[UUPoly-L] Back to the Law :) (was RE: Rational skepticism (was:"law" of attraction))

["Catherine Deville" <catdeville@cox.net>]

Separated out, as these are two different topics (the fact that my objection
to a Wikipedia article, which is supposed to have a neutral POV being
watch-dogged by a philosophical group is a separate issue, one which I
intend to post about in the discussion area of that article when I get a
chance.) 

Desmond said: 

<<My own "bottom-line" question about the "law of attraction" is that its
proponents don't show any proof, and even refuse to provide it.  It's one
thing to say that motivation plays a factor in one's efforts, and another to
insist that just believing things will happen makes them so.>>

And you certainly have your right to that position.  It is absolutely valid
for you to be a rationalist who wants empirical evidence. 

It's also absolutely valid for me to be a "magickal thinker" who accepts
that not everything in reality produces empirical evidence which can be
scientifically tested and "proven". 

I have problems with the fact that the "Law of Attraction", which is in
magick is a "law", was taken over whole cloth into Quantum Theory and is
being touted by people who are presenting it as though it is a physical
"Law" because it creates confusion about the nature of the thing.  In magick
I can state that something is a "Law" because our culture accepts that it's
been "proven" within the standards of magick I.e., our *anecdotal* evidences
demonstrates to us sufficiently that the "law" works as such, so we
*believe* it is a law, we *accept* it as such and we call it a "magickal
law"...  But science works on different principles, and within quantum
physics this principle should rightly be stated as a *theory*, one which has
not, yet, been sufficiently tested and which is certainly controversial.  So
when you're discussing it as something that Quantum theorists are presenting
or debating, it's not a law, it's a theory... heck, it may actually only be
a hypothesis at this point from that POV. 

But the problem with giving you "proof" is that the evidence which we
("magickal thinkers") use to determine that the Law of Attraction is indeed
a real phenomenon does not rise to the level of "empirical evidence".  And
until science advances significantly it will not do so.  I can't empirically
prove to you that the body has a "subtle energy" field. I can show you why I
believe so, and there are rational reasons to conclude so (such as the fact
that the concept of Qi/Chi/Ki has been around for millennial before
neurology identified things like neurons, dendrites, glial cells, etc.
Oriental medicine and Eastern mysticism recognized the effect of the chakras
well before Western medicine recognized the nerve bundles (plexus) which
underlie them.  Now, this is either an amazingly improbable coincidence, or
it provides evidence (although not *empirical* evidence) that there's
something to all of this "subtle energy"/chakra woo woo stuff after all.
It's also not helpful for me to try to explain to you how I know this stuff
works because I can "feel" or "sense" it, if you can't... as my experiential
evidence also does not rise to the level of being "empirical" in nature and
is not reproducible.

The same thing applies to the mystical ideas such as the Law of Attraction,
which are showing up as postulates, hypothesis and theories in Quantum
theory.  Mystics have accepted these principles as "true" on the basis of
anecdotal or experiential evidence for millennia.  The fact that science is
now looking for ways to actually measure these things, to see the universe
which underlies the "physical" universe is enormously fascinating (and in
many cases ironic) to those of us who have worked with that universe over
the millennia.  But the equipment we use to measure such things, the methods
we use to decide "proof" is insufficient to the task.  We could sit and talk
all day and I could explain to you how the reticular activating system plays
into the "Law of Attraction" theories, or how neurological theories on how
dendrites "freeze" neuro-pathways when the same behavior or thoughts are
"rehearsed" again and again, but they aren't "proof" and the data can be
interpreted other ways, so it wouldn't be productive. 

But I ask you to question how much you think you know and whether you use
equal standards for everything?  Do you look for measurable, scientific
confirmation of everything in your life?  I know I don't.  I understand that
some things simply aren't subject to scientific quantification.  And while I
don't necessarily accept the validity of just everything (I tend to favor my
own experiential evidence over someone else's, while trying to remain open
minded.  So, for example, I don't "believe" in fairies or unicorns, although
I refuse to dispute their existence either, since I know people who have
'seen' fairies, so why shouldn't unicorns be 'real' as well?  Simply because
I don't have experience of it doesn't mean it's not real.) 

<<One approach to thinking which I deplore -- regardless of the position
taken on any question or issue -- is rigid "either/or" dualism.>>

Excellent!  That speaks well of you!

<< What I would discount is the unproven assertion that belief, however
sincere and strong, can somehow replace the actual effort required to make
it so, just as "visualizing" a fixed door does not replace taking out the
materials and wood needed to actually fix the door.>>

I would agree with the last while pointing out that the first demonstrates a
lack of understanding of how the "Law of Attraction" actually works... which
isn't your fault.  The way it's being presented in popular culture can
easily lead to that misperception. But  *Just* thinking of something doesn't
"make" it happen and that's not what the Law of Attraction says and anyone
with any magickal training understands this. (And anyone presenting it that
way is oversimplifying things so as to make them meaningless.)  

But "as we think, so do we become..."
http://www.wellspringreiki.com/wellspringflowers.htm and "for whatsoever a
man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Gal 6:7-9.)  Our thoughts create our
actions, and significantly affect our behavior.  They also affect those
things which we "draw" to us.  If you do some analysis you'll see that's
statistically true.  Patterns repeat and things (no matter the illusion of
separation) are connected.  The person who really *wants* that door
repaired, whose very being is focused on that door being repaired isn't
*going* to 'do nothing'.  Anyone who thinks that the door is going to fix
itself by "visualization" *alone* doesn't understand magick, and doesn't
comprehend the Law of Attraction. But the person who clearly "sees" that
door being repaired, that person *will* eventually get the door repaired. 

And when it comes down to it, that whole example is just far too simple an
analogy to apply, because most of us have no trouble figuring out how to get
that door repaired or getting the materials to do so.  Very few of us have
subconscious blocks preventing us from repairing a door or inner programming
holding on to the door not being fixed, or "attracting" broken doors to us.
But plenty of us have "poverty mentalities" and thus will always be poor,
have "victim mentalities" and will choose to always be victimized, have
"abuser" mentalities or "addicted" personalities and will always choose to
be abusers, abused, or addicts.  Many of us have blocks and limiting beliefs
and we get *exactly* what we expect out of life, because we draw, or are
drawn to those things that we expect.  And, amazingly (or not - once you
start to see the "big picture"), when we can learn to get rid of those, and
learn to "attract" to ourselves the things that we truly want, well, guess
what!  We actually do get them. But the picture is a synergy... we don't get
them "just" thinking about them, any more than we got them "just" striving
for them (while not believing we could get them)... we have to get both mind
and body on the same page, and "as we think, so we go... " as we change our
thinking, we change our behavior, we change our actions and learn to achieve
our goals. 

NT, 
Cat