What you think, you do. What you do, you experience. What you experience, you feel. Be conscious of that cycle and you can know freedom.
You could say that the way of sympathy is just a philosophical precept, but it has been shown to have a psychological basis, even in those who profess no actual superstitious beliefs.
The Law of Sympathy is that things that appear to have something in common, actually have something in common. It’s actually pretty simple, and there is more and more science backing it up these days. The model of quantum entanglement, that Einstein liked so little, has been proven true, and new insights into human neurophysiology and psychophysics would back up the brain having a sensitivity to non-local phenomenon. It has even been established that people who have temporal lobe epilepsy (I had it as a juvenile) have a demonstrable sensitivity to variances in the earth geomagnetic field.
To bring it back out of the ether of science and into human experience, the Law of Sympathy is a heavily debated principle of information theory and neuro-linguistic structure. The Law of Sympathy is closely related to the Law of Contagion. Where the Law of Sympathy states that things which appear to have something in common are actually linked by common factors, the Law of Contagion states that once whole, always whole. This is backed up by the relatively recent findings in quantum mechanics regarding quantum entanglement.
You can’t discuss one of these principles without discussing the other. They are two sides of the same coin.
Simple psychological parallel. The subconscious mind often makes us react to a new person in the way we would have to someone we knew in our history. We form experience into loose nets more akin to broad family associations than clear categories. Philosophically and psychologically this is perceived as for the most part invalid, because, “You can’t know what this new person is like.” But in your experience friends, do people not actually have strong factors in common with each other?
Science would say this is just aberrant psychology with no basis in fact, as pervasive as it is in human make-up. It’s common neural architecture if you will. I would say that ignoring this is not only pointless, but unnecessary. This is my personal reason for embracing many of these principles.
When I was a young man, I was a very strong skeptic, naturally. They say all autistics are that way to one degree or another, but I did have to find some links to make my life experience make any sense. One of these, and one of the first, was the Law of Sympathy. This is why I am so adaptive by comparison to others with ASD’s (autism spectrum disorders). I don’t perceive breaks in my patterns. Enough about me though.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.