Bring4th

In another thread, it was suggested that we start a new thread about the Law of Attraction. Here are the comments that started that topic:

(07-20-2009, 10:08 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2009, 08:45 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]But I have recently begun to believe that the law of attraction, perhaps doesn't even really exist in such a neat package, and is a combination of telepathy, and various other things.

Intriguing idea. I agree that the law of attraction certainly does not mean we attract whatever we associate ourselves with... There's an old magical principle where you have to forget everything about a magical act just after committing it. To allow the subconscious to execute the instructions without conscious interference. But this is just a pragmatic rule not one based in theory.

What do you think is really going on?

I agree that the Law of Attraction (LoA) isn't so neatly and easily done. I think the idea of just visualizing something and then poof it magickally appears is over simplified. Ah, if only it were so easy!

For starters, it doesn't take into consideration pre-incarnational programming.


I suppose it could be argued that if someone feels attracted to the LoA, then that must be within the scope of their own pre-incarnational programming. Perhaps.

I'm more inclined to think that the LoA is a very real principle that does work, but only within the parameters of pre-incarnational programming.

I too am familiar with the magickal principle of doing a working, and then letting it be. I'd been taught that if we blabbed about it too much, we were getting our rewards (energetically) from the working in the form of recognition, instead of manifestation. Further, if we spoke of our intentions to others, we would be taking energy away from the energy needed for manifestation. The analogy was that if you opened the oven door to peak at the cake baking, it would collapse. Better to let it do its thing in the darkness of gestation.

In light of these commonly-known magickal principles, the LoA does seem a bit 'in your face' and reminds me of the religious 'name it claim it' philosophy. The problem I have with that is that followers of those philosophies are often told "Well you must not be praying hard enough if you haven't gotten an answer to your prayers yet" with the 'New Age' version of it being something like "Well you must not be visualizing hard enough" both of which can trigger unnecessary guilt.

I most definitely do believe that the LoA has some valid principles. I certainly do believe in having a positive attitude and getting clear on our goals, as well as honing our desires. But I also think the idea can be taken too far, to the point of it becoming a controlling thing, instead of a flowing/harmonizing thing.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how the LoA fits in with Law of One? I don't remember offhand if it was ever mentioned. Perhaps in the later Q'uo sessions?

Monica, isn't pre life programming a kind of breaking of free will? If you were planning on something before life, but chicken out before your feet hit the water and not be able to get out of it. Then do you have free will? Or has free will become subject to some other entity, like some evil god of past self?

I've been thinking along the same lines though. I thought if your body is part of who you are. Then when a immunological weakness attracts disease. Basically you'd be the cause of your own mysery..

But in that situation too. It's not as if you have free will in the matter. Your power was given not to the god of "past self" but to the god of "physical self"..

Both philosophies work. But where did free will go?

All I've experienced of LoA is on a very direct and basic level. No giant, physical and fantastical manifestations.

It's very simple. If you intend negative energy upon something, you will also attract it to yourself. You say "I hate this cactus", then when you see this cactus you will be reminded of the negative feeling and, this will encourage other negative thoughts in turn. So, you wanted negativity and you got it.

I suppose this isn't the entire truth of LoA though. Think of how Jim and Don used to infuse love into water before giving it to Carla after a channeling. That was pure intention and mental power at work, and I do this to water I drink and give my plants too.
Saw a show about water with a few metaphysical diviations, they clearly showed water changing its molecular structure (because it's just one big fat molecule in liquid form) while sending it positive thoughts - it became more stable and beautiful. Similarly, negative thoughts made it chaotic and gruesome. The human body contains 65% water.. if you intend negative thoughts upon someone, they will surely feel it in some way through the water as their body becomes more destabilised and chaotic.
This is the only scientific 'proof' I've ever seen about LoA.

what i seem to read here as difference is the intensity of which the effect of LoA seems to work for one or another - any suggestion why this might be the case?

do you think Taha, since you have been more aware and therefore receptive to "energies" (due to years of training i assume) that the effect of that what you whish for to become true got stronger with your "abilities"?

@Taha: The law of attraction is older than we are. It's not quite a new law... If it seems new that's because we had not heard of this before. "Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World" was the title for a book from 1905. So it's not a new fad or a newly invented law.

@Ayadew: Thank you for the explanation. Perhaps you have an idea why the law of attraction does not seem to come true just about every time we think of anything.

It's not true that imagining yourself healthy will automagically make you healthy. It's not true that wishing the best for everyone automagically makes things perfect for the wisher.

I agree with you fully that there is an effect. I don't doubt this and the examples you give serve well to underline this point. I too have experienced some pretty big events by attracting them. And I still use the principle in daily life.

However, why is it that some people cannot think a negative thought without experiencing a negative event while others are truly sadistic and seems to have no negative consequences while they should be totally debilitated by them in theory. Why is it that other people in spite of their untiring optimism and truly heroic selflessness still die after a horrible disease has run it's course? The success stories while impressive are still the exception rather than the rule.

Why is this?

Could it be that the law of attraction is more a law of expectation? Meaning that not only do we need to experience a positive or negative attitude towards something. We also have to expect this positive or negative event to occur?

Telekinesis from my own experience works more from expectation than intent. You can intend all you want.. But it's more likely to have your expectations met than your intentions. Also in psychological perception of ambiguous stimuli it turns out that people tend to see what they're primed to see. Priming is basically dropping a hint that causes an expectation.

What is the difference between expectation and intent anyway? Is expectation a variety of subconscious intent?

I suppose in Law of One terms you might describe the Law of Attraction as the direction of intelligent energy by the entity.

It is interesting that yet again another throw away comment of mine has started a new discussion. I can't seem to keep within whatever subject matter I'm commenting on.

I think Ali Quadir's last post made a brilliant point.

I think some people who are into the Law of Attraction aren't beyond putting telepathic pressure on another person in order to make that person conform to their desires. I also think that pre- incarnative programming may include being able to listen to others negativity, and generally being around negativity in order to improve it for service to others goals. (Another thing that Law of Attractioner's don't like). I think that a lot of the self improvement culture seem to think that gratifying of every materialistic goal as the highest spiritual aspiration of humankind.

Perhaps we'll see an interesting fall out of this mentality during this recession. (Which I'm sure was not on most LoA'ers wish list.)

@Taha: Wonderful post... you bring much positive energy to this board. Thank you for being you.
I will have to think a while about yours and Ali Quadir's post before answering.

I agree with many of the statements and observations made here, but please allow me to offer a slightly different way to look at the Law of Attraction..

It seems to me that the Law of Attraction is quite akin to the law of gravity (yes, here comes another of my analogies, sorry but I can't help it). Any two objects have an attractive force that is related to their masses divided by the square of their distances. So if only two things existed in the universe, one could easily compute how long it would take for the two to come together. But alas, there are many, many more than two things in the universe, so it is difficult to compute exactly when or even if two objects will meet, even though they are attracted. Interestingly though, the macroscopic effect of gravitation among a bunch of objects can be fairly easily determined by looking at the largest and/or the closest objects.

So applying this to the LoA is fairly straightforward. The extent to which the law works is related to the strength of the desire (or mass) and how far removed the desired item, experience, etc. is from the one desiring it (the square of the distance). Complicating this equation is the fact that more distant things are more likely to be affected by other people's desires (and quite complicated interactions can quickly occur). Those things that are most easily attracted are those that we most desire and are closest to us. So one can aid the LoA by increasing desire (mass), but much more so by changing our proximity to the goal. This is why we are told that the best way to make something we want appear in our lives is to start living as though it were already present. By doing so we are moving our lives closer to the desired state. In fact, if we do it properly, our lives become like a canvas on which there is an empty spot that then acts like a vacuum further pulling the thing desired toward us. This is exactly what I see happening in Taha's example. He "creates the space" (vacuum) in which the desired state can manifest (remember no two things can occupy the same space at the same time... so ask yourself first "where will I put this once I get it"), and this then acts as an even stronger attractor to bring it forth. Similarly, by conditioning the mind, one becomes better and better at focusing our desire on the end state, thus increasing the effective mass of our desire.

Pre-incarnative decisions could be viewed as immovable objects that are between us and our desire. No matter how great the attraction, or short the distance, it will never be able to manifest. By the same token, if something is fairly close to you but there are a number of other entities around that desire it also, you will have to have a stronger desire and/or move closer, faster than the others to get it (think winning the lottery).

Taha also mentions the effect that I would call the Law of unintended consequences (sorry Taha, couldn't resist creating another law ). These consequences could be beneficial or detrimental, but they usually occur. Thus the old adage "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it." In my experience, the detrimental effects can be minimized by expressing your desires related to the manifestation of whatever provides the "greatest good" or "greatest benefit" to all involved. But bear in mind also, that "greatest good" may include a painful but beneficial life lesson. I'm sure that Taha can share some of those as well.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

(07-21-2009, 08:25 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]It is interesting that yet again another throw away comment of mine has started a new discussion. I can't seem to keep within whatever subject matter I'm commenting on.

I think it's very human. It just shows that your powers of association are functional. It also shows that the rest of us look at you for guidance...

Quote:Perhaps we'll see an interesting fall out of this mentality during this recession. (Which I'm sure was not on most LoA'ers wish list.)

Heh I suppose not. However, have you seen the amounts of people cheering on an economic disaster? Have you seen the amount of people cheering on thermo nuclear war? I wouldn't personally believe strongly that this isn't what mankind wanted. I wouldn't state that this IS what mankind wanted either.. There's just such a large group who seem to enjoy disasters.

Do you think these guys who put telepathic pressure on others do this consciously? Or is it a more subconscious event? If they did it consciously.. They'd be very mean people.

(07-21-2009, 04:07 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Monica, isn't pre life programming a kind of breaking of free will? If you were planning on something before life, but chicken out before your feet hit the water and not be able to get out of it. Then do you have free will? Or has free will become subject to some other entity, like some evil god of past self?

Not past self, but future self. My understanding from the Law of One is that pre-incarnational programming is from our Higher Selves (future selves) which of course is part of us, so it's still 'us' that is making the choices.

I see pre-incarnational programming like enrolling in a school (I think of 3D as school) and establishing a curriculum. Say, for example, my Higher Self decides I need to learn to be more patient, forgiving, and generous. My HS orchestrates events in my life to teach me those things: catalyst.

I have the choice as to how I respond to that catalyst. If I ignore it and don't learn my lessons, I'll just have to learn those lessons some other time. Like if a student passes algebra but flunks chemistry, they just take algebra again, right? So say I learn patience but not generosity. My HS will just program more catalyst, whether in this life or in a future life.

There has been much discussion of pre-incarnational programming in the Law of One and in the later sessions, because of Carla's own health challenges. This can shed a lot of light on our own challenges. I don't think it means that we have to just accept whatever happens to us! We always have the choice to create a new reality for ourselves, but it would be ridiculous to think that all options are equally available.

For example, I am very short. Say I decide I want to be a fashion model. (I'm a little old for that, ha, but just for the sake of example.) My pre-incarnational programming sort of precluded that career choice, by simple nature of the fact that it's exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for a short woman to make it as a fashion model! I don't think I'd have much success as a basketball player, either!

Does this mean I have no free will? Does this mean my HS limited me? No and yes. 3D reality has inherent limitations. I don't see them as limitations, though, so much as parameters. We have free will within those parameters.

The key here is that the parameters themselves are very, very broad. Maybe being a fashion model or basketball player are off the table for me, but wow, there are literally thousands of other options open to me!

Another example:

I have a friend who was torn between 2 lovers. (They both had the same first name, too, so that made it interesting!) She was worried about making the 'right' decision. The 2 men were quite opposite in their outlooks on life and lifestyles. I advised her to follow her heart and not worry about which was the 'right' choice, because if she chose John#1 this time, she would learn certain lessons from that relationship, and whatever she didn't learn, she would learn later, like maybe in a future lifetime paired up with John#2, or maybe in some other way.

As in school, we have to choose whether to take biology or chemistry this year. Whichever we don't choose, we can take next year.

I realize, of course, that this lifetime is extra-special, because of the Harvest. So I am NOT suggesting that we put off learning lessons that seem important to us! I'm just over-simplifying to illustrate my point about how we still have free will within pre-programmed parameters.

I think the pre-programming is largely irrelevant, because we don't really know what those parameters are anyway, so why worry about it? I believe in having the mindset that anything is possible! It's just that we have to decide if it's worth it or not. Sure, it's possible there could be a new modeling agency that is specifically looking for middle-aged short women! Hey, it could happen! Is it probable? No, but it's ever possible.

I guess if I wanted to be a model badly enough, I would do what I could to manifest it. (I don't, of course, want to be a model at all, so I guess I'll never know!) I guess if some short people wanted to play pro basketball badly enough, they could devise a tailored court with lower baskets and limits on height, to level the playing field. And if they did that, then those choices must have been within the pre-programmed parameters. It's within the parameters of pioneers in science to break down old barriers and create new possibilities. But that too was a manifestation of their choosing that option out of all the available options.

I'm sure there are many short women who would love to be models, but, because of the height limitation, don't ever feed those aspirations. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Their Higher Selves probably thought they could make better use of the lifetime by choosing a career other than modeling. The height limitation just narrowed the playing field a bit, but it also opened up other options that a tall woman might not have! So it all sort of balances out.

(07-21-2009, 04:07 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]I've been thinking along the same lines though. I thought if your body is part of who you are. Then when a immunological weakness attracts disease. Basically you'd be the cause of your own mysery..

But in that situation too. It's not as if you have free will in the matter. Your power was given not to the god of "past self" but to the god of "physical self"..

Both philosophies work. But where did free will go?

I see the physical body as a manifestation of our thoughts, emotions, and intentions, using the pre-incarnational programming merely as a starting point. I was just reading a book that posited that our bodies do indeed evolve within a single lifetime. As one who has experienced psychic healing, I don't believe we necessarily have to limit ourselves to the current state of our physical bodies. It really depends on the individual. I'm not even going to attempt growing 3 inches! Is it possible? Not in my reality! But can a person overcome a genetic predisposition to a disease? In many cases, a resounding YES! It really depends on what the curriculum was and which classes the student decides to enroll in. Are they going to learn chemistry (learning to overcome resentment about having a disease, which means the disease is serving them and helping them evolve spiritually), or biology (learning about letting go of obstacles and getting strong, by overcoming the disease). Both are valid choices.

Bring4th_Monica Wrote:The problem I have with that is that followers of those philosophies are often told "Well you must not be praying hard enough if you haven't gotten an answer to your prayers yet" with the 'New Age' version of it being something like "Well you must not be visualizing hard enough" both of which can trigger unnecessary guilt.

I most definitely do believe that the LoA has some valid principles. I certainly do believe in having a positive attitude and getting clear on our goals, as well as honing our desires. But I also think the idea can be taken too far, to the point of it becoming a controlling thing, instead of a flowing/harmonizing thing.

I agree. I've seen so many healers take the concept of the LoA and turn it against others. Rather than continue their healing work, suddenly these people are focused more on asking their clients, "Why are you manifesting this in your life?" I believe there is more to ill health (and difficult circumstances in general) than this. Certainly there is an element (sometimes large) of having allowed or even drawn such things into one's life, but as a healer, I find it useless to approach my work from that perspective. One can be fully aware of why and how a circumstance developed, and also be fully aware of what the end result will be when the issue is resolved, but there is also the process in between that must be lived, and sometimes people need help and/or support for that process.

Ali Quadir Wrote:Monica, isn't pre life programming a kind of breaking of free will? If you were planning on something before life, but chicken out before your feet hit the water and not be able to get out of it. Then do you have free will? Or has free will become subject to some other entity, like some evil god of past self?

I've been thinking along the same lines though. I thought if your body is part of who you are. Then when a immunological weakness attracts disease. Basically you'd be the cause of your own mysery..

But in that situation too. It's not as if you have free will in the matter. Your power was given not to the god of "past self" but to the god of "physical self"..

Both philosophies work. But where did free will go?

My response is not based on the LOO materials, so I'm not sure it's precisely appropriate for me to state it here. If I'm overstepping, please let me know and I won't do it again. That said, when I chose a purpose for this life before I came here, that was an act of free will. The result is that I am living according to that choice, whether I as a human like and agree with that purpose or not. As there is no real separation from who I am as a human and who I am beyond my human self, if I as a human feel a conflict within my life, the conflict itself is still a function of free will. The conflict is merely a perception. (For me.)

Taha Wrote:I get exactly what I decide I want, but a whole lot more along with it that I may not have considered.

Thank you. That says so much... more... than what I think you intended to say. This is a glimpse of my own processes: Shortly after my spiritual awareness began to awaken, I found myself on a healing path. Knowing my self, one of the first things I 'asked for' was to remain humble; I could see that folks farther along their healing paths often (not saying always) have gotten there either through a greater innate strength or in some way less of a struggle than others, and because of this, some (emphasis that this doesn't apply to all) have little or no respect or regard for those who struggle more through their processes. I could see that I might very easily fall into that mind-set myself. The result of asking to be 'kept humble' has, in part, been that I continue to struggle through the healing process. It keeps me aware of what others are going through, and has taught me a depth of compassion I did not have previously. I've obviously (to me) not learned all I can from this process. So here I know, in part, where the struggle originates, and I know what it will look like when I've completed this particular process... but I'm still in the process. Is it 'bad' that I've attracted this? Uncomfortable, yes. Difficult, yes. Worth discussing, yes. Bad, no.

And what I'm talking about here is not an entirely intellectual process -- just wanted to put that in here, because so often such things are broken into these separations during discussion. If it's done on a wholly intellectual level, it's not being experienced; if it's experienced on a wholly energetic level, it lacks the balance of the fact that these processes are parts of human life -- and therefore involve the intellect. It's a function of both (intellect and direct experience), and for me these have equal value.

Ali Quadir Wrote:What is the difference between expectation and intent anyway?

My view: Expectation is both independent of and integral with intent, and there are other aspects involved in this equation. I've experienced what one might say are 'successful' results from doing things I expected would not work, having done such things to humor someone who wanted me to try them. My intent, in those instances, was not to manifest anything but a show of respect for the other individual, and yet I received benefit from the act anyway. Go figure, huh? An analogy: Someone has chronic pain in one knee, and a friend offers some salve that, the friend says, may help relieve some of the pain. The person with the bum knee uses the salve, not with any expectation for relief but simply because it seems like a better idea than to refuse the offer. Surprise, there is relief. Given the concept of 'as above, so below', similar (as well as opposite) processes can occur on any level, physical or energetic or both. Again, that's - in part - how I see it.

3D Sunset: Wonderful analogy! I agree: "quite complicated interactions can quickly occur."

Monica: 'We have free will within parameters' -- exactly so. Well said. As for the irrelevance of pre-programming, I don't think relevance (or lack thereof) can apply to everyone the same way. I personally am aware, at least in part, of my purpose in coming here. I choose what to do - or not do - with that awareness, but being aware of it does make it much more relevant for me than it would be for someone who was not aware. As you said, if life is school, there are different levels and directions of education. Some folks get quite a way into college without ever stating a major... some folks don't even graduate high school....
plur

(07-21-2009, 01:14 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I see the physical body as a manifestation of our thoughts, emotions, and intentions, using the pre-incarnational programming merely as a starting point. I was just reading a book that posited that our bodies do indeed evolve within a single lifetime. As one who has experienced psychic healing, I don't believe we necessarily have to limit ourselves to the current state of our physical bodies. It really depends on the individual. I'm not even going to attempt growing 3 inches! Is it possible? Not in my reality! But can a person overcome a genetic predisposition to a disease? In many cases, a resounding YES! It really depends on what the curriculum was and which classes the student decides to enroll in. Are they going to learn chemistry (learning to overcome resentment about having a disease, which means the disease is serving them and helping them evolve spiritually), or biology (learning about letting go of obstacles and getting strong, by overcoming the disease). Both are valid choices.

I used to follow a method called Body Mirror Healing by Martin Brofman and he once healed a woman who grew three inches in two weeeks and the colour of her eyes changed.

Quote:Do you think these guys who put telepathic pressure on others do this consciously? Or is it a more subconscious event? If they did it consciously.. They'd be very mean people.

No, I think most of them think you are a part of their reality, much like a hammer, and they just need to use the Law of Attraction to encourage this or that event. I also think that you don't find yourself in this position if you are on your correct path!

I experienced something along the lines of 'you should use the Law of attraction on this possibility, this morning. Around something I had dreamt about.

Ah, throat chakra clearing since early this morning. Ah.

Monica Wrote:The height limitation just narrowed the playing field a bit, but it also opened up other options that a tall woman might not have! So it all sort of balances out.

Like tank driver, or astronaut, or dragon tamer !!!

I have issues with the "life is a school" model.. Frankly I don't believe that timeless entities who have a higher self that knows all really have anything to learn. And if they do have anything to learn I don't see why they could not learn it by snapping the fingers. The point to life isn't learning. Learning is a means to an end. Once all is done and nothing remains to be learned. What will we do? Sit on a cloud? Basking in the fact that we've learned all even though before we learned anything we as a higher self already knew everything. Why learn?

I am still fuzzy on what causes these events of spontaneous change to occur. I've seen crazy things. I've seen eye color changes. I've seen a woman grow pronounced canines in a time span of days. I've seen an introverted man being opened up in seconds, literally his entire aura changed. It was like the room he was in changed with him.

But say for example for some reason I'd crave to be the proud owner of hair on the back of my hands. I used this as practice example. But no hair grew there. I've intended it. I attempted to expect it. I've used all the tricks of expectation that worked for me in my practices in TK, prescience, and magick in general. I even used those tricks while motivated by a very painful tooth ache. The back of my hands are still as smooth as a babies bottom..

So it's not expectation alone, neither is it visualisation alone. And I doubt my higher self would deem a bit of fur on the back of the hands a threat to it's higher self goals. Assuming offcourse that the whole "life as a school" theory is true and that I'm just in denial about that.

Perhaps I'm being to simplistic about this. But a pragmatic "unhindered by any form of intelligence" bulls charge worked for me so far. Just do it, don't think about it, rationalize later. However, in this particular case it didn't exactly produce the expected miracles.

another thing which i believe that has not been covered yet here is - that we might exist in various parallel timelines and each of us would then have a different life and probably a different pre-incarnative setting - so basically each and every one of us here is "just" a fragment of his or her Higher self - which in the end all is one, of course

so in terms of "fairness" this might be the thing that we do not take into consideration when we feel
that there are certain pre-incarnative things that seem to hinder us to get where we would love to be...?

(07-22-2009, 05:09 AM)Phoenix Wrote: [ -> ]I used to follow a method called Body Mirror Healing by Martin Brofman and he once healed a woman who grew three inches in two weeeks and the colour of her eyes changed.

Oh wow! so maybe there's hope for me!! :exclamation:

I have only skimmed through this thread a bit. It makes me curious, so say I coined the lyrics to a song called "The Hearts Woe" for the band I play drums in. The lyrics fit perfectly with the music as well, so it had to be a bit of a somber theme perhaps. I really wasn't feeling any sadness, but its mainly an observation of the heart sadness, because its not personal to me. Mainly the heart being sad for a number of reasons. Would this then attract to me a negative reaction.

In general, I am a pretty happy and positive person. I often toy around with themes of sorrow and depression, although thats not really relating to me. A few years ago, I realized you can feel good if you really want to and its a choice either way. It makes sense to me to love yourself while living, so I do pretty much that. Does the fact that I am a still positive individual, mean that I can still have negativity effect me in such a way?

Ali Quadir Wrote:I have issues with the "life is a school" model.. Frankly I don't believe that timeless entities who have a higher self that knows all really have anything to learn. And if they do have anything to learn I don't see why they could not learn it by snapping the fingers. The point to life isn't learning. Learning is a means to an end. Once all is done and nothing remains to be learned. What will we do? Sit on a cloud? Basking in the fact that we've learned all even though before we learned anything we as a higher self already knew everything. Why learn?

Perhaps this is not your path. Although I freely use the term 'learning' when I write about myself and my processes, it would be more accurate for me to use the term "experiencing". I - the whole of who I am as an individual - am not one who "knows all reality", nor have I experienced even a tiny bit of it. In the process of 'be-ing', my purpose in participating in physical incarnation/s is not singular, not just I have come here to learn; there are many reasons and purposes, not the least of which is to have direct experience of physical be-ing, the processes of physical and cyclic life. It's not something I'd experience directly if I did not come and do it myself. I could experience it, somewhat, through observation, sure, or through awareness of Oneness, but what's the fun and adventure of that?

Too, while The All is certainly All One, I don't see where that means it cannot change, transition, whatever. Being infinite does not necessarily mean being unchanging. Doesn't really even mean 'ungrowing', imo. Why limit it so?

But, again, learning/experiencing may not be your purpose in coming here. Probably isn't, since it doesn't resonate with you. I'd just encourage you to allow that it is a valid path/concern/goal for others even if it isn't for you.

AlexKwamajima Wrote:In general, I am a pretty happy and positive person. I often toy around with themes of sorrow and depression, although thats not really relating to me. A few years ago, I realized you can feel good if you really want to and its a choice either way. It makes sense to me to love yourself while living, so I do pretty much that. Does the fact that I am a still positive individual, mean that I can still have negativity effect me in such a way?

Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I don't believe there's a one-size-fits-all way of how these things work, either from the artist's perspective nor from the perspective of the consumer (listener, viewer, whatever).

As for the impact of external negativity, for me, 'feeling good' is not nearly as important as feeling balanced through all stages of emotion. (Which I aspire to but have not yet attained by any means.) Do you not ever get angry? I do. I don't like it, I don't enjoy it, but it's an honest emotion and it does serve a purpose -- it lets me know when something is off-kilter, whether that something is an external situation or just my own perception of it, and when my toes are getting stomped on, it's a pretty accurate perception that it hurts. Gotta at least move my toes out of the way or they might just get broken.

So what's wrong with feeling honest emotions? I believe it's not how I feel that's important as much as what I do with how I feel. Maintaining balance, for me, is the goal.

Just my two pennies.
plur

(07-22-2009, 12:33 PM)pluralone Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps this is not your path. Although I freely use the term 'learning' when I write about myself and my processes, it would be more accurate for me to use the term "experiencing". I - the whole of who I am as an individual - am not one who "knows all reality", nor have I experienced even a tiny bit of it. In the process of 'be-ing', my purpose in participating in physical incarnation/s is not singular, not just I have come here to learn; there are many reasons and purposes, not the least of which is to have direct experience of physical be-ing, the processes of physical and cyclic life. It's not something I'd experience directly if I did not come and do it myself.

I had that in the other more alien life too though. We have physical components and these bodies die. The difference there was that people were so interconnected. That basically your experiences survive and live on in the collective consciousness that is our true nature. Individuality is an illusion.

Quote:I could experience it, somewhat, through observation, sure, or through awareness of Oneness, but what's the fun and adventure of that?

Good of you to say this. This is exactly how I feel... The point imho is to just have fun and adventure. In whatever way you consider most resembling your highest joy and ideals. I have this physical reflex when I'm learning something truly new. When I discover something that is somehow connected. The first person to invoke that reflex in my was my father. I'd just giggle if some explanation started to come alive in me. It'd just connect and I feel joy that makes me giggle in a silly way... Whenever I feel that giggle I know I'm about to understand something cool, it's a recognition effect. It's a sense of adventure. But ultimately how could I possibly giggle if I don't know the thing before hand at some level.

It's an addictive quality... I'm not here not learning.. I love learning, I love exploring.. I'm just not here to learn.

Quote:Too, while The All is certainly All One, I don't see where that means it cannot change, transition, whatever. Being infinite does not necessarily mean being unchanging. Doesn't really even mean 'ungrowing', imo. Why limit it so?

On the other hand, why would you need change in the infinite... Isn't there enough of it to explore as it is? I'm just poking. I don't know if it is changing or unchanging. It certainly does not feel static.

Quote:But, again, learning/experiencing may not be your purpose in coming here. Probably isn't, since it doesn't resonate with you. I'd just encourage you to allow that it is a valid path/concern/goal for others even if it isn't for you.

Of course, please let me assure you that I believe it is a valid choice for everyone. I just call it a choice. I believe that is what it is. And it's at least as valid and good or maybe even better than my own choice. Like I said I personally find great joy in learning and experiencing things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it that I know about. And I recommend it to everyone. Even if learning isn't your path, just do it for fun. I just want to put in an alternative interpretation.

I just believe that as a wanderer.. My path is to be here. To be human. Including all the flaws that come with it.. If I were a saint among sinners how could I possibly experience something new? It's a kind of alchemy. By letting earth change me, I change the earth.

Thank you for your insights Plur.

Ali Quadir Wrote:Individuality is an illusion.

Only in the sense that the individuality of the shell, albumen and yolk of an egg are illusion, or in the sense that the individual physical nature of earth, ocean and sky are illusion. I don't see this as illusion, really; I believe the perception of individuality is valid, on many levels, regardless of whether there is acknowledgment or awareness of the whole. This may not resonate with you, and it's ok with me that you perceive individuality as an illusion; but 'illusion' does not define my reality. Different, equally valid perceptions.

Ali Quadir Wrote:The point imho is to just have fun and adventure. In whatever way you consider most resembling your highest joy and ideals.

Again, this may be the point for you, but it's only a small portion of the point for me. I don't think it's realistic to attempt to apply such statements to everyone, when you only know for sure that they're true for you. My highest joy and ideals encompass more than fun and adventure, and the emphasis placed on those things are much lower on my personal priorities list. Again, both valid perceptions, but not the same, and certainly neither can be applied universally.

Ali Quadir Wrote:I have this physical reflex when I'm learning something truly new. When I discover something that is somehow connected. The first person to invoke that reflex in my was my father. I'd just giggle if some explanation started to come alive in me. It'd just connect and I feel joy that makes me giggle in a silly way... Whenever I feel that giggle I know I'm about to understand something cool, it's a recognition effect. It's a sense of adventure. But ultimately how could I possibly giggle if I don't know the thing before hand at some level.

It's an addictive quality... I'm not here not learning.. I love learning, I love exploring.. I'm just not here to learn.

I too have a physical reflex under similar circumstances; I get goose bumps on my arms, sometimes also my legs, and there is a corresponding vibration in my gut. My emotional response can range from giddy to sobbing; it depends on what it is that triggered the response, not on the response itself, nor is the response always evoked by recognition; I often experience new things as my awareness awakens. They're sometimes, but not always, discoveries of things I'd never seen, known, or experienced before, and I know this because of the quality of the vibration in my gut. There's a difference.

We have some very dissimilar (but equally valid) ways of perceiving things... which is also evident in your perception of 'the point' having an addictive quality. This is simply not true for me. And I'll say again that I should have used the term "experience" instead of "learn" in terms of my purpose here. I am here (and anywhere else I might be at any given time) for the "experience" -- all of it, not just the fun, adventurous stuff. Some of the things I've experienced in this lifetime could not, by any stretch, be described with those terms. "Valuable" is a good descriptor, though.

Ali Quadir Wrote:I just want to put in an alternative interpretation.

I just believe that as a wanderer.. My path is to be here. To be human. Including all the flaws that come with it..

This is good. That's part of what makes discussion such a wonderful thing (us non-individuals who have very different POVs, hee). Where I get stuck is when things are stated as, "it's not this, it's that" in a way that semantically denies the validity of the experience and understanding of others, stating one perception of spiritual reality as true over another. Yes. It does often come down to semantics, but I'd posit that there are underlying perceptions that influence how thoughts are phrased (often in the form of an emotional sense of 'right' versus 'wrong'), and it's telling when a statement of perception (or experience, etc) semantically invalidates perceptions that differ.

And I can't tell how my tone of voice is coming across here, so I want to clarify that I'm not writing out of anger or frustration. I'm actually enjoying this exchange, and - like I said - I can't tell how it sounds outside of my head. My intent is to make some distinctions regarding the validity of differing perceptions/experiences and how they're stated (as one's own, or as applying to all). This is, to me, a distinction that goes deeper than simple semantics.

Thank you, too, Ali Q, for sharing your insights.
plur

(07-22-2009, 10:11 PM)pluralone Wrote: [ -> ]

Ali Quadir Wrote:Individuality is an illusion.

Only in the sense that the individuality of the shell, albumen and yolk of an egg are illusion, or in the sense that the individual physical nature of earth, ocean and sky are illusion. I don't see this as illusion, really; I believe the perception of individuality is valid, on many levels, regardless of whether there is acknowledgment or awareness of the whole. This may not resonate with you, and it's ok with me that you perceive individuality as an illusion; but 'illusion' does not define my reality. Different, equally valid perceptions.

I'm not calling your experience illusion. I would not dare I only called individuality an illusion. It is true like you say that there is a thing we can point at that we can call an individual. But it's not true that this individual is so separated from others that it would be able to exist truly isolated from those others.

The shell of the egg is after all defined by the egg. If it weren't it would not be able to surround the egg as well as it does.

Quote:

Ali Quadir Wrote:The point imho is to just have fun and adventure. In whatever way you consider most resembling your highest joy and ideals.

Again, this may be the point for you, but it's only a small portion of the point for me. I don't think it's realistic to attempt to apply such statements to everyone, when you only know for sure that they're true for you. My highest joy and ideals encompass more than fun and adventure, and the emphasis placed on those things are much lower on my personal priorities list. Again, both valid perceptions, but not the same, and certainly neither can be applied universally.

I thought I made a pretty "catch all" statement here..

What do you think your highest joy and ideals encompass that does not fall under the category of fun and adventure?

Quote:We have some very dissimilar (but equally valid) ways of perceiving things... which is also evident in your perception of 'the point' having an addictive quality. This is simply not true for me. And I'll say again that I should have used the term "experience" instead of "learn" in terms of my purpose here. I am here (and anywhere else I might be at any given time) for the "experience" -- all of it, not just the fun, adventurous stuff. Some of the things I've experienced in this lifetime could not, by any stretch, be described with those terms. "Valuable" is a good descriptor, though.

Do you wish for these experiences? Or would you wish to avoid them?

I'm asking because if they're desired, then perhaps there's more joy in them than at first sight is to be expected. Maybe not in the moment of the experience, but certainly afterwards.

I live on this planet too. I know "good" and "bad" experiences too. If you go on vacation you'll end up with sunburn, jellyfish bites and blisters... Is that a reason not to go?

I've been rejected and picked on as a child. I've been beaten. I've lost loved ones. I've had my heart broken. And I've made mistakes that hurt both me and my loved ones. All in all it wasn't too bad. And I'd do my life again even if it means experiencing the same things again.

If it gets bad we might lose morale and call our experiences bad and equate them to suffering.. But when you're suffering in my opinion you fell for the trap of believing you're this thing that suffers as opposed to the totality in which there is suffering.

Quote:

Ali Quadir Wrote:I just want to put in an alternative interpretation.

I just believe that as a wanderer.. My path is to be here. To be human. Including all the flaws that come with it..

This is good. That's part of what makes discussion such a wonderful thing (us non-individuals who have very different POVs, hee). Where I get stuck is when things are stated as, "it's not this, it's that" in a way that semantically denies the validity of the experience and understanding of others, stating one perception of spiritual reality as true over another. Yes. It does often come down to semantics, but I'd posit that there are underlying perceptions that influence how thoughts are phrased (often in the form of an emotional sense of 'right' versus 'wrong'), and it's telling when a statement of perception (or experience, etc) semantically invalidates perceptions that differ.

I agree to a certain level. We're all entitled to our opinion and our own interpretation of experience... However, I don't think we allowed to invent facts. I'm not saying you do this. I'm just saying that the liberty to believe whatever you want to believe free from other peoples opinion does not extend into objective measurable reality.

There are people who believe for example that all muslims are extremists. There are people who believe all religion is inherently violent. There are people who believe that dark skinned people are lazy. There are people who believe that the moon landings never happened. They're wrong. No matter what their subjective experience says. They're wrong.

I have no difficulty stating that people are wrong and giving the reasoning behind why this is. I would hope others would do the same for me. There was a time I believed like many these days do that spirituality is somehow above natural law... However it's not, it's part of it. Meaning that spiritual claims that contradict natural law are unmasked every day and the believers in such claims are ridiculed and proven wrong.

This is not to say that spiritual beliefs that are not provable by science are wrong. I mean to say that spiritual beliefs that are contradicted by reality could very well be wrong no matter how noble or resonant they feel.

Quote:And I can't tell how my tone of voice is coming across here, so I want to clarify that I'm not writing out of anger or frustration. I'm actually enjoying this exchange, and - like I said - I can't tell how it sounds outside of my head. My intent is to make some distinctions regarding the validity of differing perceptions/experiences and how they're stated (as one's own, or as applying to all). This is, to me, a distinction that goes deeper than simple semantics.

I have felt absolutely no ill will from you. You have your own opinion. And that's perfectly right. Likely if we explore opinions a bit further we'll figure out that we're not that different, we just started our reasoning from a different vantage point.

Please understand that the same goes for me. I can be direct in saying what I believe. But even if I state that something is exactly how I say it is. It's just a short step for you to add "But that's what he believes", do not hesitate to do so. I do that all the time. I'm not perfect. I don't intend or pretend to be. I would appreciate it if everyone would just pick from my words what they like and ignore or explain what they don't like. Lets not get defensive about it. It's perfectly all right to disagree with Ali.. My best friends do this all the time.

My narcissism is strong enough not to be bothered by that

Quote:I can be direct in saying what I believe. But even if I state that something is exactly how I say it is. It's just a short step for you to add "But that's what he believes", do not hesitate to do so.

No. I am not going to put words you did not say into your mouth (I am not a mind reader). It's become clear to me that I simply don't belong in forums. I don't enjoy when others define spiritual reality in absolute terms; I find it disrespectful and often arrogant. It's not up to others to change, so I will.

*deleting Bring4th from bookmarks* If the mods here would like to delete my account, please do so.
plur

(07-27-2009, 09:35 AM)pluralone Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I can be direct in saying what I believe. But even if I state that something is exactly how I say it is. It's just a short step for you to add "But that's what he believes", do not hesitate to do so.

No. I am not going to put words you did not say into your mouth (I am not a mind reader). It's become clear to me that I simply don't belong in forums. I don't enjoy when others define spiritual reality in absolute terms; I find it disrespectful and often arrogant. It's not up to others to change, so I will.

*deleting Bring4th from bookmarks* If the mods here would like to delete my account, please do so.

I'm sorry you take it like this. My opinion is my opinion. I don't need to say it's my opinion for you to be clear about it being my opinion you can just take it as a given, not for my sake... For your own. If you feel the opinion of one person is enough to leave a forum over then that's your choice. Agreeing to disagree is another choice, it would be my personal preference.

I am not defining spirituality in absolute terms. I am defining reality in absolute terms. It is true that reality and spirituality overlap. But "what physically happens" and what you "spiritually experience" are two entirely different things. When we speak about these things we speak about our opinions on these things. We don't initially agree since sometimes the same feelings and understandings are described in different terms and sometimes we have different feelings and understandings. But we converge over time and come to a clear understanding of each other and our own position through learning.

I'm sorry if I offended you that was not my intent. However, just like I gave you my opinion, you gave me yours.

Peace, brothers!

I've been on-and-off following this thread and it seemed respectful, so I'm not sure what happened.

Pluralone, I'm sad to see you go! I've been enjoying your comments! There are many various opinions expressed here. What I think is really awesome is that we usually manage to disagree respectfully!

We welcome your participation, if you change your mind.

(07-28-2009, 04:07 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]I am not defining spirituality in absolute terms. I am defining reality in absolute terms. It is true that reality and spirituality overlap. But "what physically happens" and what you "spiritually experience" are two entirely different things.

I see valid points both ways. I agree that there's a difference between subjective reality and objective reality. But I suspect that the difference might not be quite as pronounced as we might think, especially since we live in a holographic UniVerse!

The way I understand it, what we consider 'objective reality' is essentially held together by consensus, maybe not consciously, but from the perspective of our Higher Selves. We have a consensual acceptance of basic physical phenomena like gravity, the roundness of our planet, etc. Consensual reality exists, whether each individual person consciously believes it or not. Case in point: When people who were tripping on LSD thought they could fly, they still fell to their deaths.

However, I don't think your example of the Moon landing is an appropriate illustration of consensual reality, because it isn't something that is irrefutably proven and tangible for all to see. Gravity can be tangibly demonstrated, but whether OTHER people did something (go to the Moon) may or may not be tangibly demonstrated. In this case, it's not irrefutable at all. There is much controversy.

Controversial topics like the Moon landing, 911, when the soul enters the body, who shot JFK, etc. are controversial precisely because they aren't irrefutable one way or the other. For each body of evidence pointing to one conclusion, there is another body of evidence pointing in the other direction. Hence, the debate continues!

Therefore, I think it's inaccurate to say "Those who believe XYZ are simply wrong" because, if XYZ is something controversial, it is merely an opinion that they are wrong.

It's true that the Moon landing either did or didn't happen. What actually happened is tangible. But, until we have conclusive evidence for it one way or the other, our knowledge of it is still quite subjective.

Belief in a round Earth has shifted from being subjective to irrefutable fact. But the Moon landing and other controversial topics aren't there yet. There's still much room for debate on those issues. An individual might think it's all settled, but until it's tangibly demonstrated for all to see, it's still inconclusive and therefore not yet a part of collective consensus.

(imho)

I'm not happy that people feel I am arrogant or disrespectful I don't want to be that person. I especially don't want to be arrogant and act aloof now because I value your opinion Plur. I have a high opinion of myself, that's true. But I think I valued your opinion a bit more than I was able to communicate to you.

I apologize, not for wrong intent. But for not seeing that I negatively affected you. Whether I am right or wrong.. That is the part I am to blame for. I want to respect myself while respecting others. If I am perceived as arrogant I would like to change that. If I cannot do that without letting go of what I hold dear it's better I go than ruin the experience for others.

On the rest I'm also not sure what happened. I'd state that I was not defining spiritual experience in absolute terms. I think I was agreeing most of the times adding my opinions but at some point that turned into opposing positions. When I said you have to follow your highest joys and ideals. I meant "do what you came to do", not, "forget what you came to do, do my stuff instead". I was, maybe naively, assuming that this would be part of your joys and ideals. Even if it doesn't seem that way that can still be true can't it? You seemed to state that you follow your ideals and I just wanted to agree on this because it's the right thing to do in my humble opinion.

Monica, I won't go into the moonlanding other than state that I must respectfully disagree with you that there is a case for the hoax theory. Their arguments as far as I can see are mostly debunked. The moonrocks are among the most studied objects on this planet. And since recently I believe we even have satellite photo's of the landing site. This is just the tip of the iceberg though for a potentially enormous topic. If you want to pursue this deeper maybe we should open a separate topic, but it might be wiser to just let it go. Reasonable as you seem to think I am I am also pretty confident on this I've studied both sides of the argument in the past. And if it's a potential point of conflict we might be better of beginning by agreeing to disagree. And finishing off with a beer.

Sleep well everyone.

(07-28-2009, 07:40 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]Monica, I won't go into the moonlanding other than state that I must respectfully disagree with you that there is a case for the hoax theory. Their arguments as far as I can see are mostly debunked.

I definitely do not want to get sidetracked on the moon issue! I don't even care about it, personally. Nor do I have a strong opinion about it. (I agree; if someone wants to discuss that, please make it a separate thread in Olio, ok?) And, I don't see how it has much relevance here on our Law of One forum, at all.

I used that only as an example, since you brought it up, as something that has arguments on both sides of the debate, so is, therefore, not a tangibly, irrefutably proven piece of consensual reality. You might not think there is a valid opposing point of view, but others do, and they are entitled to their pov just as much as you are. If it were neatly settled, it wouldn't be considered a controversy!

I hope I'm conveying my point here. I don't wish to explore that controversy. But the very fact that we could continue to debate it, that it is still a controversy among others (even though it may be settled in your mind), shows that it's not part of tangibly-proven consensual reality, or in the same league as, say, gravity or a round Earth!

(07-28-2009, 09:28 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]I hope I'm conveying my point here. I don't wish to explore that controversy. But the very fact that we could continue to debate it, that it is still a controversy among others (even though it may be settled in your mind), shows that it's not part of tangibly-proven consensual reality, or in the same league as, say, gravity or a round Earth!

The kind folks from the flat earth society would argue with you that the earth is indeed round... But like a pancake. So basically that too is a controversy and therefore debatable. There's also thousands of people who want to misguide others as soon as some believe them and some don't then this is a controversy, therefore debatable.

I mean to say that what one person considers tangibly proven another person considers hoax. We need a more objective standard of measuring the difference.

To me every argument is an argument. Either factual evidence or solid reasoning supports it or denies it. What people do with this is their choice. But I give it in spite of what they want to hear.

In my opinion, if you believe something that's fine. I know and respect various werewolves, vampires, a first world kid soldier, witches, wizards people who talk to their dead grandmother and what not. I even know people from other planets. I have no arguments that prove they're wrong. There is clearly some reason for them to believe this even if I don't understand it. So I choose to accept it for what it is.

If you don't want to listen to counter arguments as a rule you're essentially choosing to selectively deny verifiable facts and enter the domain where you base your life choices on personal preference rather than reality.

Selectively interpreting data does not make anyone right and is the primary cause for human engineered disasters literally people get killed because of selectively interpreted data.

You can consider this an ego thing of mine. "I want to be right and prove as many people as I can wrong." It's anyone's right to think that of me. And I admit to having an ego the size of a planet. I'd prefer to believe that if I accept someone's belief in a clearly wrong world view without telling them the counter arguments or suggesting alternatives. I'll be partly responsible when they make life choices based on the wrong information. I have seen people get hurt before. A belief is harmless until it causes severe psychological or physical distress to self or others.

"Homosexuality is a sin" is just an opinion, "Blacks are lazy" is just an opinion, "God wants me to kill non believers" is just an opinion. These beliefs are extreme examples of when it is obviously important to not accept opinions. Most cases don't matter much. Like the various other kin I know.

As a religious new age believer I went into skeptical forums on numerous occasions to try and figure out what of my beliefs is true and what is false. I will never use the explicit language they used to describe me. I've been used as a chew toy ridiculed virtually spat on and treated as the local idiot by all but the most polite. And I had to scratch a lot of my beliefs because of good arguments given to show me wrong (usually by the most polite). But the things I do continue to believe in have now been tried and tested. It's not just because someone told me or it felt good. I can supply you with the philosophical and scientific basis for my claims and defend against the most likely objections.

This is obviously not because the skeptics are the only true visionaries of the universe who know everything and agreed with me on some things. (Even if they sometimes like to believe this) But because they're ideally motivated and usually trained to shoot holes in my story. If they can show my story to be wrong, they get the ego boost, but I have learned the weakness in my theory. But if they can't then my story is more likely to be correct, I can successfully defend it philosophically and scientifically against the most critical opinions. I have on average learned more from critics than from fellow believers.

In the end we must follow our heart and our experience. But we must judge the thoughts we think reflect our heart and experience through the filter of a discerning mind. Often enough the heart is not saying what we think it's saying. It's just saying something we interpret as such.

Discernment is vital. Without it you're lost and easy prey to those who wish to manipulate you for your money your allegiance or their own power trips.

(07-29-2009, 08:28 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]The kind folks from the flat earth society would argue with you that the earth is indeed round... But like a pancake. So basically that too is a controversy and therefore debatable.

True. But the evidence for a round Earth (pictures from space, other celestial bodies are round, etc.) is so overwhelming that it's difficult to take their argument seriously.

Look at what I just said. That was subjective. I think that their claims are laughable, and it so happens I'm in the majority on the round Earth issue.

But regarding other controversies, I might be in the minority, because the mainstream does not yet accept the evidence. But that will change as the evidence gains exposure.

There is an obvious example that I'd rather not mention, as it would surely get this thread sidetracked. Suffice to say that sometimes there is forensic evidence that is irrefutable once observed, but the challenge is getting people to actually look at it! Even the most irrefutable evidence is worthless if no one see it.

Hence, something might be obvious to you or me, but not obvious at all to someone who has not looked at the evidence. Or, they might not understand the evidence. Or, the evidence might be tainted ("figures don't lie but liars can figure"). An excellent example is the issue of vaccinations. The drug companies routinely show graphs showing a sharp decline in the disease when the vaccine is introduced. This appears to be irrefutable evidence. However, I have seen the original graphs and the decline was already occurring before the vaccine was introduced. They just chose to highlight a small segment of the graph!...giving the illusion of what they wanted it to convey. Trickery.

If all evidence were obvious and irrefutable, then we wouldn't have hung juries or juries letting murderers go free because they didn't understand what the DNA tests meant. With evidence must be interpretation and understanding of that evidence.

The problem is that some people think they already understand the evidence, but they really don't. Who is to say? I can think of many controversies (the most obvious one is that-which-must-not-be-named, haha) in which there appear to be reputable experts on both sides of the debate. So, the bottom line is that, except for very simple issues like gravity (since it can be demonstrated anytime, anywhere), pretty much all controversies are debatable. That's why they're controversies! You might think the subject is settled, and maybe it is, to your satisfaction, but I might disagree. And, if I showed you enough new info, you just might change your mind! (If your mind were open enough to be willing to look at the new info, that is. NOT referring to you personally, Ali - just speaking in generalities here.)

(07-29-2009, 08:28 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]I mean to say that what one person considers tangibly proven another person considers hoax. We need a more objective standard of measuring the difference.

Exactly. But I don't think we will ever have a 'more objective standard of measuring the difference' at least not in 3D, because, remember, 3D is designed to accommodate everyone's free will. That's why our cosmic friends can't land en masse on the white house lawn. It would violate the free will of those who choose not to believe in aliens. Look at crop circles. Stunning proof of some anomalies energies. And yet, there are still those (actually the majority) who still choose to bury their heads in the sand. It won't matter what sort of standards we come up with. There will still be those who won't accept it. Just like the flat Earth people. And they have that right.

(07-29-2009, 08:28 AM)Ali Quadir Wrote: [ -> ]To me every argument is an argument. Either factual evidence or solid reasoning supports it or denies it. What people do with this is their choice. But I give it in spite of what they want to hear.

Ah, but what you're not considering (if I may respectfully offer this) is that not everyone agrees with what constitutes 'factual evidence/solid reasoning!'

I'm new to the group and rather than try to sort out all the posts, I will just throw out my two cents worth regarding the Law of Attraction and the LOO.

I have been formally trained in the Law of Attraction by New Thought churches. I was initially trained in Religious Science and then moved to Unity where I served as a chaplain. The techniques involved affirmations and denials, and they can be quite effective when put to the right use. However, much of what I have seen is not proper use. I would put it right up there with making millions from real estate with no money down.

Many proponents of New Thought and the New Age would insist that deasease and other hardships are not real. The key is to deny that which you do not want or affirm that wich you want to attract. Unfortunately, the emphasis is on words or thoughts. We were trained to say the right things in the right manner. If whatever was desired did not manifest, the failure was in the words or the visualization.

What I like about the Law of One is the concept of catalysts. I do not believe our difficulties are the result of wrong thinking. We encounter difficulties in order to foster growth. I used to joke with friends that my destiny must be to learn forgiveness because I have so many opportunities! Although I said it with sarcasm, I now realize it is true. The key is to see everyone as our other-selves and learn to accept what happens without judgement. I found it especially enlightening when Ra described karma as inertia, and what has been put in motion can only be stopped by forgiving yourself and others.

I believe the real key to the Law of Attraction is our core beliefs. You can affirm 500 times per day that you will win the lottery, but if your core belief is that you lack everything you need, you will manifest a life of lack.To focus so much energy on winning the lottery might actually reinforce your core belief that you lack all that you need. Where I have found affirmation and denials to be most effective is in using them to help change your negative beliefs OR to reinforce positive beliefs. The "secret" of attraction is that you attract what you believe at your core level.

Edgar Cayce recommended that we meditate on a personal ideal. My ideal is oneness. I now use affirmations and denials to reinforce my belief in oneness until that truly becomes my core belief. At that time, my actions will be in harmony with the Law of One. At this time, I can still get pretty miffed at people!

It's past my bedtime, so I will have to add another post later to share my experience of when I actually tried to manifest a career in music.

(08-19-2009, 11:49 PM)godexpressing Wrote: [ -> ]I'm new to the group and rather than try to sort out all the posts, I will just throw out my two cents worth regarding the Law of Attraction and the LOO.

Welcome to Bring4th! Wow, what an amazingly astute and profound discourse! I hadn't quite formulated in my mind exactly why I had problems with the Law of Attraction, but you have articulated exactly what I had not. Wonderfully said!

I know a minister who is also a health practitioner, who teaches Christian Science principles. Her patients are taught to deny their illnessess...to not believe the 'lie' but to affirm the 'truth.'

I can see the usefulness of such techniques to reset the blueprint, much as a shaman or psychic healer would, but only after the catalyst has been utilized, at which time it doesn't really matter how the physical manifestation of unresolved catalyst is neutralized, right? But to insist on denying the manifestation of the catalyst, with no regard to the catalyst itself, seems to me to be counterproductive and maybe even STS-oriented, due to its controlling nature. Control is a key word for STS, whereas acceptance is for STO. That's not to say that we must accept negative stuff like illness, but by accepting the catalyst, we are able to utilize it, and thus transcend it, thus eliminating the need for the physical manifestation.

The way you describe your utilization of the Law of Attraction makes sense, because you seem to be taking the catalyst into consideration, and flowing with the Law of Attraction with it in mind, rather than forcing it.

Here is a story of manifestation using the Law of Attraction:

During 1999, I wrote an affirmation that I would have a career that would allow me to travel around the world. At that time, I had never been out of the USA except for a trip to Mexico and a couple to Canada. I tried it for a few but eventually gave up when nothing materialized.

During 2000, I began affirming a career in music. I wanted to work full-time as a songwriter and performer (I play bass, guitar and keyboards in church and night club bands). I was working as a manager at a manufacturing company, but my real passion was music. No job offers arrived other than to play in the church band part-time for minimum wage. Then it occurred to me that I didn't need somebody to offer employment. If I wanted to write and perform music, I could start that immediately. So I left my job and retreated to my basement studio and began writing and recording music.

I had an amazing year and the following things happened:
I wrote and published a collection of worship songs for New Thought churches
I produced and recorded a CD of original blues-rock music with my band
I performed on stage with a drummer who had played at Woodstock
My band played at an arena as the opening act for Blue Oyster Cult
I was on a flight from San Francisco to St. Louis and sat next to the founder of Pablo Cruise. We talked music the entire flight and swapped each others CD's when we got off the plane.
My band played another arena gig as opening act for Mark Farner of Grand Funk Railroad.

All of this happened during the 2001-2002 period. It was an incredible year with many magical experiences that exceeded anything I had experienced during my previous 20 years as a musician. The only thing not magical was the income. My income barely offset my expenses. I also noticed the successful musicans I had met lived quite modestly as they were no longer on the Billboard charts. Regardless of my training, the term "starving artist" was coined for a good reason. It was time to go back to work in manufacturring and enjoy playing music without having the financial pressures.

Before I knew it, I had an interesting job offer. A small company imported overseas automotive parts and sold them to General Motors. They needed an engineer would was willing to make trips overseas, escort customers and handle supplier issues. I would spend the next five years traveling around the world and being paid for it. My original affirmation finally materialized!