What is your "INTUITION" about THE SECRET "law of attraction"?

by Terry 87 Replies latest social family

  • Terry
    Terry

    Okay. Let's try and use language to communicate in non-contradictory, precise and understandable terms.

    If we are going to assert into being a LAW of ATTRACTION we will need to define it in terms of known entities. We can't just

    make things up. As the old saying goes, "everybody is entitled to his own opinion---not his own facts."

    What is the difference between:

    1. Hypothesis

    2. Theory

    3.Postulate

    4.Principle

    5.Conjecture

    What is a Law of Science, for instance?

    Science uses a METHOD.

    All known facts are gathered. Those facts are sorted into a pattern. An experiment is developed to test to see if the pattern exists and what the

    implication might be. A hypothesis is formed. More observations and experiments are conducted to determine cause and effect.

    A General Theory emerges which must be exposed to Falsifiability (a means of proving it untrue). Once the Theory meets the peer review of other

    testing scientists it becomes an Accepted Law.

    It is quantifiable and demonstrable to all persons in all places. It contains facts rather than assertions. The nature of the Law is expressed in

    mathematical certainty within a certain margin of error.

    Laws of science may be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them.

    A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined

    constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.

    What constitutes the LAW OF ATTRACTION? How is it defined, quantified, tested and falsified? What is its HISTORY and ORIGIN?

    The Secret lists three required steps — "ask, believe, receive" — as the essence of the Law of Attraction:

    AskKnow what you want and ask the universe for it.

    This is where you need to get clear on what it is you want to create and visualise what you want as being as 'real' as possible.

    Believe †Feel and behave as if the object of your desire is on its way.

    Focus your thoughts and your language on what it is you want to attract. You want to feel the feeling of really 'knowing' that what you desire is on its way to you, even if you have to trick yourself into believing it – do it.

    ReceiveBe open to receiving it.Pay attention to your intuitive messages, synchronicities, signs from the Universe to help you along the way as assurance you are on the 'right' path. As you align yourself with the Universe and open yourself up to receiving, the very thing you are wanting to manifest will show up.

    History

    An "occult law of attraction", 1879

    In 1879, the New York Times was the first major newspaper to use the phrase "Law of Attraction", describing the wagon trains of the Colorado gold rush as "moving in obedience to some occult law of attraction that overcomes all obstacles in their progress to their destination". [ 17 ]

    A physical "energy of attraction", 1902

    As early as 1902, references to something similar to the law of attraction can be seen particularly in discussion of matter formation. John Ambrose Fleming, an electrical engineer and turn-of-the-century physicist, described "every completed manifestation, of whatever kind and on whatever scale" as "an unquenchable energy of attraction" that causes objects to "steadily increase in power and definiteness of purpose, until the process of growth is completed and the matured form stands out as an accomplished fact". [ 18 ]

    The New Thought Movement, 1904–1910

    Thomas Troward, who was a strong influence in the New Thought Movement, claimed that thought precedes physical form and that "the action of Mind plants that nucleus which, if allowed to grow undisturbed, will eventually attract to itself all the conditions necessary for its manifestation in outward visible form." [ 19 ]

    In 1906, William Walker Atkinson (1862 - 1932) used the phrase in his New Thought Movement book Thought Vibration or the Law of Attraction in the Thought World. [ 20 ] The following year, Elizabeth Towne, the editor of The Nautilus Magazine, a Journal of New Thought, published Bruce MacLelland's book Prosperity Through Thought Force, in which he summarized the principle, stating: "You are what you think, not what you think you are." [ 21 ]

    The book "The Science of Getting Rich" by Wallace D. Wattles espouses many of the exact same principles [improper synthesis?] —that truly believing in the object of your desire and focusing onto it will lead to that object or goal being realized on the material plane (Wallace indicates in the Preface and later chapters of this book that his premise stems from the monisticHindu view that God pervades everything and can deliver that which we focus on). In addition, the book also indicates that negative thinking will manifest negative results. [ 22 ]

    The "law of attraction" in Theosophy, 1915–1919

    The phrase "Law of Attraction" appeared in the writings of the Theosophical authors William Quan Judge in 1915, [ 23 ] and Annie Besant in 1919. [ 24 ]

    The Law of Success in 16 Lessons

    Before the release of Think and Grow Rich, Napoleon Hill released The Law of Success in 16 Lessons (1928) which directly references the Law of Attraction, by name, repeatedly.

    "Think and Grow Rich", 1937

    In 1937, author Napoleon Hill published his book Think and Grow Rich which went on to become one of the best selling books of all time, selling over 60 million copies. In this book, he discusses the importance of controlling your own thoughts in order to achieve success, as well as the energy that thoughts have and their ability to attract other thoughts. In the beginning of the book, Napoleon Hill mentions a "secret" to success, and promises to indirectly describe it at least once in every chapter of the book. It is never named directly for he says that discovering it on one's own is far more beneficial. Many people have argued over what the secret actually is, with some arguing that it was the Law of Attraction.

    Mid-1900s–2000

    By the mid 1900s, various authors addressed the topic and related ideas [improper synthesis?] under a range of religious and secular terms, such as "positive thinking", "mental science", "pragmatic Christianity", "New Thought", "practical metaphysics", "Science of Mind" / "Religious Science", and "Divine Science". [ 1 ] [ 25 ] Among the mid 20th century authors who used the term were Florence Scovel Shinn (1925), Sri K. Parvathi Kumar (1942) [ 26 ] , Alice Bailey (1942) [ 27 ] [ 28 ] [ 29 ] , and Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov (1968) [ 30 ] . Author Louise Hay in 1976 released a pamphlet in which she links various diseases and disorders to certain thoughts and states of minds. This list was included in her 1984 best-seller book You Can Heal Your Life, in which she promotes positive thinking as a healing method. [ 31 ] Other proponents of the Law of Attraction included Wallace Wattles, Robert Collier, and Helena Blavatsky, who all published books in the early 1900s.

    21st century

    In 2006, a film entitled The Secret (2006) based on the "Law of Attraction" was released and then developed into a book of the same title in 2007. The movie and book gained widespread attention in the media from Saturday Night Live to The Oprah Winfrey Show in the United States. [ 1 ] The same year the Hicks' The Law Of Attraction was on the New York Times best seller list. [ 32 ]

    The success of the film and various books led to increased media coverage. Oprah Winfrey devoted two episodes of her show to discussing the film and the law of attraction. [ 33 ] Talk show host Larry King also discussed it on his show but criticized it for several reasons. He pointed to the sufferings in the world and asked: "If the Universe manifests abundance at a mere thought, why is there so much poverty, starvation, and death?" [citation needed]

  • mindmelda
    mindmelda

    There's no doubt that practice affects skill, but believe me, musical talent is innate. You literally cannot produce a singer or musician through effort alone. Or a world class athlete, for that matter.

    It's not mysticism to say some talents and abilities are innate. A person with the right vocal structures but also possessing of all the right mental and emotional abilities to understand, interpret and express music coming together in a gestalt we call musical talent isn't usual.

    Musicality is an expression of many things working together and in combination to produce those pleasant sounds we call singing, but you know, we just open our mouths and out it comes, with no real conscious thought.

    Intuition is the same, it is innate, and composed of many intricate abilities coming together in a gestalt, which is to say, the sum is more than the parts, but many human talents like language are the same.

    Things that we do rather easily and yet are quite complicted, like speak, are in place because they need to be, to some extent, genetic and inherent because it would take us too long to learn them step by step for them to be a truly useful thing. Think of how long it takes an adult to learn a new language, and then think of how easily a young child learns language if everything is in place for them to do so.

    That happens because learning language is so important that genetics "decided" to make it genetic and innate to development rather than a completely learned ability.

    We need it as much as we need to breath, or walk, or eat or reproduce, all those other things that aren't left up to chance. Stuff we really need is like that...we're born with the program, pretty much, or we wouldn't have survived long as a species.

    Intuition is also in that category. We need it, so we don't need to learn it. We can enhance it through experience and learning, but it's necessary for it to be innate.

    It's interesting when some of those programs are missing, too. Social intuition or ability is one of those programs we're usually born with, the exception being people on the autistic spectrum.

    Now, I have a son who has Aspergers, a mild form of that "lack of social programming" or in some much more severe cases, there is a complete absence of it. It's so intrinsic to development that kids with even mild forms are always behind their peers in some ways. A high IQ, which my son has, in fact, he has a genius IQ, still doesn't entirely make up for the lack of of that inherent social programming we all take for granted.

    He can sort of fake eye contact and social interaction, and though he has a huge vocabulary, as he's very intelligent, the social nuances of language often still escape him, even with lots of years of training.

    He often cannot tell if someone is being sarcastic, or if someone is really angry or upset with him, or he assumes they are when they're only mildly irritated. A person who has that program intact can tell these things before they're out of grade school with just ordinary social interaction as their only training, but for a highly intelligent person with Asbergers, ordinary social interactions, especially with people they don't know, is a nightmare and can make them incredibly anxious.

    My son compares it to trying to navigate a new neighborhood without a compass. With people he knows, he can use intellect to make up for the lack of ability, and also, they understand his difficulty and compensate for it with him, but when dealing with people who assume you have the same skill set that they do, more or less, they're soon confused and so is he when they try to communicate anything with social or emotionally laden context.

  • Terry
    Terry

    It's not mysticism to say some talents and abilities are innate. A person with the right vocal structures but also possessing of all the right mental and emotional abilities to understand, interpret and express music coming together in a gestalt we call musical talent isn't usual.

    Agreed.

    Intuition is the same, it is innate, and composed of many intricate abilities coming together in a gestalt, which is to say, the sum is more than the parts, but many human talents like language are the same.

    How can we make that falsifiable?

    I have a son who has Aspergers

    I do too. He is now 19. Helluva great kid!

    What you are describing as "intuition" I would describe using other more specific words of a less fuzzy and indistinct nature. And, in so doing I

    would obviate the need to use intuition at all.

    Social skills consist of an awareness of artificial "norms". Society consists of conventions, rituals, manners, habits and customs imposed over time

    and tacitly accepted by the majority.

    There is no "intuition" to encompass such artifice.

    A color-blind person simply lacks the "capacity" to perceive certain parts of the light spectrum.

    A socially "blind" person similarly lacks a social cue capacity.

    Adapting to situations is inherent in an organism that is self-preserving. What is involved in those adaptations are many and varied.

    No need to postulate "intuition".

    My son with Asperger's syndrome doesn't know when he is hurting somebody's feelings unless they demonstrate those feelings.

    Then, he recognizes something is wrong and has a hard time understanding how HE had anything to do with it.

    Over time, we've instilled a number of telltale signs for him to observe in others which "cue" him.

    The connection between emotional response and his own value system does not allow for variance in others. That is why he expects others to

    react to things THE SAME WAY he does. It is machine-like. Values are Data. Personal opinion and Taste is incomprehensible as a subjective thing.

    It would be like me telling you, "Hey when you speak with me and I say "white" I mean "black" and the number "7" really means "frog".

    How would you deal with that??

    He's the same way about PERSONAL emotions.

  • mindmelda
    mindmelda

    It's true, there are less "fuzzy" words to describe intuition, at least as it's commonly defined.

    However, psychologists sociologists find it useful in their narrower definition of it, because it describes global thinking better than some other terms.

    LOL..I often tell people who know the Star Trek universe that Data is a fairly good analogy for Aspies, but with one difference...it's Data with the malfunctioning emotion chip, sometimes. Having emotions is different than the set of skills it takes to define and integrate them.

    Aspies definitely have emotion...that's too integrated into other mental functions for them not to have them. What is lacking is the ability to socially and personally integrate that into every day communication and interaction.

    My son is 17. Fun age, isn't it? LOL

    I think my son is a terrific kid too. I have friends who are adults Aspies, and they make me realize that you can be a pretty functional person in spite of it. I actually enjoy being around them sometimes more than NT (neurotypical, for other readers) people. I like directness and the lack of filters that Aspies have usually amuses me rather than annoys me.

    I'm hard to annoy, that's why I work with toddlers and the elderly well. LOL

  • Terry
    Terry

    When I looked through the list of "symptoms" of Asperger's I winced in recognizing my own self!

    My son's Mom too!

    He got a double dose.

    I have learned gradually over a great many years to be sociable, friendly, relaxed and such by concentrating on it.

    Most people who know me in person would describe me as a wacky, funny, madcap goofy guy. Little do they know it

    is a lot of work on my part!

    My default setting is semi-serious and devoted to details!

    My son has learned to have a social side as well. We merely taught it to him as a "learned skill" rather than some unnatural thing he was SUPPOSED to do.

    His friends really like his company. His natural tendency when invited somewhere is to be uncomfortable and want to stay by himself.

    But--he's learning.....always learning....

  • GLTirebiter
    GLTirebiter

    This so-called "law of atdistraction" is a corruption of a genuinely useful technique: Visualize about your goal. Think about what you can do to reach that goal, then do so (don't expect anything to happen if you just lay around waiting for it to happen)! When you encounter a setback, do what you must to recover, then move on toward the goal (don't dwell on the negative and let it become what Pirsig called a "gumption trap"). That is a motivational technique that really works: find a way to make your dream a reality. Wishful thinking leads nowhere; "winners make their own luck"!

  • jeanV
    jeanV

    cult classic, you ask "How does this work in "real" life?"

    it is simple, we all have our reality, that is why in front of the same event we can come to opposite conclusion and perceive it in a different way. a simple example, two astronauts in space one can say I do not see God, there is no God; the other one, everything I see reveal the existence of God.

    we can convince ourselves to believe almost anything (that is how it works in cults, isn't it?) and most of the time our reality is shaped by our beliefs, background, culture, etc…

    a cat is an animal, but depending on how we see it (our reality) it can be, food, a pet to play with, a god, a detestable animal to be eliminated.

  • zagor
    zagor

    Lots of people tried to convince me in "The Secret", on surface it is tempting to go for a ride but after a while you see it's nothing more than conditioning your own subconscious that then seeks out what it wants to find, kinda like reading horoscope and seeing only bits that fit and ignoring all the rest.
    Intuition is all good if based on solid logic and it can connect things conscious mind cannot, but If we look back and see that often our "burning gut feeling" led us along the path that turned out more often to be disaster than not, then something is wrong. I often see people who follow their gut until they crash as well as those who miss the chance of a lifetime because their gut was telling them something else. Mind sometimes gut feeling can save your life, last year I've had a gut feeling that something was wrong with my gut, well it turned out my gut feeling saved my ass, go figure.

  • changeling
    changeling

    Just found this thread and don't have the time to read all the comments, but as a person who considers herself to be "intuitive", I am compelled to put in my 2 cents...

    I agree with BTS (gasp!), intuition is real and it is not apart from thinking. Intuition is like a short cut. Everyone has intuition, but some people are more keyed in to their own reactions to things and/or to their surroundings and are able to come to correct conclusions about things very quickly. We have stores of memory that sometimes kick in in certain circumstances and we are able to draw the connections between acquired knowledge and what faces us now w/o any deep pondering.

    Intuition should not be trusted in every case, but it often leads us down a path that, once put to the test, confirms our "hunch".

    "The Secret" is a bunch of hogwash and has nothing to do with intuition. It's a slick marketing scheem that takes advantage of the naive.

    Jung had much to say about being intuitive and later on Myers and Briggs took his theories farther. I've posted about their work before. A site I like that has a pretty accurate test is: humanmetrics.com Terry, I challenge you to take the test. I believe you will find you are more "intuitive" than you think. I will go out on a limb and predict you will test as an INTJ. Let us know how it goes...

    changeling (ENFJ) :)

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    I'm INTP. But very close to ENTP.

    BTS

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit