Want to have a crack at this? (Answer outsourcing thread)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The conclusion is what really bothers me about the whole Law of Attraction.  Its basically an excuse to sneer at people suffering through no fault of their own, and plays directly into Horatio Alger-esque bullshit fantasies.

I just wanna say
if you or someone you know ever gets cancer from no fault of their own and some "new ager" hints it was because of negative thoughts...
kick that person in the groin

it will be worth any negative karma coming your way

QFT!

Saying the LoA works is one thing,  saying it works because of Quantum is another, actually BELIEVING that LoA is due to Quantum Multiverses is a whole different and scary thing.

And so we come back around.  If you believe in LoA, you're "actually BELIEVING that LoA is due to Quantum Multiverses."

If you're using the LoA techniques, but don't think you're tangibly affecting the universe around you, then you're using Lo5.

I think you and I agree that the effect is likely caused by the same mechanism. My point, however, is that the 'belief' in LoA is the psychological HOOK that makes mechanism work for some people... if they didn't believe it, if they thought the techniques were just 'sleight of mind' then it might well fail for them because the "Psychic Censor" would say "No, that is not possible".

Like any other majidicks. Some people can work with Chaos Magic and say "It's all in the mind" and some people can work with High Ritual Magic and think its something else, and some poor sods are Wiccan and think the God and Goddess are really real for realz.

Some people can talk to the Holy Guardian Angel, some can talk to aliens from Sirius, some can talk to the BVM. Some people can accomplish things through using the Law of Fives. Some people can accomplish things through believing in the Law of Attraction... maybe they're all doing the same thing in the end though.

I guess its like two maps, one that shows the territory and has labels like "Filter" "Grid" "Iron Bars" "Shrapnel" etc and one that has "Hyre Theyr BE Draygonnes Named Quantus and Mechanicus. If I'm taking a trip, I'll probably pass on the Drayghonnes map because I find the other symbols more meaningful to me.

For a lot of people though, they just want a label for the big question mark. Call it X or Y or God or Quanta or Reality Grids, labels is labels.

I'm just glad that most of us around here like similar labels

[Tempest Virago]

I think you and I agree that the effect is likely caused by the same mechanism. My point, however, is that the 'belief' in LoA is the psychological HOOK that makes mechanism work for some people... if they didn't believe it, if they thought the techniques were just 'sleight of mind' then it might well fail for them because the "Psychic Censor" would say "No, that is not possible".

Like any other majidicks. Some people can work with Chaos Magic and say "It's all in the mind" and some people can work with High Ritual Magic and think its something else, and some poor sods are Wiccan and think the God and Goddess are really real for realz.

Some people can talk to the Holy Guardian Angel, some can talk to aliens from Sirius, some can talk to the BVM. Some people can accomplish things through using the Law of Fives. Some people can accomplish things through believing in the Law of Attraction... maybe they're all doing the same thing in the end though.

I guess its like two maps, one that shows the territory and has labels like "Filter" "Grid" "Iron Bars" "Shrapnel" etc and one that has "Hyre Theyr BE Draygonnes Named Quantus and Mechanicus. If I'm taking a trip, I'll probably pass on the Drayghonnes map because I find the other symbols more meaningful to me.

For a lot of people though, they just want a label for the big question mark. Call it X or Y or God or Quanta or Reality Grids, labels is labels.

I'm just glad that most of us around here like similar labels

I don't quite get what you're saying. You say you don't believe in the LoA, but you think it works for some people? How can it work for people if it's not real?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think you and I agree that the effect is likely caused by the same mechanism. My point, however, is that the 'belief' in LoA is the psychological HOOK that makes mechanism work for some people... if they didn't believe it, if they thought the techniques were just 'sleight of mind' then it might well fail for them because the "Psychic Censor" would say "No, that is not possible".

Like any other majidicks. Some people can work with Chaos Magic and say "It's all in the mind" and some people can work with High Ritual Magic and think its something else, and some poor sods are Wiccan and think the God and Goddess are really real for realz.

Some people can talk to the Holy Guardian Angel, some can talk to aliens from Sirius, some can talk to the BVM. Some people can accomplish things through using the Law of Fives. Some people can accomplish things through believing in the Law of Attraction... maybe they're all doing the same thing in the end though.

I guess its like two maps, one that shows the territory and has labels like "Filter" "Grid" "Iron Bars" "Shrapnel" etc and one that has "Hyre Theyr BE Draygonnes Named Quantus and Mechanicus. If I'm taking a trip, I'll probably pass on the Drayghonnes map because I find the other symbols more meaningful to me.

For a lot of people though, they just want a label for the big question mark. Call it X or Y or God or Quanta or Reality Grids, labels is labels.

I'm just glad that most of us around here like similar labels

I don't quite get what you're saying. You say you don't believe in the LoA, but you think it works for some people? How can it work for people if it's not real?

First, I don't believe in anything. Or at least, I try really hard not to

II think that there is a bunch of information in the universe and some of it can be perceived by human beings through their five senses.
The information that can be perceived then passes through the neurological system, where it is filtered and manipulated by our beliefs, ideas, programs etc. leaving us with some smaller chunk of information.
That information is then processed consciously.

The Lo5's and the LoA directly impact the second step. That is they are filters and programs that are designed to 'look' for specific criteria.

So, if I want X to happen and I believe in the Law of Attraction. I will focus on that X happening (I will create a new program/filter in my neurological system). Thus when stuff that can help me get to X happens, the brain lights up throws a big red flag and says "ATTRACTION!"

The Law of Fives, in my opinion, is much nicer because it acknowledges that all of this is in our heads. The Law of Attraction, however, has the advantage of a 'belief system' which people can hang on to. Beliefs can make very strong filters, unfortunately, beliefs can also make people confuse their 'filter' for Really Real Reality (which is why (i think) LMNO is arguing against the LoA).

The Law of Attraction is 'Real' in some sense. You do have a direct effect on the reality you perceive. Your state of being is partly due to your surroundings and (IMO) mostly to do with how you decide to interact with  those surroundings. Minus the QBS (Quantum Bull Shit). That is the Law of Attraction.

Peter Carroll talks about the Psychic Censor, the bit of your brain that interferes and says "HEY, YOU CAN'T DO MAGIC BECAUSE IT ISN'T REAL!!" His system gets around this censor through "sleight of mind" that is, he uses Gnosis, Ritual etc to distract the conscious brain so he can stick a new program in the subconscious brain.

People that believe the Law of Attraction, get around their Censor by lying to it and saying "Oh this is SCIENCE!"

In both models, we can achieve similar results. The advantage of Peter's model is at the end, we can take off the robes and put away the sigils and come play with everyone else in consensual reality. The disadvantage of LoA is that you end up believing nonsense and then saying things like "you got cancer from negative thoughts" which leads to having one's ass kicked.

[Thurnez Isa]

Slight Sciency talk

Ok my inquiry was answered. The main problem with doing a study on this is that the LoA is that any study can be falsified by the idea itself. So all studies don't matter, because quite brilliantly the language used in LoA doesn't allow for it.
Here's what I mean. If you do a study and show you are just as likely to get better from a disease with or without LoA then the language that is used disproves the study. In LoA you are suppose to focus on being healthy rather then "not" being sick, because in their language "not" being sick is still focusing on being sick. So if someone doesn't get better there is no way to verify if the person is focusing on "not" being sick or focusing on being healthy. The problem with this, as most rational people could see, the two are the same. EVERYTHING HAS A "NOT" COUNTERPART, or is a "not" itself. But since they aren't in LoA language you can't fully disprove what they are saying.
If you can't define what you suppose to look at you can't study it.
What you could do is falsify claims, or lies they make about physics, like if they make an actual claim about quantum physics then a real physicist can say, "No that is now how it works." And that has been done by what little they claim in the secret and there are several books trying to sort out the nonsense in What the Bleep Do We Know?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Slight Sciency talk

Ok my inquiry was answered. The main problem with doing a study on this is that the LoA is that any study can be falsified by the idea itself. So all studies don't matter, because quite brilliantly the language used in LoA doesn't allow for it.
Here's what I mean. If you do a study and show you are just as likely to get better from a disease with or without LoA then the language that is used disproves the study. In LoA you are suppose to focus on being healthy rather then "not" being sick, because in their language "not" being sick is still focusing on being sick. So if someone doesn't get better there is no way to verify if the person is focusing on "not" being sick or focusing on being healthy. The problem with this, as most rational people could see, the two are the same. EVERYTHING HAS A "NOT" COUNTERPART, or is a "not" itself. But since they aren't in LoA language you can't fully disprove what they are saying.
If you can't define what you suppose to look at you can't study it.
What you could do is falsify claims, or lies they make about physics, like if they make an actual claim about quantum physics then a real physicist can say, "No that is now how it works." And that has been done by what little they claim in the secret and there are several books trying to sort out the nonsense in What the Bleep Do We Know?

[Tempest Virago]

First, I don't believe in anything. Or at least, I try really hard not to

II think that there is a bunch of information in the universe and some of it can be perceived by human beings through their five senses.
The information that can be perceived then passes through the neurological system, where it is filtered and manipulated by our beliefs, ideas, programs etc. leaving us with some smaller chunk of information.
That information is then processed consciously.

The Lo5's and the LoA directly impact the second step. That is they are filters and programs that are designed to 'look' for specific criteria.

So, if I want X to happen and I believe in the Law of Attraction. I will focus on that X happening (I will create a new program/filter in my neurological system). Thus when stuff that can help me get to X happens, the brain lights up throws a big red flag and says "ATTRACTION!"

The Law of Fives, in my opinion, is much nicer because it acknowledges that all of this is in our heads. The Law of Attraction, however, has the advantage of a 'belief system' which people can hang on to. Beliefs can make very strong filters, unfortunately, beliefs can also make people confuse their 'filter' for Really Real Reality (which is why (i think) LMNO is arguing against the LoA).

The Law of Attraction is 'Real' in some sense. You do have a direct effect on the reality you perceive. Your state of being is partly due to your surroundings and (IMO) mostly to do with how you decide to interact with  those surroundings. Minus the QBS (Quantum Bull Shit). That is the Law of Attraction.

Peter Carroll talks about the Psychic Censor, the bit of your brain that interferes and says "HEY, YOU CAN'T DO MAGIC BECAUSE IT ISN'T REAL!!" His system gets around this censor through "sleight of mind" that is, he uses Gnosis, Ritual etc to distract the conscious brain so he can stick a new program in the subconscious brain.

People that believe the Law of Attraction, get around their Censor by lying to it and saying "Oh this is SCIENCE!"

In both models, we can achieve similar results. The advantage of Peter's model is at the end, we can take off the robes and put away the sigils and come play with everyone else in consensual reality. The disadvantage of LoA is that you end up believing nonsense and then saying things like "you got cancer from negative thoughts" which leads to having one's ass kicked.

I think we just have different definitions of "real", then, because I basically agree with you - people look for patterns and find them, that's human nature - but I don't think that believing in the LoA actually HELPS them happen. It's just that if they coincidentally happen, people will use that as proof that they're right, which is also human nature.

I mean, I do believe that, for example, thinking you're going to get a job makes you confident and if that confidence comes out in a job interview, you're more likely to be hired, but that's not really the same thing.

[Telarus]

First, I don't believe in anything. Or at least, I try really hard not to

II think that there is a bunch of information in the universe and some of it can be perceived by human beings through their five senses.
The information that can be perceived then passes through the neurological system, where it is filtered and manipulated by our beliefs, ideas, programs etc. leaving us with some smaller chunk of information.
That information is then processed consciously.

The Lo5's and the LoA directly impact the second step. That is they are filters and programs that are designed to 'look' for specific criteria.

So, if I want X to happen and I believe in the Law of Attraction. I will focus on that X happening (I will create a new program/filter in my neurological system). Thus when stuff that can help me get to X happens, the brain lights up throws a big red flag and says "ATTRACTION!"

The Law of Fives, in my opinion, is much nicer because it acknowledges that all of this is in our heads. The Law of Attraction, however, has the advantage of a 'belief system' which people can hang on to. Beliefs can make very strong filters, unfortunately, beliefs can also make people confuse their 'filter' for Really Real Reality (which is why (i think) LMNO is arguing against the LoA).

The Law of Attraction is 'Real' in some sense. You do have a direct effect on the reality you perceive. Your state of being is partly due to your surroundings and (IMO) mostly to do with how you decide to interact with  those surroundings. Minus the QBS (Quantum Bull Shit). That is the Law of Attraction.

Peter Carroll talks about the Psychic Censor, the bit of your brain that interferes and says "HEY, YOU CAN'T DO MAGIC BECAUSE IT ISN'T REAL!!" His system gets around this censor through "sleight of mind" that is, he uses Gnosis, Ritual etc to distract the conscious brain so he can stick a new program in the subconscious brain.

People that believe the Law of Attraction, get around their Censor by lying to it and saying "Oh this is SCIENCE!"

In both models, we can achieve similar results. The advantage of Peter's model is at the end, we can take off the robes and put away the sigils and come play with everyone else in consensual reality. The disadvantage of LoA is that you end up believing nonsense and then saying things like "you got cancer from negative thoughts" which leads to having one's ass kicked.

I think we just have different definitions of "real", then, because I basically agree with you - people look for patterns and find them, that's human nature - but I don't think that believing in the LoA actually HELPS them happen. It's just that if they coincidentally happen, people will use that as proof that they're right, which is also human nature.

I mean, I do believe that, for example, thinking you're going to get a job makes you confident and if that confidence comes out in a job interview, you're more likely to be hired, but that's not really the same thing.

But it IS the same thing, buried at a deeper level of the subconscious. It's what makes you like certain sodas over others, and guides your kinks (prospective mating choice grids).

While mucking about with it in your head, the Censor concept pops up. The Belief that the [LoA/Lo5s] is a valid game rule of reality (even if held temporarily, as in Carroll's system, or permanently, as in the loA QuantumBS adherent) _does_ serve to distract the Censor and increase the 'hit-rate' of the pattern searching... at least according to those who've done the experiments on themselves.

[the last yatto]

Lo5

written like that it reminds me more of line of sight then law of fives

[LMNO]

Ok, maybe I should be more abstract, or something.

I understand and agree that RAW, AC, and the rest of those freaks have instructed that in order to make it (LoA) work, you have to fully believe in it.  You have to convince your subconcious that LoA really exists.  Which is all well and good, because then they tell you to stop believing in it and anaylze the data.

Which means they're wrapping it up in Lo5.  Because Lo5 can be rephrased as, "if you believe in any system of patterns deeply enough, it will affect how you perceive and experience the universe."  It doesn't say that any one pattern system is True, it describes what happens when you believe in one.

So the LoA is "real" in the sense that it's a fairy tale that, in order to work, you have to believe is true.  But it's still a fairy tale.  It's a psychological trick, whose strength comes from lying to your own brain.

[Tempest Virago]

First, I don't believe in anything. Or at least, I try really hard not to

II think that there is a bunch of information in the universe and some of it can be perceived by human beings through their five senses.
The information that can be perceived then passes through the neurological system, where it is filtered and manipulated by our beliefs, ideas, programs etc. leaving us with some smaller chunk of information.
That information is then processed consciously.

The Lo5's and the LoA directly impact the second step. That is they are filters and programs that are designed to 'look' for specific criteria.

So, if I want X to happen and I believe in the Law of Attraction. I will focus on that X happening (I will create a new program/filter in my neurological system). Thus when stuff that can help me get to X happens, the brain lights up throws a big red flag and says "ATTRACTION!"

The Law of Fives, in my opinion, is much nicer because it acknowledges that all of this is in our heads. The Law of Attraction, however, has the advantage of a 'belief system' which people can hang on to. Beliefs can make very strong filters, unfortunately, beliefs can also make people confuse their 'filter' for Really Real Reality (which is why (i think) LMNO is arguing against the LoA).

The Law of Attraction is 'Real' in some sense. You do have a direct effect on the reality you perceive. Your state of being is partly due to your surroundings and (IMO) mostly to do with how you decide to interact with  those surroundings. Minus the QBS (Quantum Bull Shit). That is the Law of Attraction.

Peter Carroll talks about the Psychic Censor, the bit of your brain that interferes and says "HEY, YOU CAN'T DO MAGIC BECAUSE IT ISN'T REAL!!" His system gets around this censor through "sleight of mind" that is, he uses Gnosis, Ritual etc to distract the conscious brain so he can stick a new program in the subconscious brain.

People that believe the Law of Attraction, get around their Censor by lying to it and saying "Oh this is SCIENCE!"

In both models, we can achieve similar results. The advantage of Peter's model is at the end, we can take off the robes and put away the sigils and come play with everyone else in consensual reality. The disadvantage of LoA is that you end up believing nonsense and then saying things like "you got cancer from negative thoughts" which leads to having one's ass kicked.

I think we just have different definitions of "real", then, because I basically agree with you - people look for patterns and find them, that's human nature - but I don't think that believing in the LoA actually HELPS them happen. It's just that if they coincidentally happen, people will use that as proof that they're right, which is also human nature.

I mean, I do believe that, for example, thinking you're going to get a job makes you confident and if that confidence comes out in a job interview, you're more likely to be hired, but that's not really the same thing.

But it IS the same thing, buried at a deeper level of the subconscious. It's what makes you like certain sodas over others, and guides your kinks (prospective mating choice grids).

While mucking about with it in your head, the Censor concept pops up. The Belief that the [LoA/Lo5s] is a valid game rule of reality (even if held temporarily, as in Carroll's system, or permanently, as in the loA QuantumBS adherent) _does_ serve to distract the Censor and increase the 'hit-rate' of the pattern searching... at least according to those who've done the experiments on themselves.

I don't know, I'm still not convinced it's the same thing. And maybe I'm just being dumb again, but how exactly is soda preference related to the Law of Attraction?

[Telarus]

The only choices of soda in your home fridge are those you have Willed there.

Self-limited Free Will (The Lo5s, slight of mind, etc, etc serve as tricks to program your own Degrees of Freedom during a situation some of the Closed Degrees of Freedom come from The Situation... many come from Your Programming).

If you believe that stripping naked and running around an airport will get you arrested, and you care about getting arrested.... you won't do it.

The Law of Attraction says that if you really, really, really want to meet that cute security guard over there... well, then maybe running with that idea would be the most expedient thing to do. But slinging around slight of mind like that means you're going to have to back it up with further NLP/meta-programming so that you end up with her phone#, and not a mugshot#.

[LMNO]

Actually, that's not what LoA says. That's what you want it to say. It actually says that if you wish for something in a certain way, the external universe will warp itself to accomodate you.

[Telarus]

Well, granted,... but that's brain-dead newage theosophical bullshit, and I'm a Paradigmal Pirate. 


That said, I agree that the Law of 5s communicates the underlying principle in a much more effective way, as it includes an appropriate occult 'reveal'.

The Law of Attraction, as popularized, is indeed designed to be just vague enough to sell it to anyone, and then just shrug at them and tell them it's their problem that the Universe didn't manifest what they wanted it to. The real trap is deluding yourself into thinking that the LoA is a game rule at the level of Gravity or the Weak or Strong Force, and not a Game Rule at the level of seeing ships in the clouds, or moire patterns in mesh screens, or a predators face in the jungle leaves.

[Tempest Virago]

The only choices of soda in your home fridge are those you have Willed there.

Self-limited Free Will (The Lo5s, slight of mind, etc, etc serve as tricks to program your own Degrees of Freedom during a situation some of the Closed Degrees of Freedom come from The Situation... many come from Your Programming).

If you believe that stripping naked and running around an airport will get you arrested, and you care about getting arrested.... you won't do it.

The Law of Attraction says that if you really, really, really want to meet that cute security guard over there... well, then maybe running with that idea would be the most expedient thing to do. But slinging around slight of mind like that means you're going to have to back it up with further NLP/meta-programming so that you end up with her phone#, and not a mugshot#.

It doesn't matter if you believe that that will get you arrested, though. You can believe it will get you elected king of the world, but it will still get you arrested.

Relatedly, tonight I was playing Mario Party with some friends and they told me the reason I kept losing the pure chance games is because I don't believe in luck. 

[Honey]

We mistake the game for actuality. 

There are, in fact, very few acknowledged hard & fast rules when it comes to our existence.  Systems of belief & uncertainty.  Maybe we've become a wee bit better at asking the questions is all? 

When we are young children, it's less likely to mistake the game for actuality because it all seems like a game.  Life seems to be all about curiosity & the desire to know more, about ourselves, this place we call home, other people, what our minds & bodies can do, language, arts & sciences, all of these games we can play & we do.  Children seem to have this uncanny ability to change their minds almost continually.  New information comes in all forms, thru other people, studies, observations, experimentation, stories, myths, the culture we are raised within, learning tips & shortcuts, how to use tools & resources, et cetera.  We take all these little pieces of the great cosmic puzzle & put them together & take them apart, again & again & again.  We put one together & find pieces left over & start another one, & so on. 

As people get older they often become more rigid, less likely to change their minds.  Why?  Lots of reasons, I suppose.  When we are young, the line between what is "real" & what is "fantasy" is often blurred but it doesn't seem to irk as much.  The mind is still flexible, able to contain certain ideas or notions along with opposing viewpoints.  People in general seem to be inherently more or less literal in their interpretations & that comes into play as well, I think.  Children are able to go back & forth with these games without being very troubled about the inconsistencies.  Like the young of any species who play around with each other & with these games & thereby learn.

Children, as they mature, seem to be an amalgamation of all these games they play, roles & games they're taught & ones they pick up by & by.  Certain cultures seem to encourage this sort of game or role-playing, fostering creative & critical thinking, other cultures seem to discourage.  However, in all cultures & at some point, it appears that children are expected to stop having wonder about some things.  This wonder-stop seems to come along right around the time they are encouraged to find their very own niche in the system.  Well, & you can go on wondering & wandering, but for heaven's sake, don't talk & don't tell!  You'll get squashed.  & not by those who will even take the time to consider your views but by those who don't want their own Systems of Belief shook up too much.

Many of our educational systems seem to be centered on teaching WHAT to think rather than HOW to think.  Granted, a base of knowledge is required & teaching critical & creative thinking skills is not as easy perhaps.  Certainly not impossible tho if that's what you are trying to do.  Memorization of facts might be necessary but the abstraction of thoughts leads to new, sometimes improved (& sometimes disturbing to the status quo) ideas.

Throughout history we've been able to extend our natural lifespans but still these Systems of Belief outlive any of even the oldest human beings alive.  We have longer gestation/maturation periods than most other forms of life.  This, perhaps, is one of the reasons we are able to adapt to our environments?  In order to survive as a species, we need to care for our young.  The fact we are required to care for our young for longer spans of time comes into play as well, I think.  We have this ability to adapt & I grapple with what that even means?  The ability to adapt may increase our ability to survive but at what cost?  I honestly don't know.  How would I know?   

I guess what I am trying to say here (longwinded too, like thinking out loud) is that much of what was expressed here itt got me to thinking about these things.  The way my mind seems to work is that moving forward, much is left behind as new stuff takes its place.  "You can't go home again."  Systems of belief can be like games.  They may help you to understand how things work but you have to leave them behind at some point, especially if they're no fun anymore or aren't working.  & the rules of these games are pretty much imaginary or self-imposed or anyhow somehow enforced.  Half the fun is gone when you figure out what the rules are. 

So many games, so little time.