How "the law of attraction" works

page: 7
307
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

If you have taken a picture of the dent (if it even existed in the first place), then used the LoA, and taken a picture afterwards... you would have objective proof (albeit debatable unless you had witnesses as well) - however, would the LoA also alter the dent in the photo?



Remembering the TV-analogy from before, "advanced-loa" is like switching TV-Channels. In this case I switched from receiving channel 2 (dent) to receiving channel 3(not dent) . The process of taking photos for the purpose of proof would be an activity of channel 2 and therefore actually block my ability to switch to channel 3. And even if I did gain proof, it would be useless and not perceivable to people on channel 2, or they wouldnt be interested or wouldnt believe it.

Specific types of "magick" require one to "intend without expectation", that means in a playful, lighthearted way, without NEEDING an outcome and without giving the issue much further thought. The whole proving and looking for results business runs counter to this type of childlike light-heartedness. Some of my best experiences were gained in a state of childlike "stupidity" (not having any pre-conceptions of "how things are" and "how things are supposed to be").


If you had a video camera setup, would it have happened in a fraction of a second, or gradually over time?


Probably instantly. It depends on what the mind is able to process though too. Switching channels is an instant thing. You switch to a channel where a certain event never happened...you are not UNDOING anything because undoing is still part of the other channel.


Please note that the idea of time being more malleable, fluid and not-so-linear is not such an un-scientific idea (since about a 100 years), so its not such a surprise that some people would actually experience something outside linear time.




posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illahee
Its a sort of strange byproduct. Once it starts it doesn't stop. If examined closely there is doubt you will find one single case that is not overtly positive in its nature. It's sort of like the 90% of the brain you don't use catches on and decides to dabble a bit on its own. Not many other ways to explain it. Best to disconnect from it, if there are witnesses.

Just out of curiosity have you experienced pineal (sp?) vision before?



Byproduct is a good term. I dont feel that it is me controlling these miracles but much more me allowing myself to notice them.

I am not sure what you mean by pineal vision. Explain.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
again, I can only really relate to this in terms of NLP, since that is the closest I can get to recognizing "magick." And I truly believe it's genuine magic.. just that some people rationalize it under different terms and concepts.


Originally posted by Skyfloating
Remembering the TV-analogy from before, "advanced-loa" is like switching TV-Channels. In this case I switched from receiving channel 2 (dent) to receiving channel 3(not dent) .




(from later in the thread)
You switch to a channel where a certain event never happened...you are not UNDOING anything because undoing is still part of the other channel.


understandable, but now it sounds like a multidimensional theory, which warrants the question - does the original reality with the dent still continue in it's own dimension, with a channel 2 version of you living with the dent? If so, then I still suggest that is subjective - as you only switched the channel for yourself, and nobody else. Furthermore, nothing has really changed but your tuning, or perspective.



The process of taking photos for the purpose of proof would be an activity of channel 2 and therefore actually block my ability to switch to channel 3.


How so? If you take the picture without an expectation of any specific result, then why would it matter if you took the picture out of curiosity, opposed to skepticism? Or better yet, took the picture to confirm your positive outlook regarding LoA? It also warrants the question.. now that you know there are two channels, why can't you switch between them at leisure (or can you, and if so - how)?



And even if I did gain proof, it would be useless and not perceivable to people on channel 2, or they wouldnt be interested or wouldnt believe it.


that's an unfair speculation, which only hinders true understanding. Unless tis was based on a metaphysical principle I am unfamiliar with (I dabble...)



Specific types of "magick" require one to "intend without expectation", that means in a playful, lighthearted way, without NEEDING an outcome and without giving the issue much further thought.


This is literally right out of every NLP book in my library, perhaps even verbatim (replacing "magick" with "NLP"). Again, the only context I am familiar with this though, is in the subjective sense. Wants, needs and expectations are personal emotions and feelings, therefore totally subjective.



Please note that the idea of time being more malleable, fluid and not-so-linear is not such an un-scientific idea (since about a 100 years), so its not such a surprise that some people would actually experience something outside linear time.


well, it's an abstract concept used in calculating microcosms and macrocosms, but as far as I know, it has not been applied in a scale that a human being could measure or acknowledge. I would love to read some more on this, if you have some links to actual experiments on human beings... but again, when you mention "people experiencing" things, it goes right back to personal feelings, emotions, etc. Not necessarily a change in objective reality, just personal reality.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by scientist]

[edit on 14-1-2008 by scientist]

[edit on 14-1-2008 by scientist]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I am not sure what you mean by pineal vision. Explain.


may want to keep clear of this topic on ATS


The pineal gland naturally creates a chemical that is deemed inappropriate for ATS discussion.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

understandable, but not it sounds like a multidimensional theory, which warrants the question - does the original reality with the dent still continue in it's own dimension, with a channel 2 version of you living with the dent? If so, then I still suggest that is subjective - as you only switched the channel for yourself, and nobody else. Furthermore, nothing has really changed but your tuning, or perspective.


Yes, channel 2 continues to exist, as anything exists within infinity. And in this sense, I guess you could call it "subjective". And yes, its a multiple-worlds model. But saying "nothing has really changed except your perspective" is kind of funny to me, since changing my perspective entails physical change.

I remember driving my girlfriend crazy with "you went to get the car repaired! you did it!" and her denying any involvement. She did remember the car having a dent though and she did see the car without a dent. Interestingly, she didnt give it much further thought (which is typical when things are outside of ones realm of understanding) and seemed to have forgotten the incident within minutes.



How so? If you take the picture without an expectation of any specific result, then why would it matter if you took the picture out of curiosity, opposed to skepticism? Or better yet, took the picture to confirm your positive outlook regarding LoA?


Taking a photo of a dent is an activity of channel 2 because assigns reality/importance to the dent. If I were Mr. Superpower, I guess I could pull it off, but its best not to ponder on it AT ALL (as if it never happened). Taking a picture of it would confirm that it happened and in fact FIX it into photographic reality.



that's an unfair speculation, which only hinders true understanding. Unless tis was based on a metaphysical principle I am unfamiliar with (I dabble...)


If someone it tuned into a certain belief-system (channel) its quite impossible to perceive anything outside of that belief-system, no matter how much proof is presented. Which is why I rarely waste time trying to convince others of certain events. Of course, if someones belief-system is loosened, you can ocassionally effect perception of something like that.



This is literally right out of every NLP book in my library, perhaps even verbatim (replacing "magick" with "NLP"). Again, the only context I am familiar with this though, is in the subjective sense. Wants, needs and expectations are personal emotions and feelings, therefore totally subjective.


Alright, then lets call it subjective.




well, it's an abstract concept used in calculating microcosms and macrocosms, but as far as I know, it has not been applied in a scale that a human being could measure or acknowledge. I would love to read some more on this, if you have some links to actual experiments on human beings... but again, when you mention "people experiencing" things, it goes right back to personal feelings, emotions, etc. Not necessarily a change in objective reality, just personal reality.


Lynn McTaggarts book "The Intention Experiment" and Michael Talbots book "The Holographic Universe" contain accounts of experimentaion with stuff like
"retro-causality" and "reverse intention".




[edit on 14-1-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
saying "nothing has really changed except your perspective" is kind of funny to me, since changing my perspective entails physical change.


why, and how so? If all realities coexist at the same time, then the only "physical" change, would be which dimension you are experiencing... but this isn't really a physical distance you travel, but more of an abstract - vibration/energy/magnetism stuff (this is where I get lost, I'm not up to par on my quantum mechanics). Just like changing the channel on a TV isn't so much of a physical change, but a change in which frequency is being experienced. The new and old frequencies remain unchanged. Am I understanding that correctly?



Taking a photo of a dent is an activity of channel 2 because assigns reality/importance to the dent.


But doesn't the simple act of observing and acknowledging the dent assign a certain reality/importance as well? I would imagine even moreso than an inanimate object such as a camera would inflict.



Lynn McTaggarts book "The Intention Experiment" and Michael Talbots book "The Holographic Universe" contain accounts of experimentaion with stuff like
"retro-causality" and "reverse intention".


ah, see I can speak with you on a common ground regarding holographic Theory, but i am not so familiar on how that would relate to LoA in a practical sense. I am fully aware that Holographic Theory has been linked to LoA via movies/books/new age movements like "The Secret" and others, but they have all been loose links, and huge stretches.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by scientist]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

why, and how so? If all realities coexist at the same time, then the only "physical" change, would be which dimension you are experiencing... but this isn't really a physical distance you travel, but more of an abstract - vibration/energy/magnetism stuff (this is where I get lost, I'm not up to par on my quantum mechanics). Just like changing the channel on a TV isn't so much of a physical change, but a change in which frequency is being experienced.


I´ll concede then and call it "subjective" as long as you dont say "ONLY subjective" in the sense of it having no real bearing on reality.



But doesn't the simple act of observing and acknowledging the dent assign a certain reality/importance as well? I would imagine even moreso than an inanimate object such as a camera would inflict.


Yes it does. But then the act of getting a camera and taking a picture of it would solidify the event even more. Staring at it for a long time would solidify it. Getting pissed off about it and going around telling people about it would solifify it to an extent where it would be almost impossible to switch to channel 3 anymore.




ah, see I can speak with you on a common ground regarding holographic Theory, but i am not so familiar on how that would relate to LoA in a practical sense. I am fully aware that Holographic Theory has been linked to LoA via movies/books/new age movements like "The Secret" and others, but they have all been loose links, and huge stretches.




You asked to read about experiments regarding retro-causality and these books came to mind.

One more note about physical vs. non-physical:

It can be helpful to train oneself not to discern too much between the two.

In other words, whether I see a car right in front of me ("real"), or in a magazine (picture) or in my imagination (visualization) should "feel just about the same".

Why? Because its the labelling of "this is real and that is not" that actually slows down the ability.

And this is why I hesitate to discern between objective and subjective.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Please see this video.

IF you have a sense of humor!

While I don't want to offend anyone, I truly think this 'law of attraction' thing is cooked up by people looking to sell a few books and DVDs.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mattguy404
 


Hilarious! Thanks for the comical relief.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
No problems, I thought this thread could use some comic relief


That's the Chasers, the same guys who got pass APEC security when GW was here in Australia. Very popular show!



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I´ll concede then and call it "subjective" as long as you dont say "ONLY subjective" in the sense of it having no real bearing on reality.


Please don't take the term as patronizing. I agree that subjective or objective, it's both dealing with reality. The difference is that something subjective only affects one person's reality. Objective affects all reality. The best example I can think of would be a pile of rocks.

Subjectively, the pile of rocks is in fact, a house. Objectively, it a pile of stone, wood, glass, etc. More specifically, since those are just abstract terms, it's just a pile of certain types of molecules on a very small and basic level. Those molecules have a very specific arrangement, albeit in a fluctuating state. Objectively, that is the reality. How you perceive it, in whatever dimension you may currently be in, is your own subjective reality. I hope this is the right thread for me to go off on a limb like that... hah. In other words, I hope you understand what I'm trying to establish between subjective and objective, beyond a superficial level. If that's unclear, I'll attempt again.




the act of getting a camera and taking a picture of it would solidify the event even more.


says who? this is the type of thing I can't see anyone measuring in a calculable way. What is the unit of measurement for the solidity of an event, or I guess the percentage of it's chances of happening? Events are temporary and linear - therefore a control is not possible. This is one of the biggest problems with trying to establish LoA as an actual 'Law' outside of an extremely subjective one.



One more note about physical vs. non-physical:

It can be helpful to train oneself not to discern too much between the two.

In other words, whether I see a car right in front of me ("real"), or in a magazine (picture) or in my imagination (visualization) should "feel just about the same".


Agreed, but for that scenario, I would consider reality an average consensus between you, and a few outside observers. Even though it's still subjective on many levels, it will point out differences like sore thumbs, making the change in objective reality doubtful.

Another big difference is that I can't debate or even comment on your subjective reality, unless asked. That's why I prefer to discuss objective reality with people. If I want to talk about subjective, I only need to discuss it with myself!



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   


I guess I don't understand how this concept applies to objective reality.


"Reality" is that which is observed.

What is this "objective reality" you speak of?



Could I ask for some specific examples of real-world, physical reality?


What "real-world" reality are you talking about? And what does physicality have to do with it?

All I know is what I observe. If I do not observe it, it is not "real" to me. It may be real to somebody else...but that supposes that there is a somebody else for it to be real to. There might be. There might not.

How could I know?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattguy404
Please see this video.

IF you have a sense of humor!

While I don't want to offend anyone, I truly think this 'law of attraction' thing is cooked up by people looking to sell a few books and DVDs.


and therein lies my biggest problem with "The Secret" and other products like it. I believe Skyfloating carries similar sentiments, but I won't put words in other peoples mouths.

There is an actual Law of Attraction, in a metaphysical / philosophical sense, and it's worth studying and understanding. It's a shame there are people commercializing it and selling it, because it ruins other peoples chances of liking it. They just think its new age self help crap, but it's not.


reply to post by LordBucket
 

see my reply above for what I see as subjective vs objective.

[edit on 14-1-2008 by scientist]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   


Subjectively, the pile of rocks is in fact, a house. Objectively, it a pile of stone, wood, glass, etc.


Do you have any contact with, any awareness of this "objective reality" you're talking about...other than your subjective observations?



What is the unit of measurement for the solidity of an event


Whether or not it is observed.



This is one of the biggest problems with trying to establish LoA as an actual 'Law' outside of an extremely subjective one.


This is one of the biggest problems with trying to establish "reality" as an actual thing outside of the extremely subjective oberservations of consciousness.



I would consider reality an average consensus between you, and a few outside observers.


Why do you believe there are outside observers?



scientist
I can't debate or even comment on your subjective reality, unless asked. That's why I prefer to discuss objective reality with people. If I want to talk about subjective, I only need to discuss it with myself!


...isn't your awareness of the people you're discussing with part of your own "subjective reality?"




[edit on 14-1-2008 by LordBucket]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
What is the unit of measurement for the solidity of an event


let's not debate the difference of subjective vs objective. that's for another thread. I was simply trying to clearly state my own take on the difference, so that my explanation on LoA would be understood within the proper context.




Whether or not it is observed.


That's not a measurement, that's a binary value.



Why do you believe there are outside observers?


Are you writing a poem now?




...isn't your awareness of the people you're discussing with part of your own "subjective reality?"


perhaps, but for the sake of staying on topic, let's assume that the fact they can all see each other, without me being there, established their physical presence as an objective fact, therefore any similar things they experience can be objective events, with concurrent subjective experiences to relate to it.

It feels like the thread is starting to fork off into a much denser topic, so let me reel it back in, and conclude that I'm still doubtful that LoA can change reality for someone other than the one practicing it... therefore, it's not a real law, anymore than being dumped makes you feel bad is a law.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Could you please be so kind as to explain in a bit more detail how the negative shows us our path? Particularly when one has both positive and negative responses to the same thing. As an example, moving to a particular place. I really want to, and have for a long time, but when it becomes probable, I seem to "block" it. (Although it certainly doesnt look externally like it is "me" blocking it, it looks like unfortunate circumstance. However it has happened enough that I am certain I am the real blockage.) Does one interpret the "block" as the stronger internal desire? And if so, does one simply accept it? Even if one is not happy where one is? I am not well studied in any "field" related to LOA stuff, but I did see the "Secret" and it leaped out at me quite quickly that as described in the film they were, (as you pointed out) really instructing in creating "lack." I feel as if I am meant to gain some understanding of this "law" but everytime I think I have a handle and start to follow it down some pathway towards manifesting, some "negative" feelings surface that confuse the heck out of me as to where I am (on an unconscious level) trying to lead myself. (And I am not just trying to manifest a Hummer or some material item, but instead a "life" that satisfies me on many levels) I know you dont want any "oh master please show me the way" sort of questions. This isnt that. I just dont know how to determine if my conscious desire can or should be used to override my obvious unconscious desire.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illahee
Don't get me wrong, if someone can rephrase or teach the principles in a manner that is easier for the student to understand, they deserve the few dollars for the work they put in to it. The workman deserves his pay. Skyfloating gave key gold nuggets of truth in a few words about the value of the written word. Another thing to keep in mind is a lot of knowledge isn't going to be made public or be sold at any price.


I agree, and money is not the issue as much as time for me...

Where is a good place to start with all this for a person who has only heard of it with the OP's post?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   


let's assume that the fact they can all see each other, without me being there, established their physical presence as an objective fact, therefore any similar things they experience can be objective events, with concurrent subjective experiences to relate to it.


When you make these sorts of assumptions...when you assume that there is a fundamental, material, objective "reality" which we are observing...the notion that thoughts can have any meaningful effect on it really doesn't make very much sense.

But...if there is no material world...if there is no "objective" reality...if our perceptions are the more "fundamental" thing...then suddenly the notion that thoughts can influence "reality" becomes blatantly self evident.

Your thoughts are your reality. Your perceptions are your reality.

Or, as some would have it: "There is no spoon."



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illahee

I am very happy and satisfied in doing what I do. If I did suddenly feel I wanted to live to a larger degree and truly felt I would be happy at another level I would probably do so.

Have seen a couple of greed examples that worked but the backlash was not very good. It always seems to stall out at one point or another. My gut says it will work fine either way, though I learned that it should be one way. Probably like if you were taught to say bucket instead of pail. Blind acceptance on my part.



It seems to me that there is an equal "backlash" to martyrdom. I was raised in a family that valued sacrifice of the self, and prized "selflessness" and so have been the pole opposite of greedy, giving til it hurts, and getting back only what my own sweat and tears brought me. However this is also an error, the mirror error of "greed," and it brings an equally painful backlash, at least that is what I am finally learning. It does seem to be about balance, with the "individual" being brought into harmony with the "collective" somehow. Of course "greed" gets more disapproval from "society." Self sacrifice is almost worshipped (especially in spiritual circles,) and so it has taken me quite a while to figure out that it is just as flawed as greed is. At this point I have more an intellectual understanding than any working theory of how to actually operate in that balance, however. Habit dies hard, and the first impulse to correct is to swing the other way, like a pendulum.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by pekle
 


Perhaps that (lucid dreaming I mean) is proof that somehow we are gods in god preschool (this reality) or womb so to speak. To put it simplisticly.

Just a thought.....



[edit on 13-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



I like this theory. The way I have dreamed about it is really similar to what you are surmising, except there is no "we." No "I" either for that matter. Something instead that is both and neither and there is actually nothing to learn, but something more akin to remembering, except that time is not a linear flow and so all the the preceeding is inaccurate at best. Confounding really. It was perfectly sensical as an experience, but trying to organize it into speech or thought is a mess.


[edit on 15-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]





top topics
 
307
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join