Thread: The Law Of Attraction

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

WTF.

I want my life to be a physical chicken. WAIT, THATS FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.

Screw you. I'll take a nicer tone when you logically and rationally debunk my arguments.

Til then, F' off.


[any mods viewing this: if you want me to edit out this post, I will, but I hope you understand the frustration at that response to a well thought out argument]

The tone of most your posts speak for themselves and show a true lack of understanding on many a level.

As I've already said countless times, If you continually look outside yourself for answers you will find none. If you look outside for justification and purpose, you will also find none...

Clearly, your conclusion for life, among many other things, comes from having a lack of perspective. You, like others on here, are focusing way too much on the results reached through outer observation. Without the ability to have perspective enough to observe both inner and outer discourse in perfect accordance with one another, you will be left unable to find the purpose in the lack of purpose-- unable to enjoy the contradictions of life. Inabilities, which are evident in your vocalized frustrations.

Time and experience naturally bring one into perspective. You, like many others in here, are still pretty young. Yeah, I know when we are young we all like to think that age doesn't matter, but it does. Otherwise, we wouldn't assign the meaningless digits to ourselves, in the first place. I remember being in the exact same mindset as most of you are at 15-16-- thinking I had the whole world all figured out, and how experience and age didn't count for sh:t. I even dated a girl 10 years older than me for 2 years thinking it didn't matter because I was ahead of the game. Trust me, it does matter. Sure, there are some exceptions in eloquence, education, and edification of one's character... But overall, we pretty much think the same things during the different stages of our life.

I'm sure as much as you don't want to admit it, deep down you must know your way of viewing the world is askew. Just as everyone's is. If you didn't allow for the existence of error and self-doubt, that certainty of life being pathetic and pointless would've had you kill yourself long ago. Whether you admit it to me or not, I know you don't fully believe what you just preached and must leave room to be proved wrong somewhere in the back of your mind. Which in this case, you are clearly wrong...you just haven't found your purpose, yet.

Hows that... Pretty much hits the nail on the head, no?

Please allow me to share one my favorite japanese proverbs...
一時が万事
(Direct translation: One moment, 10 thousand things)
(Indirect translation: The ability to comprehend many other things, from looking at just one thing, especially from human action or words)

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Yeah, I know when we are young we all like to think that age doesn't matter, but it does. If not, we wouldn't assign the meaningless digits to ourselves, in the first place. I remember being in the exact same mindset as most of you are at 15-16-- thinking I had the whole world all figured out, and how experience and age didn't count for sh:t.

Well, I hesitate to believe your generalizations from the outset, seeing as I am acutely aware of my current limitations. I am still a child, by all accounts, in my formative years, and I am obviously not completely mentally or emotionally mature.

But there's no shame in that, and I will endeavor to shape myself and my beliefs as best I can given the circumstances.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

As I've already said countless times, If you continually look outside yourself for answers you will find none. If you look outside for justification and purpose, you will also find none...

Some people mature by looking 'into themselves', as you say, but I don't believe that everyone does - I'm already deviating from the path you followed when you were my age. I believe that it is simply in my nature to seek logic and external verification of truths, and unless I experience a major change in my mental characteristics this will likely never change.

However, I'm still curious - I have a good general idea of what you mean by 'look into yourself', but I really don't understand specifically what sort of action you're referring to. Meditation? What do you propose to learn from this shift in attention?

Personally, I don't feel anyone can truly mature without real reflection and internalization. Unfortunately, one cannot magically reach profound understanding or growth without feeding their mind internally. Also, there's no one way to tell someone how to turn inward, they just have to do it for themselves. In any event, I think you are ahead of most for your age, if that counts for anything.

Among other things, it took me to actually feel the music in an indescribable way to change my priorities. Personally, if I didn't find music and other outlets of perceptual expansion I'd probably be on my original path of dull and dreary computer programmer. Obviously, in order to learn C++ I had to have some sense of logic. Now, I use a different kind of flowing intuitive logic for music making and the other things in my life.

Imagine yourself as a ball tied to a chain of perception:
The more you focus on the act of perceiving, the longer the chain gets, and the more you are able to internally perceive.
And, the more you are able to internally perceive, the less you get caught up in or tied down to limited external perceptions.

The converse:
The less you focus on the act of perceiving, the shorter the chain gets, and the less you are able to internally perceive.
And, The less you are able to internally perceive, the more you get caught up in or tied down to limited external perceptions.

...Now objectively speaking, I dont think one way is necessarily better than the other. I just personally feel, since the constant in both of those situations is yourself, it brings up the legitimate question of; Why concentrate more on the external if what's really steering the experience is ending up going off to the wayside during that time? Whether you become an astro-physicist, a baseball player, a serial killer, or a porn star... neither path you go down really has any more or less significance than the other... all that really matters is how you perceive any given moment. What people should ask themselves is; Am I striving to forget myself, or remember?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The tone of most your posts speak for themselves and show a true lack of understanding on many a level.

As I've already said countless times, If you continually look outside yourself for answers you will find none. If you look outside for justification and purpose, you will also find none...

Clearly, your conclusion for life, among many other things, comes from having a lack of perspective. You, like others on here, are focusing way too much on the results reached through outer observation. Without the ability to have perspective enough to observe both inner and outer discourse in perfect accordance with one another, you will be left unable to find the purpose in the lack of purpose-- unable to enjoy the contradictions of life. Inabilities, which are evident in your vocalized frustrations.

Time and experience naturally bring one into perspective. You, like many others in here, are still pretty young. Yeah, I know when we are young we all like to think that age doesn't matter, but it does. Otherwise, we wouldn't assign the meaningless digits to ourselves, in the first place. I remember being in the exact same mindset as most of you are at 15-16-- thinking I had the whole world all figured out, and how experience and age didn't count for sh:t. I even dated a girl 10 years older than me for 2 years thinking it didn't matter because I was ahead of the game. Trust me, it does matter. Sure, there are some exceptions in eloquence, education, and edification of one's character... But overall, we pretty much think the same things during the different stages of our life.

I'm sure as much as you don't want to admit it, deep down you must know your way of viewing the world is askew. Just as everyone's is. If you didn't allow for the existence of error and self-doubt, that certainty of life being pathetic and pointless would've had you kill yourself long ago. Whether you admit it to me or not, I know you don't fully believe what you just preached and must leave room to be proved wrong somewhere in the back of your mind. Which in this case, you are clearly wrong...you just haven't found your purpose, yet.

Hows that... Pretty much hits the nail on the head, no?

Please allow me to share one my favorite japanese proverbs...
一時が万事
(Direct translation: One moment, 10 thousand things)
(Indirect translation: The ability to comprehend many other things, from looking at just one thing, especially from human action or words)

No.Alright, I'll stop with hostility.

I remain unclear what looking into yourself is.



What different aspect? I know its been said.. but like, meditation..? Or what..


I think your underrating scientific observation as furthering the truth.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

You don't gather knowledge from personal experiences. You gather it through science.

You're right, but how about this - how can science exist without experience?

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The tone of most your posts speak for themselves and show a true lack of understanding on many a level.

[...]

Hows that... Pretty much hits the nail on the head, no?

Please allow me to share one my favorite japanese proverbs...
一時が万事
(Direct translation: One moment, 10 thousand things)
(Indirect translation: The ability to comprehend many other things, from looking at just one thing, especially from human action or words)

Hey, you know I am genuinely interested in on of your posts, and I asked you a question about it. But you'd prefer to reply to someone who shows a bit of hostility? Why don't you pay a bit more attention on what matters instead of over complicating things with your arguments? Help me out here.


I'd prefer if we all would stop bagging "The Secret" and really just talk about The Law Of Attraction. Thanks.

Originally Posted by really

You're right, but how about this - how can science exist without experience?

Of course it can't, but that's not the point.

You can't make an arrowhead without a rock, but not all rocks can be used to make arrowheads.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Of course it can't, but that's not the point.

You can't make an arrowhead without a rock, but not all rocks can be used to make arrowheads.

It is my point, and so yes, all rocks can be used to make arrowheads. I'm saying that science is just another way to view the world, another experience.

Originally Posted by really

It is my point, and so yes, all rocks can be used to make arrowheads. I'm saying that science is just another way to view the world, another experience.

Well, you're wrong. I've said it clearly before - science is a process. It's not a 'way to view the world', dingit.

Science uses experiences because there's no other way to gather data - you have to 'experience' reading the thermometer, or whatever it may be. However, not all experiences are a part of a scientific inquiry.

Originally Posted by really

You're right, but how about this - how can science exist without experience?



Hey, you know I am genuinely interested in on of your posts, and I asked you a question about it.

Sorry, must've missed it. What was the question again?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Well, you're wrong. I've said it clearly before - science is a process. It's not a 'way to view the world', dingit.

Science is a way to process the world and hence develops a way to view the world. That's what we do.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Science uses experiences because there's no other way to gather data - you have to 'experience' reading the thermometer, or whatever it may be. However, not all experiences are a part of a scientific inquiry.

Yes, there is no other way "to gather data", that we know of. But ones experience of reading a thermometer can be different to another's - so who is right? I'm saying that scientific knowledge is another way to view the world because one person could say the sun is a golden fireball while another could say it's a star fusing hydrogen nuclei, yet neither are absolutely sure, otherwise we would know everything.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

science as I am using the term is the basic process by which that knowledge is acquired.

This is what I am saying: that personal experience is another way to gain knowledge - for yourself your own knowledge is already acquired.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Sorry, must've missed it. What was the question again?

Here it is, Post #180, how could you miss it?

Originally Posted by really

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I'm curious about this. But there is something subtle which I still don't understand. Solskye, how can this image (above) and its meaning, in front of me, not be confused with another object from the Additive - The Realm of Reaction?

As much as I wish I could, the inexplicable and personal nature of the subtractive prevents me or anyone else from being able to really share it with another in additive inert words.

It's like walking down a path that eventually narrows itself to the width of your persona. Leaving you the only one that can cross over that threshold. Making it an entirely personal experience, and unable to be expressed with others. For it is your additive self-awareness, and nothing else, that you are experiencing.

What that picture was describing was the direction the path goes. Once you head down that path and find it narrowing you'll know you are going the right direction. By association, you'll never reach a complete standstill or absolution but you can get a great sense of oneness and connection to all passing through the Nile of the subtractive.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

What that picture was describing was the direction the path goes. Once you head down that path and find it narrowing you'll know you are going the right direction. By association, you'll never reach a complete standstill or absolution but you can get a great sense of oneness and connection to all passing through the Nile of the subtractive.

Ok. But how can you tell the difference between additive and subtractive - how can looking inward as subtractive not be perceived as growing awareness as additive? After all, the paradox lies where I ignore the image because it lies in the additive world.

When one's mind is still enough, it's self-evident which path was taken. If you strip away outer perceptions to reach your realization, then it's not an additive. Since the outer wasn't touched in any way to get there, it can only lead you to believe an inner subtractive route was taken.

Originally Posted by really

Ok. But how can you tell the difference between additive and subtractive - how can looking inward as subtractive not be perceived as growing awareness as additive? After all, the paradox lies where I ignore the image because it lies in the additive world.

As the view shifts to the subtractive(according to the diagram) one begins to lose the sense of "I" and "me".

The more one travels in that direction of the subtractive the less there is of the concept of oneself, or at least concept of onself apart from what is in ones view.

If one reaches the goal of "enlightenment" or the end of the subtractive(which is also actually the beginning of it all) the one who was doing the looking is no longer left to attain the enlightenment. Such a concept of ego self vanishes, as all in ones view is percieved as oneSelf.

Originally Posted by really

Science is a way to process the world and hence develops a way to view the world. That's what we do.

Even if you can take knowledge from scientific inquiry and use it to found a view of the world, that doesn't make science itself a way of viewing the world. There is a distinction there, that's all.

Originally Posted by really

This is what I am saying: that personal experience is another way to gain knowledge - for yourself your own knowledge is already acquired.

That's what I disagree with. Experience cannot result in true knowledge, unless it was part of some sort of scientific inquiry (and I consider changing the batteries in a flashlight a scientific inquiry, mind you). For example, if I see a ghost, that does not imbue me with the knowledge that ghosts do exist - only the knowledge that I think I saw a ghost. You have to be really careful not to draw inferences from your experiences - another example is the one you used - just because the sun looks like a giant fireball to you doesn't mean that it IS one. You don't have knowledge that it is one just by looking at it and making the connection between a sphere and a campfire.