How "the law of attraction" works

I actually took a class from Bandler himself less than a year ago. I wouldn't say he abandoned NLP, but rather... NLP grew up, became it's own organization, and then abandoned him.

I much prefer his methods over the more clinical approach of his previous partner, however some of Bandler's methods are questionable as well. He even taught us, that essentially, everyone makes their own form of NLP, based on a very loose group of patterns to fall back on.

I guess the reason I can identify so well with NLP, is that it's literally another syntax of programming... only for people instead of computers or robots. It's also something that you can demonstrate over and over to show the same results - regardless of who is observing, who is teaching, and who is being demonstrated on. None of this can really be said as much for LoA, since it seems to be such a personal experience.

If I missed the point somewhere, please lead me back to it.

Originally posted by scientist


It doesn't exist, except as a small set of characters in a database. it only becomes a smiley when you go to that page (the act of observation). yet, even then the smiley isn't "existing" on any page at all, it's just energy.

I guess this is where we part ways in logic - as you seem to claim that energy showing the smiley face is the same as the energy that makes up the keyboard I am hacking away on. I beg to differ, however they each have their own places.

Im starting to get confused

The whole "creating reality" paradigm shares a few similarities with NLP but also some major differences. NLP was created by observing what succesful people do and modelling that. "creating reality" and LOA has its source in more spiritual/non-physical dimensions (the modern version of it started with Jane Roberts channelling an entity called Seth).

Id say one is for the more down-to-earth, mechanically thinking people, the other for the more energy (emotion, spiritual phenomena, meditation) crowd.

The similarity between "creation/loa" and NLP lies in placing value on processing beliefs, shifting viewpoints and emotional intelligence. But thats just about where the similarity ends.

The loa-crowd, which I feel somewhat more related to, holds that...

Infinity is one with all-that-is.
I am one with Infinity.
I therefore have access to all that is.

Put in other words:

Attention not only filters reality (NLP) but magnetically attracts it.

NLP: "By staring at X all the time or thinking of X all the time, you will start noticing X all around you"

LOA: "By staring at X or thinking of X frequently, you will receive more and more of X".

I understand that you have an aversion to the crowd who believes they can actually have, do, be all kinds of stuff...but its what we basically believe.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Im starting to get confused

welcome to the club,

point being - the comparison of energy representing an abstract collection of binary data... to an actual, plastic keyboard - is where I get confused.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
NLP: "By staring at X all the time or thinking of X all the time, you will start noticing X all around you"

LOA: "By staring at X or thinking of X frequently, you will receive more and more of X".

and this is a perfect example of where I get confused, as the only differences between those two statements appears to be semantics - and perhaps a verb.

NLP: "By staring at X all the time or thinking of X all the time, you will start noticing (and therefore receiving) X all around you"

LOA: "By staring at X or thinking of X frequently, you will receive more and more of X (if you notice it!)"

forgive me, I do not intent to turn this into an NLP vs LoA thread, as that should be a thread of it's own... however this seems to be one of the only common languages to discuss this particular subject on, at least for me.

I guess the main reason I have a problem with the whole "dream of anything, and it can be true" mentality... is that as a kid, I DID dream of anything, and believed it all too, but none of those things ever happened either. The abstract LoA you start to get into sounds more and more like it requires the same type of faith as prayer, which is another reason why I tend to remain skeptical, but still open minded!

Originally posted by scientist
For example, get 5 different NLP practitioners to explain the concept of future pacing, or anchoring. I'll step out on a limb and assume 4, if not all 5 will explain the concept in similar ways, that all make sense.

Take 5 random people that preach LoA, and get them to explain how it 'works.' I would be amazed, and perhaps closer to "believing" in the further out qualities associated with it, if those 5 people explained it in similar terms.

Interesting. Now i could be missing a point somewhere here, but i think that the 5 random LOA practioners would describe the same basic concept but in five personal ways.

For example, look at a rock song. A DJ can pick it up and make 4 remixes of the song. Some will say they are completely new and different songs, while others will say they are simply different versions of that same song.

Same with explanations of LOA (in my experience). Most people will be simply giving their personal twist of how LOA works, but its all related to the same basic principle.

This could indeed be due to the myriad watered-down version of LOA (the secret, etc) and 'dabblers' only getting part of the full story.

But regardless, LOA, i believe, evolves with each individual. What technqiue may work for some may not work for others. Belief is a very personal thing and is expressed in many different ways - hence LOA takes on many different forms, but still trace form the same basic concept.

Anyway just wanted to add that in (

Originally posted by srsen
i think that the 5 random LOA practioners would describe the same basic concept but in five personal ways.

For example, look at a rock song. A DJ can pick it up and make 4 remixes of the song. Some will say they are completely new and different songs, while others will say they are simply different versions of that same song.

and therein lies the exact thing I am referring to. We are no longer comparing the actual instruments being used, but the perception of the end result.

It's like only seeing the finished product, having no idea what the process was, while NLP allows you to actively view the process, in any order, and watch it succeed or fail, right in front of your eyes, on camera, on tape, whatever. So far, LoA has not been able to accomplish this, which is perhaps something that will never occur, and i am thinking about it in the wrong terms.

Let me restate that i do believe in the LoA, just not as something that creates anything other than pure awareness. And that awareness is what makes all the difference.

Most people will be simply giving their personal twist of how LOA works, but its all related to the same basic principle.

but can any of them demonstrate it, practically (not theoretically) in similar ways as well? Can any of them demonstrate it at all?

Is there even an "official" definition for the LoA? I have yet to see one... I've read that the "Law of Attraction" was first coined in the 19th century.

Originally posted by Illahee
People are afraid to let their freak flag fly and possibly wind up with the nut job award.

At ATS you can be as crazy as you like as long as your craziness is negatively-oriented or fear-based.

Im glad we represent the lunatic fringe of the positive side.

reply to post by scientist


One reason I abandoned NLP is because it had been hijacked by obnoxious "You can do it!" motivational speakers who thought it was enough to jump around a room with their fist in the air and brabble to an audience while the audience passively admired the coach rather than working on their own growth. Of course this is not the fault of NLP, but thats the type of cliche it had been put into. The other NLP scene I knew of was a bit too dismissive of spiritual realms in their business attire. As far as I can see, NLP adresses physical reality while loa adresses the entirety of realities. That would be the basic difference.

Methods of achieving something also differ.

In NLP there is the concept of "reaching a goal" (linear)

In creativism (of which loa is a part), we have the concept of "beginning at the end", to close the gap between the NOW and the "goal" from the very start. In other words we are to feel the reality of that "goal" right now, and not as a goal.

So the NLP-Practitioner will sit down and make a lengthy plan on how to reach his goal. Then he will go out and do it.

The Loa-Practitioner will just right his intention list and then forget about it.

In NLP it is YOU who is doing the creating.

In LOA it is "the field" that is responding to your vibration.

Are you starting to see the differences? They are MAJOR.

In any case, its fun to discuss.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Imo all type of fear is guidance-fear as described earlier. The fear only becomes a problem when it is not used to switch to the right path (of ease, joy, courage), but suppressed or held on to (which is the same thing).

What does one do with that sort of fear since it isnt a reliable indicator of direct action? Simply feel it? Acknowledge it? Sort of like flushing a pipe that has become blocked?

Reply to Illusions of Grandeur


Yeah, the electricity analogy will suffice. Main point being that it is not the energy (feeling) that is "bad", but what it is pointing to. The fear itself is amazingly helpful as it is POINTING something out that you need to know about some subject.

Another analogy: Car navigation says "You are going the wrong way. Make a U-turn and take the next exit".

Do you put a smiley sticker over the navigation system? No.

Do you beat up on the navigation system? No.

Instead you are curious to what it is pointing to.

Feeling unwell is merely a helpful navigational device...a friend...an indicator that something you are thinking, doing or intending to do is inappropriate for what you say you want.

Fear wells up, you dont resist it, you breathe with it and you simply observe at what thought or plan or action is causing the fear. You inspect that. Then you ask yourself what thought or action would feel better. Or you write down various thoughts until you find one that feels better (these will not necessarily always be positive thoughts. Sometimes emotions of critisism or anger serve to eliviate from fear). Once you have found the thought or action that is more appropriate (and you know it is because you feel it) you practice that new thought a little and be on your merry way until the next issue comes up and you do the same....until you die Peaceful or Joyful emotions on the other hand, are indicators that you are currently following a path that is appropriate for you.

Now, this is only ONE way to handle fear. There are about a million other ways, including the ways NLP & Co. would suggest.

Ooops....sorry. I was able to read your reply draft, which I responded to. Youve cut it down to a shorter version.

What I always used to do is not allow myself to be reactively driven by fear but to STOP anything I was doing and retreat to relaxation and laziness until the fear had passed or I found more constructive-feeling thoughts.

Worse than the fear itself is all the nonsense people will reactively do in order to compensate for lack of feeling well.



[edit on 15-1-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by srsen

So if we lock into channel 3 and that particular reality unfolds, does channel 1, 2, 4, 5, etc, etc continue on as a reality similar to the multi-verse model?

Notice how the question as asked actually presumes linear time. If all possible potentialities exist silmultaneously that allows a vision of "reality" that stands outside of "time." There is at least one physicist that uses a description similar to this, Julian Barbour. It also is consistent with some of the philosophical visions of "reality" such as the one described by Parmenides in his famous poem, and it also has the benefit of being consistent with "non-dualism." In effect, in a system like this consciousness acts as a flashlight. The entire room "exists" when in complete darkness, but you only "see" what the beam of the flashlight illuminates. All of the other potential outcomes "are" but "awareness" is not resting upon them, and so they are not "seen." In this case some questions would be, how does Consciousness operate, how many are there, (does number exist or is there just ONE like many traditions suggest or is this question too entrenched in dualism to even begin to reflect the "truth") how does the recorder/interpreter of consciousness (mind) factor in, and is it possible using these minds to make any sort of useful attempt to analyse this?
If the universe were still and non linear, the potential outcomes would not be channels, but discrete "cells" of film waiting to be strung together by choice and "viewed" by consciousness, which would then create the illusion of movement and time.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Ooops....sorry. I was able to read your reply draft, which I responded to. Youve cut it down to a shorter version.

Actually I am thrilled you answered that draft. I was having a hard time even clearly seeing the question, but you have managed to answer clearly regardless. Thank you.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


nicely said mate

I particularly like the darkened room with a flashlight analogy. I think i may steal that for use in the future

I’m letting loose here. I have not read all of the pages but I have to say something. I’m sorry if it has already been posted, but here goes:

I’m sure you’re very comfortable with this method in which you give no effort, no heart. It’s all packaged up in a very easy package, just like the ones bought in Walmart. I’m sorry, but the truth is not some message you train your brain to say and acknowledge as fact, that is just an outline. It has to come from the heart, our true brain, and with passion. We have been taught to believe our brain is the main source of thinking but that is not so. Our heart is the true brain and energy source of our body and our intentions; it’s what makes the world turn once it connects to the heart of the universe(s) aka God. Heartfelt passions change the world.

STM


[edit on 1/15/2008 by seentoomuch]

reply to post by seentoomuch


agreed STM.

We have discussed at length in this thread the pre-packaged dumbed-down versions of LOA and all dispise them as much as yourself

Originally posted by scientist
I actually took a class from Bandler himself less than a year ago. I wouldn't say he abandoned NLP, but rather... NLP grew up, became it's own organization, and then abandoned him.

I like Bandlers innovative craziness.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


What a lucid post!

I would say your analogy works better to grasp the ungraspable.

The reason I stick to simplified analogies is so that they may have practical use in an everyday setting.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by seentoomuch
I’m letting loose here. I have not read all of the pages but I have to say something. I’m sorry if it has already been posted, but here goes:

I’m sure you’re very comfortable with this method in which you give no effort, no heart. It’s all packaged up in a very easy package, just like the ones bought in Walmart. I’m sorry, but the truth is not some message you train your brain to say and acknowledge as fact, that is just an outline. It has to come from the heart, our true brain, and with passion. We have been taught to believe our brain is the main source of thinking but that is not so. Our heart is the true brain and energy source of our body and our intentions; it’s what makes the world turn once it connects to the heart of the universe(s) aka God. Heartfelt passions change the world.

Very true. This thread was made to question the "quick-fix" approach of "the secret" and to add a deeper understanding than can be offered by a mass-market movie. You have done just that.