Law of Attraction: Superior Woo

[JoeTheJuggler]

StarSeed, do you believe that victims of heinous crimes generally attract what happened to them?

Also, what about poverty? Surely financial success is one thing this stuff promises. If it were true, wouldn't we want to make it available to the most destitute rather than reserving it for the relatively wealthy already?

Just think, we could forget about tax codes, economic stimulus plans, job training, and so on, and just give people a fake check made out to themselves for a million dollars. They could hang it on the concrete under the bridge where they sleep.

 

[Terry]

Surely you can see the problem with your status-quo perspective. "We don't need any of your outlandish ideas, sir. Kindly crawl back to your hole, for the universe that we understand now is the only universe there is!"

That's not what we say. We know for sure that we don't already know everything about the universe. What we ask is some evidence for any given outlandish idea, rather than just "hey man, I had this really neat idea last night".

 

[StarSeed]

This might be of interest: http://www.intentionexperiment.com/

The so-called LOA has been around a long time - the church of religious science is built around such concepts, which is where Louise Hay learned it. Learning to be more positive, optimistic and to stop criticizing yourself is all good and can have amazing results. I take issue with this because it is potentially guilt inducing when it fails to work, and because people like my mother in law use it to justify continuing to smoke.

Regarding the guilt trip: Abraham has addressed this 'backlash' effect, and I have had experience with it as well. A few things can cause it.

* Trying to move too quickly, such as being in the midst of a critical health condition and deciding to just 'do whatever the heck I want and be happy about it'. Moving too quickly with LOA is like trying to climb 6 steps at a time on a ladder. You might make the first try, by some miracle, but on the next 6 steps, you're probably going to break your neck.

* Lying to yourself and forcing positive emotions that aren't really positive. LOA methods do not, in any way, advocate lying to oneself. It is just the opposite. It is about gradually, and safely building a solid foundation for your emotions, and then when you're ready, you take the next step, and like a staircase, you work your way to the top, but if you happen to stutter a bit when taking a step, you can simply step back down to the next lower foundation that you are familiar with, and which is very solid and comfortable.

* Using improper methods or having an inaccurate understanding of LOA. Some examples of misconceptions have already been posted by some here. One example, that wishing for something, or having a fantasy, will bring it to you, but it is more complicated than that.

And to counter the example of your relative, an old friend of mine, after sending him some Ramtha dvd's, quit smoking! He smoked 2 packs a day for 20 years! Of course, that doesn't prove that LOA works, but it was motivation enough to get the job done.

I have no issue with the idea that our minds can affect our own physical bodies to some extent. It's the "magical universe" theory that's the wild card. A friend gave me a series of CDs from an Abraham lecture and one of the audience members basically asks, "How can I get rich without leaving my home? I don't want to have to actually work or do anything! You guys say this stuff works no matter what." That's what a lot of people are getting out of The Secret and Abraham teachings, that we can all just sit around and send out feel good energy and all good things will be magnetized to us effortlessly. Silly.

Well, I disagree of course, although it did sound silly to me at first, and it still feels a little silly, but that feeling is fading.

In fact, over the last year, I have grown somewhat comfortable with the idea that the universe is actually a normal, peaceful, happy place, but that on some planets, if a soul chooses, they can come down and go psycho for awhile.

Honestly, in my mind, silliness, wackyness, craziness, and all of the delusions and diseases of the mind are quite well represented in the weapons of war and mass destruction that we create, our mentality that killing a million of the other guy is righteous if it saves one of ours, destruction of the environment, absolute self righteous, arrogant and godlike political views, cultural nonsense including torture and killing, the drug war and its' hypocritical counterpart, legalized pharma-dope, and on and on and on.

How many esteemed leaders, educators, philosophers, ect, have I listened to who have justified, in one way or another, every hell we have created on this planet.

I'm no longer interested in 'justifying the madness'. I can't accept the madness as the end all be all anymore, so that is a major driving factor in my quest to find a better answer, and I do take hell for it from the skeptics. Afterall, if you can't handle the 1001 homicidal and suicidal ideals of the elite and the 'educated', then there must be something wrong with you!

 

[Mr. Scott]

LOA sounds suspiciously like praying, and "the Universe" (Mr. Universe?) suspiciously like a god. Simply put, it's magical thinking I thought most adults would have seen through by now.

M.

Yes. Here's the psychology:

When we hear about praying to a god, or wishing to the universe, and are assured it actually brings good things to us, we are tapping into memories from our infancy. When we were too young to speak or have any self-awareness, and we had a need like hunger, we acted in ways we didn't know we were acting, and our mothers responded to our signs by meeting our needs, be it feeding us from the breast or bottle, changing our diapers, or amusing us with toys. Thus, a baby learns that all he/she needs to do is wish and the wish will be granted.

We carry to adulthood memory traces of these experiences. So, when we see Rhonda Burn's silly video or learn to pray, we have a deep sense of "yes, this feels right," because it reminds us of when our mommy/god/genie granted our every wish.

But, feelings can't be trusted. People "felt" that heavy objects fell faster than light objects. Then Galileo tested it. The feeling was wrong. Science won. We could list a thousand other examples. It happens to be one of science's most important functions -- to determine which "feelings" (woo) are true and which are false.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I'm no longer interested in 'justifying the madness'. I can't accept the madness as the end all be all anymore, so that is a major driving factor in my quest to find a better answer, and I do take hell for it from the skeptics. Afterall, if you can't handle the 1001 homicidal and suicidal ideals of the elite and the 'educated', then there must be something wrong with you!

Would you mind using the LoA to help you stay on topic?

 

[StarSeed]

If you refer back to my post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3416500#post3416500
you'll see that the so called Law of Attraction is not new and has been tested. People believed in Émile Coué's Self-mastery through Conscious Autosuggestion. Hundreds of thousands tried it. They found that wishing does not work. If it had, people would being paying great homage to Coué today. They don't because the Universe does not work that way.

Yes, I responded to this or similar earlier. I will take some time this week to dig into some of these links, as I am genuinely curious, and I'd like to see what methods they used.

But it is important to note, especially from the skeptic's corner, which has a tendency to ignore the details in favor of mocking the overall silliness factor of the idea, that just because the general idea is the same, does not mean at all that the methods and understanding of the law are the same.

Without having dug into this stuff yet, it could very well be that their understanding of LOA was very different, and their methods flawed and prone to backlash.

Another thing that is important to note: It is human nature to do the unthinkable; to reject good ideas that can be proven in practice, simply because they are lazy, fearful of one or more things, or just habitually stuck in a rut.

Hundreds of millions of us in the western world choose bad ideas over good ones every day, as a matter of habbit, fear, laziness, politics, peer pressure, ect, ect.

The fact is, proof just isn't all it's cracked up to be in the general public. The masses flow like a river, generally ignoring things that don't drop on top of them like a fallen tree in the river. It's our nature.

Not to get off topic here, but as another example conspiracy theories don't generally fail because they are unfounded, but because the people, including the experts, have hard and fast preconceived beliefs about what is possible in the civilized world.

If one believes that the government is incapable of a grand conspiracy, then all of the rock hard evidence in the world isn't worth anymore than a $2 doorstop.

(my bolding) I'm sorry, Starseed, but your "the universe can" comments are, quite simply, hilarious.

It seems to me that mention of the million-dollar challenge goes right to the point. I can remember various tests set up for this in which the applicant failed miserably even though they came into the testing with great confidence in their abilities. Read up on , say, the test where an applicant believed she could make a random subject urinate at will. Truly believed.

A common thread of these failed applicants is the bewilderment they express after they realize that they have failed. They are dead certain that they can do whatever it is they are setting out to do, and have all kinds of incentives (a million of them) to succeed. Yet. They. Never. Do. Succeed.

Using a scenario like this it is easy to prove that your "secret" is hogwash. Simply set up a situation where a "Master" is given overwhelming incentive (say, wealth) to convince the "universe" to perform a certain task. Like, say, making a willing subject urinate. Then watch the bitterness, confusion and equivocation when the "Master" fails to produce the desired result.

It sounds like someone played a practical joke on her and she bought into it, believing that she could actually do it. Furthermore, I would question the emotional and mental state of someone who would opt to perform that type of demonstration. You do have to have your marbles relatively straight to be successful with LOA, especially in a high pressure situation like the MDC.

As far as making something happen to random subjects, LOA presents a problem in that this would be a cocreation situation, and the 'psychic's' positive power could be offset by the reciever's beliefs.

A far better test, as I understand LOA, would be working with inanimate objects, and with monitors who are not heavily biased against 'wild possibilities'.

 

[Mr. Scott]

You do have to have your marbles relatively straight to be successful with LOA

Gosh, after working with the LoA for nine months, you don't seem very successful, do you?

 

[StarSeed]

Starseed, here's a quick and easy test - think positively for as long as you can that one of us here who have responded to your post will see the light and come around to your way of thinking. The simple fact of your OP proves that this is something you desire.

OK, Ready? Begin.

I came into the forum knowing that it is full of diehard skeptics; knowing and believing that I won't convince any of you. That powerful belief would conflict with the desire to actually convert one of you.

What science creates is tools. These tools are then used by us in constructive or destructive ways. I'd guess that for every person killed by a nuclear bomb, 10,000 have been cured by nuclear medicine. The point is that the tools science creates actually work. LOA doesn't work. That's the difference. That's why Science has yielded destructive tools -- because it works. LOA hasn't because, of course, it doesn't work. See the difference?

1) Science doesn't just create the base path. It carries it out to every conceivable end, hence the atom bomb, bio weapons, ect, as well as the positive half.

2) LOA has not been disproven. It has been labeled 'silly'.

 

[Furcifer]

LOA sounds suspiciously like praying, and "the Universe" (Mr. Universe?) suspiciously like a god. Simply put, it's magical thinking I thought most adults would have seen through by now.

M.

I thought this as well at first. The only little difference I noted was that this LOA seems to put the, for lack of a better term, "power" into your own hands. There's something to be said for the power of positive thinking. So if it puts someone into a positive mood, thereby making them a more pleasant person to deal with in a public setting I'm all for it. At least for adults, I'm not sure if this is appropriate for children to be learning, as they could get confused into believing that wishing for something like good grades is better than say studying for it.

 

[StarSeed]

Why didn't you use your all-powerful LoA to keep your battery running? Hmmm?

Gosh, after working with the LoA for nine months, you don't seem very successful, do you?

Tell you what; I'll try to do better at staying on topic, if you will kindly return the favor and refrain from the snide sarcasm.

 

[StarSeed]

StarSeed, do you believe that victims of heinous crimes generally attract what happened to them?

Yes, attract it unwittingly, but certainly not desire it. LOA states that this is an attraction based universe, and that like attracts like.

The 'likeness' comes about in the form of thoughts and focus of thought. For example, someone who is focused on committing murder would be attracted to someone who is constantly focused on being a potential victim of murder.

Also, what about poverty? Surely financial success is one thing this stuff promises. If it were true, wouldn't we want to make it available to the most destitute rather than reserving it for the relatively wealthy already?

Yes, I agree that is should be available to all, and it essentially is. The physical materials have a price tag of course; my first book was about $12. Libraries have some of this stuff, and of course you can probably nab it on p2p per your own judgement, or borrow it from a friend or local book club, ect.

Just think, we could forget about tax codes, economic stimulus plans, job training, and so on, and just give people a fake check made out to themselves for a million dollars. They could hang it on the concrete under the bridge where they sleep.

Ah yes, the sarcasm is coming in thicker now. Well, since you are talking about those specific people, the irony in your statement, even from a skeptical perspective, is that the hopes and dreams generated from a fake check are a heck of a lot better than the big-fat-nothing they're getting from the establishment at the moment.

 

[Moochie]

I thought this as well at first. The only little difference I noted was that this LOA seems to put the, for lack of a better term, "power" into your own hands. There's something to be said for the power of positive thinking. So if it puts someone into a positive mood, thereby making them a more pleasant person to deal with in a public setting I'm all for it. At least for adults, I'm not sure if this is appropriate for children to be learning, as they could get confused into believing that wishing for something like good grades is better than say studying for it.

Yeah, if it were merely the power of positive thinking I doubt I'd have any problem with it. But LOA purports to be so much more than that, and strays deep into woo territory.

Here in Australia, last year, a guy deliberately drove his car containing his three very young children into a small lake in a fit of rage against his ex-wife. He managed to save himself and allowed the kids to drown.

To say those children "attracted" their fate beggars belief.

LOA is pure bunkum, bunkum that works powerfully well for those miscreants that put it together, because there's no shortage of fools on the planet -- a fact which most of us here are painfully aware of.

M.

 

[StarSeed]

That's not what we say. We know for sure that we don't already know everything about the universe. What we ask is some evidence for any given outlandish idea, rather than just "hey man, I had this really neat idea last night".

Well, I'd love to see evidence too, but the followers of LOA are not scientists, so we're really not in the best position to do that kind of work. I'd love to see some real science done in this area. I suppose quantum physics is breaking into it, but we need to tackle it from the 'mover and shaker' end of things too.

I thought this as well at first. The only little difference I noted was that this LOA seems to put the, for lack of a better term, "power" into your own hands.

Yes. The idea is that we are all born equally from the universe, and that we all have equal access to the power of the universe, as opposed to praying to a specific god from a position of powerlessness.

 

[El Greco]

The psychic guess test (i.e., beating the odds to a point of extreme statistical improbabilitiy) is a starting point. Would that not peak anyone's interest here? If you've got 10 containers, and I guess the correct one 100 times in a row, would you not at least say that that was on the outter edge of random chance? Would it not intice you to conduct an experiment with an even more statistically unlikely outcome?

Yes, that would be good enough. As a matter of fact I can keep uploading 10 password protected files each time, of which only one would be containing the word "Yes". The other nine would be containing other words. If you can guess the "Yes" file not 100, but 10 times in a row, I'd believe you are on to something big. Can you do that ?

 

[yairhol]

At this point, LOA has not been scientifically proven one way or the other. I know that the idea sounds ludicrous, but that doesn't make it false anymore than true.

Let me rephrase your sentences here:

At this point, F.S.M. (Flying Spaghetti Monster) has not been scientifically proven one way or the other. I know that the idea sounds ludicrous, but that doesn't make it false anymore than true.

Can I rephrase again?

At this point, Mille-Cent-et-Onze a.k.a. (1111 angles) has not been scientifically proven one way or the other. I know that the idea sounds ludicrous, but that doesn't make it false anymore than true.

Do you understand my point?
What makes your claim anymore true than these and others?

 

[lauras]

Is LOA like cosmic ordering???? I have a friend that is always going on about that and i was just wondering if they have any connections??

 

[Jimbo07]

I suppose quantum physics is breaking into it, but we need to tackle it from the 'mover and shaker' end of things too.

Please don't abuse quantum physics in this manner...

 

[El Greco]

t this point, Mille-Cent-et-Onze a.k.a. (1111 angles) has not been scientifically proven one way or the other.

Wow! I had never heard of that one before. Unfortunately I also visited their forums... Damn, we're still in the middle ages!

 

[Furcifer]

Yeah, if it were merely the power of positive thinking I doubt I'd have any problem with it. But LOA purports to be so much more than that, and strays deep into woo territory.

Here in Australia, last year, a guy deliberately drove his car containing his three very young children into a small lake in a fit of rage against his ex-wife. He managed to save himself and allowed the kids to drown.

To say those children "attracted" their fate beggars belief.

LOA is pure bunkum, bunkum that works powerfully well for those miscreants that put it together, because there's no shortage of fools on the planet -- a fact which most of us here are painfully aware of.

M.

Ahh. See I know so little of this LOA and have less ambition to learn.

As a personal motivational tool it appears to be OK, but as a philosophy it sounds bunk. To each his own I guess.

As for the author and the OP I'd suggest you read up on Chaos Theory, the butterfly effect in particular. Very small events can have profound impacts in larger systems. Trying to track down the exact cause for any event can be tricky to say the least. What it boils down to is, I guess, anything can be a result of anything. If we decide to place causality on a certain event we can't establish scientific proof of it because of the multitude of possible events. We just have the belief that it's true. As you can imagine, trying to prove a belief is impossible as it can't be refuted scientifically.
I'm not sure if this helps, it may have confused you even more. I know I'm a little confused.

 

[StarSeed]

Yes, that would be good enough. As a matter of fact I can keep uploading 10 password protected files each time, of which only one would be containing the word "Yes". The other nine would be containing other words. If you can guess the "Yes" file not 100, but 10 times in a row, I'd believe you are on to something big. Can you do that ?

A fair test. I doubt I could do it now, I'm still too green, but I am picking up the pace, and I speak with my spirit guide to assist me in knowing when I am ready for certain steps, so I will keep this test in mind.

Do you understand my point?
What makes your claim anymore true than these and others?

Yes, I see your point. I can't point to anything that will help you to see it as truth, however, there are many people working with it who claim that they have been successful, sometimes extremely so. Iow, at least LOA is a known idea and there are people claiming success with it.

Assuming that LOA is real, and assuming that the nature of the system is relatively complex and takes a good amount of time, perhaps years, to learn, and assuming that the individual and cocreation equations are complex with thousands of variables, it is also reasonable to assume that this might be something that would take centuries to take hold in society, especially while science continues to withhold lab time from the idea.

We need science to seriously look at this, but it's probably not going to happen very soon, so if it is legit, then it will continue to remain in the woo circles, and we are admitedly not the best choice for pinning down the nitty gritty specifics.