of faith. Once someone clings to a certain perspective on something it's near impossible to change it for them, especially within an argument (ego fight).

I too find some of Steve's writings not lining up with my perspective, which is only natural because I am not Steve. For example I'm not too keen on the polarity deal. Although from his perspective it seems to be the right thing... then so be it and good for him.

If it comes to a point where I think the majority of Steve's writings are faulty then I'll save some time in my life and won't visit Steve's site. Although I doubt that day will come, as I've been visiting this site for over a year and I quite like it... even though I bang my head into the monitor with every new polarity post.

[SecretSeven]

Hi Cecil,

I haven't watched the secret, but I soo want to! And I accept some aspects of subjective reality, and reject others. I reject the thought that there is only one conscious person on this earth. Clearly you, and everyone else is conscious on this post. Also, I reject the thought that one person can be responsible for everything on earth. What do you think about those ideas, do you believe in them? I'm starting to believe in law of attraction, because I have had amazing results. In the past two weeks, 8 out of 10 intentions have come true.

[CeciL]

Believe in them no, if I were a "believer" I'd be in church

I do contemplate and experiment with these ideas as I have for a while. I doubt I'll find an answer soon as answers always include some degree of blind faith. In my opinion Steve offers a lot of great perspectives to approach the subject matter with but is by no means the definitive answer.

LoA shows results, as long as action energy is taken as well. So I do play with this frequently.

The though of one consciousness on earth / universe is VERY easy to comprehend if you look at it with a subjective perspective. Your trying to experience subjective reality by using objective reality.