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

[Cain]

PM on another forum:

just signed up and was trawling a few posts, noticed that you are listed as a Discordian and seem to poo-poo the law of attraction. I'm not being judgemental at all I just wondered if you had a specific avenue of thought which lead you to state this as the way I understand it RAW wasn't against the ideas of the law of attraction, being as he was a dedicated Crowley student.

I know what I think ie that the Law of Attraction is New Age mumbo jumbo which, when reversed, has creepy implications.  While I don't deny mood and emotion can have an effect on how you act, and so how people act to you, this is an interpersonal domain and little more.  And even then, you're into a notoriously subjective area, where lots of other factors are at play.

But I'm willing to hear other potential explanations and arguments.

[LMNO]

Isn't this just The Secret again?

As far as I'm concerned, the Law of Affirmation (LoA) is shorthand for a specific manipulation of the Law of Fives (Lo5).

Positive affirmations can help the brain find patterns that help achieve reasonable goals, and can often trigger the placebo effect.

Where it all seems to go wrong is when people start thinking that the Universe is bending to their Will, or that this is a Real Law.

[LMNO]

Just to underscore: QUANTUM PHYSICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.  Other than, you know, describing the fundamental building blocks of the universe.

[Cain]

Essentially, yes, its The Secret.  Lo5 is probably a good angle to take.

[LMNO]

I'd suggest offering up the Quarter Trick from Prometheus Rising for inspection. 

ACTION:You convince yourself that there are quarters laying about on the street, and then you find them.

LoA says that's because the Universe created them out of Quantum because you wished for it.

Lo5 says you notice them because now you've put it in your filter to look for them. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The reality you experience is the reality you effect... but not the Reality that IS. LMNO is riding the correct motorcycle here.

In defense though, as Bob and Crowley and many other crazy ass motherfuckers have pointed out. LOL of 5's, LOL of Attraction or LOL of ROFL are all Real in some sense, Not Real in some sense and Immaterial in some sense. When I first began the quarter experiment, I hadn't grokked the whole patterns thing yet. QP was the first RAW book I read and other than Crowley (which I'd confused his map for the territory) I hadn't really gotten into this sort of stuff. The Quarter Experiment was the cobblestone path that ended with me stuck in Chapel Perilous

At any rate, I did the whole experiment; first month I just looked for Quarters, second month I convinced myself that I was causing them, the third month I convinced myself I was simply finding a pattern. Each month I kept a record of Quarters found. Grand Total was over 400 quarters. The difference between the second month (law of attraction) and third month (Law of 45's) was negligible. The Law of Attraction, then is true in some sense, though it may not be the best map of the territory. However, for some applications (particularly personal/psychological/self-therapy sorta stuff) the Law of Attraction provides some 'handles' (self-confidence, control etc) that the Law of Fives does not (hey I found a pattern that I was looking for).

... in some sense

[Cramulus]

???

[LMNO]

Rat, you're saying LoA is true "in some sense" because it produces a predicted result.

But you're leaving out that it is bullshit "in a whole lot of sense" because the reasoning behind it is completely flawed.


Your thinking implies that if I said that "if I let go of a pencil, it drops because a tiny demon grabs it and carries it to the floor," you would call that sentence true "in some sense", because the pencil really does fall when I let go.

And if that's where you want to go with Sri's mantra, then you've pretty much made every statement meaningless.


In some sense.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Rat, you're saying LoA is true "in some sense" because it produces a predicted result.

But you're leaving out that it is bullshit "in a whole lot of sense" because the reasoning behind it is completely flawed.


Your thinking implies that if I said that "if I let go of a pencil, it drops because a tiny demon grabs it and carries it to the floor," you would call that sentence true "in some sense", because the pencil really does fall when I let go.

And if that's where you want to go with Sri's mantra, then you've pretty much made every statement meaningless.


In some sense.

No, I'm saying that the Law of Attraction is 'true in some sense', because it can provide someone with the necessary psychological handles to successfully implement the Law of Fives. If you tell someone "you can change your perception and it will help you slightly sometimes by showing you something that might be useful", then many people would say "But, that's not real, it won't help. STFU". If however, you tell those same spags that Quantum Physics and Multiverse theory clearly support the idea that there are infinite parallel universes which, with the right mindset, will attract the universe that most closely aligns with your desires... then they will apply it, act on it and have success... by finding 5's and 23's and Quarters and thinking that they are in control of their life.

Sometimes a model isn't about what is TRUE, but about what is USEFUL.

In my opinion, Sri's mantra, RAW's Maybe Logic and Model Agnosticism all focus far more on the usefulness of a given idea/model/concept rather than its objective relationship to material Reality.

Does that mean we should behave like Ramtha's people? I don't think so.

[Cramulus]

so the LoA is basically this?

http://www.hulu.com/watch/45672/its-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-vision-board

[Thurnez Isa]

I tried to attract a wife
but now she beats me

am I doing it wrong?

[LMNO]

I tried to attract a wife
but now she beats me

am I doing it wrong?

No.  It's apparent that 2/3 of you deserve it.

[Thurnez Isa]

the thing is the Law of Attraction (no matter how you wanna lay it out) it presents itself as religion science
and because it presents itself as science it can be studied
and there has been studies in science journals (all of which confirm that "the Secret" is basically crap)
but I lost the links and my googling powers is broke
but I know someone who would have thes link so Ill email him today... it might be a while till he gets back though

[LMNO]

You know, I was gonna argue it out with Rat, and then I realized he's going hardcore with the Sacred Bull parable. 

So, what we agree on:

The techniques of LoA seem to be effective.

The reasoning behind LoA seem to be utter bullshit.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You know, I was gonna argue it out with Rat, and then I realized he's going hardcore with the Sacred Bull parable. 

So, what we agree on:

The techniques of LoA seem to be effective.

The reasoning behind LoA seem to be utter bullshit.

YES!

Let me put it this way:

Pagan FruFru Head "Oh, hey, I am gonna order a Big Mac off the Menu!" =  "I Can Haz LoA!"
Discordian: "That is just a HAMBURGER, it is not a FUCKING Overweight Scotsman!!" = LoA is Lo5! It is NOT Quantum Physics!
Pagan: "Well, the guy behind the counter just took my order and my debit card" = Guru says LoA and it's gonna cost me!
Discordian: "You Stupid Spag! They aren't gonna give you a overweight Scotsman, they're gonna give you a f'ing hamburger." = LoA is Lo5 and you shouldn't be paying 5 bucks for it, you can make it at home for $2.
Pagan: "But, I am eating it right now. In fact it is so yummy, I'm taking the place mat home and eating the picture of the Big Mac for dinner!" = LoA is not only useful model... IT IS SCIENCEY TROOF!
Discordian "Of fuck off" = "Oh fuck off"



LoA is just a signifier. It's unfortunate that so many people confuse the signifier with reality. However, even some spagged up Discordians confuse the Lo5's with Reality... I think that has more to do with the way their brain works, than the model they happen to be looking at.