The Law of Confusion- an essay

[snowheight]

I’d like to point out, that I’m not here to defend “The Secret”. I personally don’t like it, and I think it’s much too superficial to truly be useful. And her whole approach and aggressive marketing makes it quite distasteful to me. But The Secret is merely an attempt to simplify and popularize something that is much more subtle to understand and master.

I see more and more people around the forum who dismiss this stuff outright, and form strong beliefs against it, without any real examination. I think anytime a person does that, about anything, he's only doing himself a disservice, dismissing some part of life as invalid.

The emphasized JM passages bring into stark relief that perhaps Byrne's misdirection has drowned out valuable pointers that in turn perhaps would benefit from a re-tooling of the labels which package them.

Moderator note: Political comment removed.

[snowheight]

The Law of Attraction, in its popular incarnation, is that you can attract the objects of your desires by the power of thought. This is a belief system, and as a belief system it's as absurd as throwing virgins down a volcano to please the gods. It's not only absurd but it is dangerously misleading in that it validates the delusion that you can replace your suffering with positive or materialistic or affirmative thinking.

[erict]

If the thought of lack – whether it
be money, recognition, or love – has become part of who you think you are,
you will always experience lack.

Here is one interpretation of that statement: if you feel a lack of money it doesn't matter how much you have or at what rate you earn it you will always feel this lack and the drive to make more. Even after you have a huge house, big car, more possessions that you could ever use and more cash in the bank than you could ever spend then you will STILL keep on working, still keep on acquiring. You will always be poor.

Here is another interpretation of that statement: stop thinking you are poor and you will become rich. Believe you are rich and eventually money will flow to you.

eric: which of these do you honestly think most people hear when they are introduced to the LOA? Do you see any potential for exploitation here? Do you see the possibility for real genuine material harm to come to people who might apparently fall victim to such apparent exploitation?

Yes, the interpretation is valid, and I actually think both are true and deeply intertwined.

I didn't really understand any of what you said about potential exploitation, material harm, and victims. You quoted Eckhart Tolle, then you said something about people who are introduced to the LoA. I really didn't get what you were trying to say.

[snowheight]

These abilities are not really related to enlightenment directly, though, at least, they don't hinge
upon it, nor it on they. I'm talking about the ability to manifest desires, for one, to shape
your personal reality.

Sinead O'Connor : "I do not want what I haven't got".

[snowheight]

If the thought of lack – whether it
be money, recognition, or love – has become part of who you think you are,
you will always experience lack.

Here is one interpretation of that statement: if you feel a lack of money it doesn't matter how much you have or at what rate you earn it you will always feel this lack and the drive to make more. Even after you have a huge house, big car, more possessions that you could ever use and more cash in the bank than you could ever spend then you will STILL keep on working, still keep on acquiring. You will always be poor.

Here is another interpretation of that statement: stop thinking you are poor and you will become rich. Believe you are rich and eventually money will flow to you.

eric: which of these do you honestly think most people hear when they are introduced to the LOA? Do you see any potential for exploitation here? Do you see the possibility for real genuine material harm to come to people who might apparently fall victim to such apparent exploitation?

Yes, the interpretation is valid, and I actually think both are true and deeply intertwined.

I didn't really understand any of what you said about potential exploitation, material harm, and victims. You quoted Eckhart Tolle, then you said something about people who are introduced to the LoA. I really didn't get what you were trying to say.

Imagine someone who has lost their job and is a few months away from foreclosure. Someone who has a family to support. Someone at the end of their rope. Someone looking somewhere, anywhere for some hope. Someone at the end of a material road looking for a next step.

This person, arguably in a very vulnerable position, stumbles upon Byrne's presentation of the LOA in the form of "The Secret". They read the book or watch a video, etc. and then embark on a course of action based on it.

They spend the last of their savings acting as if they are rich and lose their house several months sooner than they would have and deplete any liquid resources that they had access to that would have enabled them to set themselves and their family up in a more sustainable situation that might have held until they could have got back on their feet.

One way to look at this is that suffering results in enlightenment ... once this poor soul is out on the streets with their kids, if they avoid the pitfall of cursing all that is and all of humanity in bitterness, perhaps they will have closer access to their true nature.

Another way to look at this is that a bit of cynicism toward an obvious charlatan would have come in handy.

[autumnsphere]

Hahaha, a rich guy would never act like that! So this would be the "you didn't do it the right way" case.

[karmarider]

Moderator note: Political comment removed.

Hehe, I enjoyed the political comment before it was removed. More poignant than virgins and volcanoes.

[erict]

Imagine someone who has lost their job and is a few months away from foreclosure. Someone who has a family to support. Someone at the end of their rope. Someone looking somewhere, anywhere for some hope. Someone at the end of a material road looking for a next step.

This person, arguably in a very vulnerable position, stumbles upon Byrne's presentation of the LOA in the form of "The Secret". They read the book or watch a video, etc. and then embark on a course of action based on it.

They spend the last of their savings acting as if they are rich and lose their house several months sooner than they would have and deplete any liquid resources that they had access to that would have enabled them to set themselves and their family up in a more sustainable situation that might have held until they could have got back on their feet.

One way to look at this is that suffering results in enlightenment ... once this poor soul is out on the streets with their kids, if they avoid the pitfall of cursing all that is and all of humanity in bitterness, perhaps they will have closer access to their true nature.

Another way to look at this is that a bit of cynicism toward an obvious charlatan would have come in handy.

Maybe you should have bothered reading the topic more carefully, because I've already expressed elsewhere in this thread that Rhonda's presentation of the material is too superficial to be truly useful in my opinion. Also, a big part of the discussion is that perhaps people should not be so quick to jump to conclusions and offer judgement about something before exploring it more deeply, which clearly you have not done.

The fact about "The Secret" is that it is based on the teachings of Abraham-hicks, which have existed and evolved for well over 20 years now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFp-iPSPplE

That is what my understanding of LoA is mainly based on, as well as a few other sources. And before someone starts talking about the fact that Abraham-hicks is not the original source of these teachings, of course not. What they are doing is offering their perspective, in their language and terminology, and exploring many very useful nuances. It is in the subtleties of this model, that it truly becomes valuable.

Your hypothetical scenario is based on several assumptions, none of which have anything to do with the actual LoA principles. One assumption I've already noticed repeating itself is that action is not a part of the model. But it is not about avoiding action, lying to yourself and pretending. It is about aligning your body (action), mind (thought) and soul (emotion). Rather than trying to compensate through action alone, which is often a struggle, which only leads to more struggle.

[autumnsphere]

Hehe, this really reminds me of Tolle's "car in the mud" example. This is where the two meet, really.

[snowheight]

Here is another interpretation of that statement: stop thinking you are poor and you will become rich. Believe you are rich and eventually money will flow to you.

Hahaha, a rich guy would never act like that! So this would be the "you didn't do it the right way" case.

Exactly, this interpretation of Loa is a mis-conception.

Did the Japanese attract that tsunami? -- the examples along this vein are endless.

Your hypothetical scenario is based on several assumptions, none of which have anything to do with the actual LoA principles.

I challenge you to construct a hypothetical projection of real-life devoid of all assumptions. The scenario was based directly on that second interpretation of Loa which, as Dora has pointed out, can be explained away as a mis-interpretation ... which you seem to be agreeing with now ... a change of heart eric from ?:

Yes, the interpretation is valid, and I actually think both are true and deeply intertwined.

OR are you saying instead that such a scenario is unlikely ... that the apparent actions of the sufferer can be projected on to some other apparent cause than this mis-interpretation?

I see more and more people around the forum who dismiss this stuff outright, and form strong beliefs against it, without any real examination. I think anytime a person does that, about anything, he's only doing himself a disservice, dismissing some part of life as invalid.

Rhonda's presentation of the material is too superficial to be truly useful in my opinion

The scenario was an attempt to illuminate this perspective, to explain why such strong counter-beliefs have formed up.

Personally, I have no problem with whatever system you want to put up a special section for on your forum ... it is not my place to tell you what to print. But don't be surprised if some unexpected flotsam blows back up onto your shore

[autumnsphere]

I've just had another thought. I'm sure that the key to combining Tolle and LoA is non-resistance. And in fact - there's nothing wrong with explaining this psychologically - aren't there psychological laws - even if you don't "see" them. LoA doesn't have to work as some magical inexplicable power, it can be explained psychologically.

It's the same thing Tolle says - when you withdraw your ego, your partner/parent/opponent will withdraw theirs. When you fight, resist and defend, you provoke the same reaction in the world. When you accept, allow and...haha...align, people (conciousness / source / universe ) aligns with you. So when you're acting out of a place of acceptance, the world works for you because that's what you project. Projections works like a mirror in a mirror in a mirror, you project an emotion (acceptance or resistance) and psychologically the person in front of you projects the same thing back to you. And since we live in a consciousness driven world, there you go...

[hanss]

I've just had another thought. I'm sure that the key to combining Tolle and LoA is non-resistance. And in fact - there's nothing wrong with explaining this psychologically - aren't there psychological laws - even if you don't "see" them. LoA doesn't have to work as some magical inexplicable power, it can be explained psychologically.

It's the same thing Tolle says - when you withdraw your ego, your partner/parent/opponent will withdraw theirs. When you fight, resist and defend, you provoke the same reaction in the world. When you accept, allow and...haha...align, people (conciousness / source / universe ) aligns with you. So when you're acting out of a place of acceptance, the world works for you because that's what you project. Projections works like a mirror in a mirror in a mirror, you project an emotion (acceptance or resistance) and psychologically the person in front of you projects the same thing back to you. And since we live in a consciousness driven world, there you go...

In addition, a quote from Esther Hicks:
"You can't complain about what is going on and be a vibrational match to the improvement at the same time"

[heidi]

I'm sure that the key to combining Tolle and LoA is non-resistance.

So, true, Dora. That thinking - anticipating as if it's already a done deal is just like planting a seed. Anticipation is not necessarily expectation, because it does not demand result; it FEELS result and accepts whatever is with that same feeling.
There's a delicious sense of wonder. And even if the seed rots, that's okay too. You can always plant another. When you are in a state of allowing, you are open to all of the abundance and joy in the universe - and it truly is only "you" that can stand between you and fulfillment. When you approach EVERYTHING with acceptance, then everything is okay, and when you are open to everything, the whole world is a wonderful bountiful place where you can find the gift even the "bad" stuff.

[snowheight]

LoA doesn't have to work as some magical inexplicable power, it can be explained psychologically.

It's the same thing Tolle says - when you withdraw your ego, your partner/parent/opponent will withdraw theirs. When you fight, resist and defend, you provoke the same reaction in the world. When you accept, allow and...haha...align, people (conciousness / source / universe ) aligns with you. So when you're acting out of a place of acceptance, the world works for you because that's what you project. Projections works like a mirror in a mirror in a mirror, you project an emotion (acceptance or resistance) and psychologically the person in front of you projects the same thing back to you. And since we live in a consciousness driven world, there you go...

Does anyone else reading this see what Dora has written here as a modern expression of a very very old incarnation of the Loa? ... riddle/hint: a color or a metal and the teachers mode of correction when not used for measuring.

[Sighclone]

WW -

Sorry to respond so late. Here are two entries from Wikipedia discussing the origin of the LOA, first from Wallace Wattles' book The Science of Getting Rich, and the second from Abraham-Hicks:

* * * * *

Wikipedia Entry 1
Rhonda Byrne told a Newsweek interviewer that her inspiration for creating the 2006 hit film The Secret and the subsequent book by the same name, was her exposure to Wattles's The Science of Getting Rich.[14] Byrne's daughter, Hayley, had given her mother a copy of the Wattles book to help her recover from her breakdown.[15] The film itself also references, by re-popularizing the term The Law of Attraction,[14] a 1908 book by another New Thought author, William Walker Atkinson, titled Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World.

Wikipedia entry 2
Esther Hicks was a narrator and star of the original version of the film The Secret, as well as a central source of the film's inspiration.[3] The footage featuring Hicks was removed from the later "Extended Edition" after the film's creator Rhonda Byrne, who has been involved in contractual disputes and litigation regarding the film, rescinded the original contract covering Hicks' participation[4], and asked that Hicks relinquish her "intellectual property rights in these areas forever".[6] In an open letter posted on the internet, Hicks stated that she had been "uncomfortable with what felt to us like a rather aggressive marketing campaign," and that ultimately Abraham gave her the following advice: "Whenever you are given an ultimatum that says, 'if you don't do this, then we will have to do such and such,' it is best that you just let it go and move on. Otherwise there is always another, and this, and this, and this?"[6] The letter doesn't condemn Byrne, but clarifies why Hicks no longer appears in The Secret.
Hicks has since posted a video on YouTube further explaining her discomfort with The Secret and finally, her decision to discontinue involvement with the film.

* * * * *

So the Secret or Law of Attraction either comes from some bizarre writer named Wallace Wattles (The Science of Getting Rich) which I have read and is full of obsessive instructions about concentrating on your material goals – he died broke. Or it was channeled from some non-physical being. Neither are particularly convincing.

Perhaps I was being unfair regarding “sound and fury signifying nothing.” My point was that it is not testable... If an event occurs which is favorable, how can you ever know whether a bunch of thinking created it or not. The issue is causality. Did the thinking cause the event??? Or did the event just happen? Regardless of what people say, until there is a direct causal link, fully demostrated and repeatable, another scientific law applies: the law of probability. Black swans are real...a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then, etc.

Is science the final proving ground? No, that would be your own experience, in these arcane matters of manifesting. I do not doubt that some people believe the LoA "worked" for them. But it is not a law of science (that's the claim, using that word) until causality can be proved. Now if A-H or Wallace Wattles or Rhonda Byrne had used the phrase "the 'apparent law' of attraction" it would be far less popular because that boring, qualified little assertion isn't very sexy.

None of my comments are meant to suggest that there is not some level of truth in the suggestions of the LoA -- it just ain't a law yet.

Regarding NDE's, until we've had one, the most we can say is that it "seems to resonate with me." Fascinating, comforting perhaps, even wonderful...and so are mediums like John Edward and James Van Praagh. But these people don't claim their experiences to be a "law," and they most certainly don't attempt to prove the causal process. So, from a scientific perspective, the LoA is far from a law...

* * * * *

Eckhart did encourage an aspiring actress to “be that actress now,” and not to obsess about some future condition.

Certainly thinking about the future has value in planning your use of time. None of that is a secret.

Andy