Thoughts come from people, people don’t come from thoughts.
Law of attraction is creating space where things can come in? And law of negative attraction is building energy in what you already have to attract what you want? Actually, the law of negative attraction is creating space. You create a problem to create the desired outcome. You create a problem by looking at the situation as self versus other.
So if you’re too exhausted to walk down the mountain, you create a bear to chase you down. Indeed. Your inner nature will survive by any means necessary, even if it kills you. And as silly as that sounds, I mean it literally. The system or form that exists at the core of your being (to use Sheldrake’s terminology, your morphogenetic germ) will persist and survive through either resonance or dissonance, whatever it takes. It will not permit its own nature to be debased. Your core information is not immutable, but it is inviolate.
Does ‘persistence’ depend on intention to some degree, though? In what sense? Well, it just seems that it “should” to have continuity through time and persistence of form. Your inner consciousness has error correction protocols and there is no persistence over time. There is no time. There is replication, echoing, one pattern creating the appearance of persistence.
Cycles? Yes. The reason a thing can seem to cease being is not that it is destroyed, nothing can be destroyed. Instead, it’s context, the syntax in which it’s information resonates, becomes flooded with dissonance, noise. And just as a sound can be submerged under other noise, it can emerge again as well. The one “rule”, if you will, is that there can be no extinction of sound, no end of intention, no void. The substrate or framework over which all these waves spread is made up of what some metaphysicians call monads, ents.
Ents? You can also call them daevas, angels, quantum singularities, strange attractor patterns, fractal seed code. Ents are the basic units of observation. They are the necessary micro consciousness. Sort of like microorganisms necessary for the potential emergence of more complex consciousness.
Like embryonic cells. Yes.
I’m thinking the ‘Secret of Negative Attraction’ wouldn’t make as popular a movie. A group of gurus telling you to create problems? I suspect not. The law of negative attraction has its place in the great web of things. Though it’s best if an organism experience the least amount of distress necessary, when this distress does occur then the law of negative attraction can serve as an immune reaction to a pattern of intention that’s beginning to act like an abscess, a tumor surrounding the distressing cycle with “problems”, complications, until its energy has become too diffused to persist.
We tend to be most aware of our bodies when we are sick or in pain, so when all of your experience consists of relating to your existence in this way, well as they say… When all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. Reality didn’t short change us though. The only one cheating us is ourselves, our hubris, our “Ego.”
We have the most power when we are sick. We have the most awareness of power while we are sick, I agree. But the power is always there, we just overlook it.
And all a pickpocketer sees is pockets. Actually, good point. Scientists have discovered a way to tell a sociopath by their manner of speaking. Know how?
They say “I” a lot? They focus primarily on their needs and speak of people as means to that satisfaction. They tend to avoid using I. They talk about everything as if it’s just a chore list.
Code of all sociopaths: I AM OK and no one else is. Actually, they don’t stop to think about others. They don’t bother to judge. People are just sources of money, or sex objects, or decoys, or sources of amusement. They are predominantly utilitarian. They even learn to talk about interpersonal stuff to better manipulate people over the short term, but they have no interest in discussing interpersonal stuff for very long or in a very meaningful way.
Is this a law that you propose or is it one that is commonly agreed upon? It’s commonly agreed on in smaller circles, but not widely discussed perhaps because of its lack of popular appeal.
Which circles? Abstract metaphysics students.
I wanted to find out more but don’t know where to start. Ah look up Real Magic by Isaac Bonewits. It’s an easily available source.
Do sociopaths use the law of negative attraction well? Yes. This is why an author has recently published a book called the The Wisdom of Psychopaths. It discusses the traits displayed by these people that tend to commonly crop up in many, if not most, of the most successful business people. They tend to be rather selective of what they will consider, and more permissive of their own intentions than most other people are. “Because I want to” is seen as reason enough.
So to summarize… Creating an outcome, or a state, creates attendant unintended consequences. I even once saw a bumper sticker saying “laugh now, cry later”, and well, there is a way to work around that. Work with “all your relations” in the shamanistic sense, rather than to spite them.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.