The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

From the Stuart Davis website:

The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism
Submitted by stuart davis on March 12, 2007 - 1:52pm.

“Let me know Your enormity, and my tininess
Help me see Your infinity and my finite-ness”

-Mike Doughty, His Truth Is Marching On

The Spirituality of Narcissism.

Song of The Day: Hyper-Ballad / Bjork
Word of the Day: Lygophilia / Love of Darkness

The Secret. It's all the rage. The book and movie have garnered the enthusiasm of millions. Everyone from Oprah to Montel is extolling Rhonda Byrne's spiritual juggernaut. The premise of The Secret is simple; The power of attraction. Like attracts like. What we think, what we feel, acts as a magnetic signal, attracting its correlate from the Universe. The Secret says our thoughts and feelings manifest that which we desire. In fact, according to the teachers of the Secret, this works 100% of the time, for 100% of the people who use it. The Universe responds to our wishes, providing whatever we desire. This is because “we create our own reality”, and The Secret says science confirms this.

As with most things, The Secret is a Good news / Bad news scenario. First, the good news. The secret is (partly) true. Our thoughts and feelings are of consequence, and positive thinking and feeling can significantly characterize our experience of reality, even influence the way reality unfolds. The Secret cites everyone from Martin Luther King to Einstein as examples of people who knew -and employed- The Secret. Martin Luther King had a dream. Einstein said God doesn't play dice. And so on.

The Secret uses valid (but partial) suppositions such as:

Our thoughts and feelings are powerful

and inflates them to a Kosmic (and false) scale, giving us: Our thoughts are the most powerful things on Earth.

The secret takes a statement like

Thought can influence reality

and amplifies it to “Thoughts create reality.” Not just any thoughts, but YOUR thoughts.

(By the way, are you a rape victim? I guess you created that reality with your thoughts. Was your family member killed in Iraq? I guessed you created that experience for yourself so you could learn from it. Wow. You are one sadistic cat.)

The Secret takes a truth like

The Self is one with the Universe,

and then immediately inserts the wrong self; The Ego.

Throughout, The Secret conflates ego (the frontal structure, personality) with Self (an unbounded, unlimited reality which transcends but includes all qualities). In doing so it engineers an unabashed Spiritual Narcissism. Ego is God. The vicissitudes of your ego, its preferences, its unresolved cravings, become the vestments in a regressive ritual. See? It's MAGIC. You caste a spell, voila', the Universe responds. Cuz you're God. Why exactly an entity that IS everything would need more is not clear, why a Divine Being that is all powerful would need to appeal to another power is perplexing, but.. To cement this Kosmic Delusion, The Secret hypnotically repeats “The Universe” and “Your thoughts, your feelings” until the two are braided into a phantasm that places your Ego squarely in the Center of Reality, in control of all that comes in and out of being. What do you want to do with your Divine Power? Free all sentient beings? Awaken every sister and brother from the Dream? Dissolve the source of suffering? No. You want cars. And girlfriends, and boyfriends, and a new red bike and a big new house.

The Secret snags the self by flattering it into masquerading as the Self. As an egomaniac, I can attest to the efficacy of that strategy. And also to its disastrous results.

Allow me to pause for a confessional tangent. Before you think I am positioning myself as some spiritual fundamentalist who thinks materialism is bad and “spirituality” is good, let me set things straight. Me, Stuart Davis? I LOVE money. I LOVE sex. I want a new house. I'll take a shiny red bike. I want to be rich, powerful, and successful. And I do not apologize to anyone for that. I think the ego is good, I think it's games are legitimate and should be engaged. You know what else? I want YOU to be rich. I want YOU to be successful, powerful, and have every wish in the circus of your imagination brought into reality. As long as we're not hurting anyone else, I say let's go to town. I am the first to stand up and shout “THE EGO IS NOT EVIL!! THE EGO IS NOT BAD!! IT HAS GOTTEN A SHITTY DEAL FROM SPIRITUALITY! LET THE EGO BE WHAT IT ITS!!!” In fact, the ego is quite literally one of the most astonishing miracles to occur in the history of Universe. No joke. Celebrate it. It's time we ended the spiritual war with the ego, include it as another facet of the Beauty in our Being. Why would we leave anything out? The self counts. The ego matters.

I also have to say: The ego is not the Self.

The Secret is selling tools that supposedly fulfill wishes, dreams, desires. But WHOSE wishes? What LEVEL of desire? What DEPTH of dream?

Well, here's what sucks about The Secret: There are many levels of self, but only one which THINKS, and that's the Ego. Thinking, feeling, thinking, feeling, these two conductors are the hub for all The Secret espouses, and sadly thoughts and feelings (while important and valid) come from an extremely shallow dimension of the self. Because of this, the Secret deeply, sadly, entangles us further into suffering instead of liberating us from it. The source of suffering is delusion -the illusion of separateness. It gives rise to craving, longing, desire. It's the illusion that we lack something that sends us on the Odyssey of Acquisition.

The Secret gives us a cure that's worse than the disease. Its cure for craving is controlling craving. Its solution to hunger is famine. The Secret speaks to materialism, narcissism, and other afflictions of self by sanctifying them, exalting them. Rather than liberate us from the Source of Suffering, The Secret reenforces it. It anchors us in the shallowest level of our self (the Ego) and consecrates its preferences, its fantasies.

When someone asks you what you want, before you answer, ask yourself What level of me are they asking? What level of me am I going to respond from? If I had all the power to wish for anything in the Universe, what would I wish for? Who am “I” anyway?

It is dangerous to insert the ego in the place of the Self -the highest Self, the deepest Self, the one that is without a beginning or end. The ego -the subject- is a boundary. It identifies itself by what is inside or outside of it. Whatever is outside of the subject is an object. The small self is a dynamic aggregate of qualities and preferences, locating itself anew in each moment through a calculus of these subject / object distinctions ( I am this, I'm not that, I like this, I don't like that, I want this, I don't want that, this is me, that is not). The self depends entirely on boundaries.

Self, on the other hand, has no boundary. Self has no “other”. It cannot be reduced to any particular qualities or characteristics, but all qualities and characteristics rise and fall within it. Self includes vertical and horizontal coordinates that stretch as deep and wide as the Universe itself. It is true that all Reality arises from and dissolves into the Self. Not the ego, not the personality, not an individual, but the Self -the Groundless Ground of all Reality.

The ego is defined by preferences, identified by desires, determined by boundary.

The Self has no preferences, no desires, no lack, no inside, no outside. It includes all preferences, but is not defined by them. Desire arises within it, but it is not identified by it. Every imaginable boundary forms and dissolves within the Self, but never parses its not-two not-one Nature. This Self -entire seen and unseen Kosmos- is the native endowment of every human being. Our greatest depth is without bottom.

The good news: You can have your cake and eat it too. You don't have to disown your self to be your Self. You have an ego. You are the Universe. But don't confuse the two, and don't let anyone else confuse them for you.

I have an ego, and it has desires, and it's healthy and appropriate for that level of my being to seek fulfillment. My thoughts are powerful, and my feelings matter. But the Universe does not reconfigure reality to accomodate the personal preferences of my ego, my frontal structure, every time an impulse comes through my reptilian brain stem. That is not just narcissism, its KOSMIC narcissism, and that is what the Secret is selling. Kosmic narcissism, spiritual materialism of the WORST kind. First, by ensnaring me in my own ego with the promise of release, liberation from desire (while addicting me to it) and second by getting me to forfeit my Self for my self. Since my ego is now Divine, since my frontal structure is now Infinite -Stuart Davis is God- why on Earth would I ever bother with finding my Self? Actual awakening requires real development, years, decades of practice and evolution. Continually moving my Subject through ever-expanding, ever-inclusive transformations takes TIME and TROUBLE. Of course there is no such thing as time, but authentically realizing that takes time. Of course there is no such thing as suffering, but profound recognition of that Fact is exquisitely painful.

Authentic spirituality is not a vending machine that spits out cars, lovers, and shiny red bikes. It is not a wand we can wave to avert discomfort, or acquire power. Actual awakening increases intimacy with all suffering (and bliss), everywhere, without exception. It does not remove struggle, but increases our devotion to and stewardship of all Reality.

Again, to be clear: I, Stuart Davis, want to be rich. I want to be comfortable. I want lots of Prada shoes. Hell, as long as my cravings are satisfied, I want that for everyone. That's not bad. I do not apologize for that, and this is not hyperbole.

But call a spade a spade. I work with my ego, but I don't presume the Universe is reinventing itself moment to moment in order to comply with the minutia of my needy personality. There is the self, and then there is the Self. I go to my therapist for one, I go to the Point of All Places for the other.

I, the Self, which also includes Stuart but is not defined by him, was here before Stuart was born, and will be here after he dies. The Self is the end of Suffering, and operates through all discrete agents as a means to Awakening to Reality as it Is. I am that Self. I am radical, absolute freedom. Incorruptible. Immutable. Every imaginable thing is that Self, equally without exception. But not all things equally realize that. Not all beings are equally awake. There is development. There is evolution toward what already Is.

The Self is absolute freedom. The self is relative delusion. The Secret is appealing to the relative self and pretending it's the absolute Self.

The Secret crowns the Ego as God (I mean, YOU create Reality, isn't that amazing? YOUR THOUGHTS are INFINITELY influential), then makes two disastrous leaps.

#1, Now that you know YOU create your own reality through the spiritual enterprise that is “thinking, feeling”, what do you, the Creator, want to create with your thoughts? Wealth. Money, power, influence, status, and the luxury afforded the elite who amass fortunes. The Secret will teach you how. Odd, isn't it, that your self is so spiritual and powerful, but what it chooses to Attract with its Law is money, houses, lovers. Not the liberation of all sentient beings, not relief for every creature, not the cessation of that which is the Source of Suffering (clutching, desire, greed arising from the illusion that there is an “other”), but a refinement of the Source of Suffering. A manipulation of it. The Secret turns Desire and Clutching into a technology you can wield, AND its Spiritual! The cure is worse than the disease.

#2, Since YOU create your own Reality (Oprah went to pains to stress and emphasize this point, and had Rhonda explicitly confirm precisely that phrase “we create our own reality”) you are responsible as the Source of whatever arises in your Reality. Every thing in your experience, you created (merely using thoughts and feelings! Wow). Many of you reading this right now may be astonished to finally understand you gave yourself cancer. You caused yourself to be raped, robbed, murdered, stricken with every malady in the canon of illness, beset with each kind of strife imaginable. The Holocaust? Just something Jews brought on themselves, as they each apparently created their own Reality. The Rape of Nanking? Bad Chinese, with their bad thoughts and feelings, simply created their own reality and thus caused the unspeakable murder of 350,000 innocent children, women, and men. Weird, the Reality people create for themselves, ain't it?

Of course, it's hard to overstate how cruel and insulting such a notion is. The impossibly sick premise that people in such situations create their own Reality is so obviously wrong, so self-evidently false to our basic intuition, that we can almost laugh it off. I mean, we could if Oprah -perhaps the most influential woman in the Western World- hadn't gone to pains to repeatedly emphasize and confirm it with Rhonda Bynre to an audience of tens of millions. Tens of millions of people who literally orient their lives according to these sorts of “discoveries”.

There are not just many levels of smaller self (the ego is but one), but different spheres, or dimensions. The Secret is not only selling a shallow dimension of self, but it is also only acknowledges one aspect of self.

The Secret is working in one realm (interior individual). And it actually does a useful thing in that realm. Positive thought is important. We can change the way in which our thoughts and feelings symbiotically produce healthier behavior. That's good. But there is so much more to the story. We have an inside, and an outside. We are individuals, and we are also social beings. These realms are all part of who we are. All four realms come together at once, they tetra-arise as Reality. No one domain “creates” the others. Each is indispensible. The interior of an individual (where thought occurs) does have correlates in the exterior of the individual (manifest as measurable biological change). We are beings with an inner and an outer worlds. But Reality is not composed of individuals. We are also collective beings, with shared interiors, or inter-subjective domains. Such as culture, collective consciousness, and all that goes with the inner World of We. That shared inner world is complemented by the outer world, the inter-objective domain of Nature, the biosphere, and all that can be seen and observed in corporeal form. These FOUR domains:

*The Interior of an Individual (where thought occurs, for instance)
*The Exterior of an Individual (the body, what can be measured and seen objectively)
*The Interior of the Collective (Culture, invisible features of mutuality, inter-subjective social)
*The Exterior of The Collective (Biosphere, planet, infrastructure, the inter-objective realm)

While The Secret promotes itself as the magic wand for everything, it actually deals with one part of one realm, and misrepresents itself while doing it (by substituting self for Self).

To claim any one of them “creates” the other is a disaster, and unfortunately fairly common occurance. Any time you find a discipline which FOCUSES on a particular domain (which is good) you find it is tempted or seduced into claiming that ONE quadrant is the only “real” one, or the only “true” one, or the only important one (which is bad). That is another of The Secret's defects.. It takes one realm, one perspective (The Interior of an Individual) and claims it creates all the others. Wow. YOU, your thoughts, create your body. And the biosphere, and the entire culture, and history of the planet, origin of species, all the cities you could visit, all the planets in the Galaxy, all the Galaxies, all the… and so on. And its wrong. Sorry. Your thoughts, your feelings, while being important and valuable, are but two coordinates in one Quadrant.

Your thoughts and feelings are not the Source of Reality, but two of its features. You do not “create” your reality, you participate in it, and in certain circumstances, under particular conditions, you can influence it. And it is good and useful to cultivate that influence, to positively nurture those portions as much as possible, in the interest of love.

Rhonda Byrne's Secret is bad Self-Help masquerading as mysticism. Broadly, “spirituality” can mean anything. So when we say spirituality, what level of spirituality are we talking about? What altitude of awareness are we coming from, what level of “spirit” are we referring to? I'm not saying The Secret is not spiritual. I'm saying it's a very low-level of spirituality masquerading as a high one. What it uses as enticements (become wealthy, get a better job, get a lover) are very telling. It is appealing to a person's desire to attain, acheive, and better their personal station. It is promising you a better STORY. And that is indeed one altitude of spirituality. But it's the bottom, and inflating it can end up keeping people stuck in the cycle of suffering even longer. Because the self is addicted to its STORY. The Self is the end of all stories.

Now contrast The Secret with The Mystery. The Mystery, to me, includes all four domains (inner, outer, individual, collective) and does not privilege one over the other. It engages them as tetra-arising. It includes them as inextricably inter-woven, yet distinct in important ways. The Mystery includes every altitude in every domain, and values each of them, but also understand their differences. The Mystery includes every methodology, every ontology or Way of Knowing, but at also understands what they do, and what they don't do. The Secret is but a method, and it will not set you free from The Story. In fact, it will probably suck you deeper into it. It promises money, power, increased attraction, and tells you it is “spiritual” practice. Your story could become so comfortable, why would you ever forfeit it?

Here is an important question: What level of YOU wants to get rich? What altitude of YOU wants a new house, a better lover, an improved Story?

Here's what I feel is a healthier approach. Use the right tool for the right job. The right decoy for the right level. I think it is GOOD to improve our financial station. I think it is GOOD to have an exciting love life. That's why I have a financial advisor. That's why I see a therapist. I need to work on my self. I want to improve my relative reality. But I don't need to invoke “the Universe” or quantum fucking mechanics or magical-narcissistic mysticism to do so. It's a LIE and it's misguided as it gets. Fucking bloody hell. Want to find your Self? See Swami Sally. Want to get a new house? A blow job? See Suzy Ormand and Sue Johansen. Stop it with this Secret shit. It's offensive and detrimental to our work in the Mystery.

Perhaps worst of all, until we are truly FREE -free from the Source of Suffering, free from desire, clutching, the assault of our false identities and all their Stories- until we are that FREE, we cannot really be available to help others become FREE. And that my friends, is the hokey pokey.
» stuart davis's blog

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

That' s one of the best things ever written on The Secret.

It absolutely amazes me that intelligent, otherwise kind people buy into this spiritual narcissism.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Arthur,

Now, I like Stuart Davis and I think that this is the best “critique” that I have yet read on The Secret.  Still, it leans heavily on the LoA as represented by Rhonda Byrne and the other production forces behind the Film, not the LoA itself (what ever the hell that is.)  Again, I say, forget the movie and the take on the LoA as represented by its low-vibe producers.  Imagine trying to tell Rhonda that the LoA doesn't work.

Stuart made some pretty fine points within his longish rant, but they all refer to the USE of the LoA, and the narrowness of its application - how it appeals to the egoic-narcissistic self, seducing it into thinking that IT, the ego + base desire + emotion can assume god-like stature and threaten any necessity to seek the true Self.  That point is well taken and one, frankly that I had not focused on before.  I get his point about this danger. 

I also agree with what Stuart had to say about the producers take on the LoA appealing to the ego and trying to pass off the LoA as deeply spiritual while at the same time admitting his (Stuart's) own attitude about the ego is that it is good, necessary, and worthy of health and support. 

So, it seems to me that Stuart Davis does not so much have a quarrel

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

(friggin' keyboard)

Anyway, it seems to me that Stuart's gripe is more about the use of, than the existence of.  He leaps, without any connective logical tissue to a condemnation of the Law, because of the dangers inherent with the narcissistic use thereby, the dangers of ego “me-ness” seduction.

So what?  I ask.  Too bad, its up to the individual to suss that one out.  There is no authority that I support should be allowed to interfere with an individual's right to choose.  If you don't like the way that the Secret was produced, make another movie that countermands it.  Establishing more rules, laws, or moral standards that sanction whether a person uses the LoA properly or not will  not address the real question.  That real question is what the hell is going on with this Law in the first place.  If it is a law or operating principle, then it was included in the basic design from the beginning.  There is fundamentally nothing magical about employing the principal - that, I believe is a judgment made by “highers” from a suspect moral ground over which the judge has granted themselves authority.  Nothing stopped us from making a trillion bullets and putting guns in the hands of defenders and agressors, of making morphine for legitimate and illegitimate pain control.  This argument has only surfaced now because of what I see as a new-age, elitist morality that people (ascenders) are reaching downward to impose on the rabble.  I do not mean to criticize the “highers”  or spiritual ascenders, its just that many of them are fairly successful professionals, a much higher percentage of conscious “ascenders”  self-made, hard working, educated, joy-tripping trust funder variety, who are somewhat defensive about their good “fortune”, may feel a little guilty about it when comparing their circumstances to the homeless of Mumbai.  I doubt any of the “misbegotten” are criticizing the LoA, its us, up at the high end, who see the dangers of its misapplication - hugely evident, as Suart successfully points out, but still beside the point I claim.

If it is an operating principle, then it got here by design, for our benefit.  I feel challenged by Stuart's marginally successful critique to try and find the “why” of the LoA's alleged existance whether as a law or principle.  If its here, like the ego, it has to be here for a reason.

Best,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Well, I'm not a trust fund baby, I've had to struggle a lot financially due to having CFS in my 20s, and I don't feel “guilty” about the poor people of the world, I just want to help them.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Ozma,

My assertion is that, within the culture of ascendency, there exists a higher percentage of educated, successful people with the time, $, and motivation (for whatever reasons) than exists in the population at large.  I am not saying that ascendency is a toy of the liberal elite, but I am saying that ascendency or expansion (a term I prefer) is vulnerable to the same sort of charge that is being applied to the LoA, namely:  expansion technology can leave practitioners feeling “better than” and motivated to expound from this platform of “better than.”  There is nothing wrong with this per se, as long as judgment about the worthiness of other, “lower than” people's behavior, is left to the courts and God.

There is an air about Stuart's argument that smacks, to me, of the arrogance of “better than,” but again, again, again, the real issue is not about the politics or the appropriateness of the applicability, or the morality, or the dangers of ego seduction, rather, it is about whether this law, or principle, actually exists independently of human use of it.  If it exists, then two entirely separate industries will develop to exploit it:  1) the users, and 2) the investigators.

Intuitively, I tend to favor a “sense” that such a principle exists.  I cannot empirically prove this at this point and it is not within my expertise to do so.  Also, I do know that there is a part of me that may want to see this as true for reasons I can't explain.  That makes me a biased observer.  I will promise to do my best to use all the perspectives at my disposal to stay as close to my truth as I can.  Meanwhile, an openess of mind has served me well in the recent past in particular.  I think I will stick with it.

Best,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Stuart Davis:
Now contrast The Secret with The Mystery. The Mystery, to me, includes all four domains (inner, outer, individual, collective) and does not privilege one over the other. It engages them as tetra-arising. It includes them as inextricably inter-woven, yet distinct in important ways. The Mystery includes every altitude in every domain, and values each of them, but also understand their differences. The Mystery includes every methodology, every ontology or Way of Knowing, but at also understands what they do, and what they don't do. The Secret is but a method, and it will not set you free from The Story. In fact, it will probably suck you deeper into it. It promises money, power, increased attraction, and tells you it is “spiritual” practice. Your story could become so comfortable, why would you ever forfeit it?

Here is an important question: What level of YOU wants to get rich? What altitude of YOU wants a new house, a better lover, an improved Story?

Here's what I feel is a healthier approach. Use the right tool for the right job. The right decoy for the right level. I think it is GOOD to improve our financial station. I think it is GOOD to have an exciting love life. That's why I have a financial advisor. That's why I see a therapist. I need to work on my self. I want to improve my relative reality. But I don't need to invoke “the Universe” or quantum fucking mechanics or magical-narcissistic mysticism to do so. It's a LIE and it's misguided as it gets. Fucking bloody hell. Want to find your Self? See Swami Sally. Want to get a new house? A blow job? See Suzy Ormand and Sue Johansen. Stop it with this Secret shit. It's offensive and detrimental to our work in the Mystery.


So the moral of the story is that we can all indulge in relative realm pleasures, but only if we do it Stuart's way? There's a lack of intelligence and logical reasoning in Stuart's post, and no number of “fucking this” or “fucking that” is going to change that. It is really very easy to attack the Secret for a number of reasons and it's actually surprising to me that this is the best job he can do.

Any kind of intelligent text about this subject has to separate three different concepts:
1) You create your own reality
2) The Secret
3) The Law of Attraction

Stuart conflates these three into the same thing, thereby making the same mistake as the very same New Agers he's trying to attack/help. I'm not going to make any kind of complete analysis of this subject myself but I will say a couple of things about 1-3 above.

1) You obviously do not create your own reality. Not even a psychotic does this. Only if you identity 100% with spirit can you claim to create your own reality, but what you're really saying then is that spirit and its creative impulse is creating reality, not your ego.

2) The Secret is a low-budget movie that takes cutting-edge material about non-locality and intention and then translates it downwards into orange/magenta language, ie “you want lots of new material stuff and you are magically going to get this if you think about it”. The honest way to discuss this would have been impossible in a mainstream movie because it is only from an Integral worldspace that you can begin to understand and investigate this stuff. I believe that some of the “experts” in the movie such as Jack Canfield and Bill Harris don't understand that other people cannot see the worldspace and full picture that they can.

3) I believe The Law of Attraction is an important partial truth, that suffers from the way it is currently depicted. At the moment there is a lot of polarization around the issue, either you love it or hate it. It's going to take a long time before there can be any nuanced discussion around it in the Integral movement.


My 2 cents at the moment.


Pelle

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Hi Pelle

Well, Pelle, I think this is the first time we've disagreed so strongly.  I rather thoroughly agree with what Stuart said and liked how he said it.   I find The Secret  highly offensive in its implication that everything comes down to “I create my own reality” full stop. As Stuart says,

“(By the way, are you a rape victim? I guess you created that reality with your thoughts. Was your family member killed in Iraq? I guessed you created that experience for yourself so you could learn from it. Wow. You are one sadistic cat.)”

I'm rather puzzled as to how you got the implication, “So the moral of the story is that we can all indulge in relative realm pleasures, but only if we do it Stuart's way?” The moral of the story as I read his article is that the ego is great; satisfying your own desires is great - if doing so harms no one else - BUT don't confuse the relative egoic self with the Self, and don't confuse egoic gratification with enlightenment.

Pelle: Any kind of intelligent text about this subject has to separate three different concepts:
1) You create your own reality
2) The Secret
3) The Law of Attraction

Stuart conflates these three into the same thing, thereby making the same mistake as the very same New Agers he's trying to attack/help. I'm not going to make any kind of complete analysis of this subject myself but I will say a couple of things about 1-3 above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, what Stuart does is address the “Law of Attraction” as presented in the movie The Secret, and by implication other movies such as “What the Bleep Do We Know!?”  He points out the sense in which you (partially) create your own reality, and the ways in which that is not true. He also asks, quite rightly, what “I” are you referring to when you say “I create my own reality” - the local, relative, egoic “I,” or the face that you had before the Big Bang? And he asks, while we're on this creating-reality kick, what are we using our ultrakosmic powers for? Bicycles and blow jobs, or liberation of all sentient beings? Sounds like a reasonable question to me. Oh sure, some will be offended by the nasty shocking words he uses; but they completely created that reality by their own thoughts and feelings - isn't that so? - and therefore what right to they have to object to his wording…or…could it be that each individual self is not totally responsible for everything that happens to them - whether a harshly worded argument, CFIDS, genocide, or crib death?

Pelle: “2) The Secret is a low-budget movie that takes cutting-edge material about non-locality and intention and then translates it downwards into orange/magenta language, ie “you want lots of new material stuff and you are magically going to get this if you think about it”. The honest way to discuss this would have been impossible in a mainstream movie because it is only from an Integral worldspace that you can begin to understand and investigate this stuff. I believe that some of the “experts” in the movie such as Jack Canfield and Bill Harris don't understand that other people cannot see the worldspace and full picture that they can.”

I'm really surprised by your statement, “The honest way to discuss this would have been impossible in a mainstream movie…”  No way do I agree with that.  While it might be beyond the scope of a mainstream movie to present the complete and unabridged integral vision in a way that would appeal to large numbers of people, there are very important truths that could easily be incorporated into a movie.  As it is, The Secret is a grotesquely distorted presentation of an important - but very partial - truth, i.e. the “law of attraction.”

Have you really not seen any popular movies which presented more sophisticated arguments than “This is like having the universe as your catalogue and you flip through it and say, 'Well, I’d like to have this experience, and I’d like to have that product and I’d like to have a person like that.' It is you just placing your order with the universe. It’s really that easy.”  Actually, no, it's not quite that easy.

I think you're failing to see how toxic a movie like this is.  It blatantly encourages selfishness and narcissistic regression.  This movie is the exact opposite of the “conveyor belt” we need to help people move to higher levels of development, and I don't think it serves anyone to minimize that fact.  The world is in deep shit and I think we need more than just happy thoughts to make it through this crisis period.

spiral on,
arthur

“Some say reality is an illusion, a dream. Others claim it is whatever can be objectively measured and verified. And some say we create reality with our thoughts, intentions and wishes. I wish those people were dead.” - Stuart Davis, Love Has No Opposite, chapter one

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I'd like to add a statement by Ken Wilber, addressing an aspect of the horrible debilitating disease he suffers from; it seems appropriate here.  This is from a statement he wrote a while ago on his health condition.  The full statement is here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

let's pause for a fun one-minute rant: do i spend much time worrying about the “lesson” i am trying to teach myself by giving myself this illness? go fuck yourself. answer the question? treya and i spent 5 years listening to people telling her why she got cancer. all of them were telling her what she had spiritually done wrong in order for this to happen to her. problem is, none of them really agreed with each other, and only thing they had in common was a particular person's arrogant assumption that they knew what was really moving treya, or their deep fears projected onto treya and read back to her as the cause of her cancer. of course there are spiritual, mental, and emotional factors in all illness. if you want to know what mine are, ask me, don't tell me. if i want to know your opinion, i promise i will ask. otherwise, keep your projections to yourself, because i already have one frightened and confused asshole to deal with—me—and really, one is enough.

especially in my condition. (:-)

-Ken Wilber, RNase Enzyme Deficiency Disease: Wilber's statement about his health

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Uh. Wouldn't The Secret  (and What the Bleep?!) say that YOU created both Ken and his disease? You create your own reality, right? You're the one manifesting all this. :)

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Siona: “Uh. Wouldn't The Secret  (and What the Bleep?!) say that YOU created both Ken and his disease? You create your own reality, right? You're the one manifesting all this. :)”

That is my understanding, yes - and I completely disagree.  It's quadrant absolutism - reducing everything, in this case, to the Upper Left, Individual-Interior dimension of reality.  It ignores the validity of the Lower Left, Intersubjective (other people) and the right-hand quadrants, the exteriors - which in the case of movies like that are seen as magical vending machines for the individual ego (if, that is, they are seen as having any independent reality at all).

Anyway, if I do create all this I have got to start manifesting better movies…

arthur

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Arthur wrote in response to Pelle's post above: I think you're failing to see how toxic a movie like this is.

– When I read Pelle's post I concluded that he actually did see the movie as toxic, or at least as counterproductive, because it's reductive, misleading, and makes gross oversimplifications. I thought Pelle was agreeing with the overall gist of Stuart's argument, just not with the way that Stuart made his argument …

My 2c,

Mary 

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Mary:
– When I read Pelle's post I concluded that he actually did see the movie as toxic, or at least as counterproductive, because it's reductive, misleading, and makes gross oversimplifications. I thought Pelle was agreeing with the overall gist of Stuart's argument, just not with the way that Stuart made his argument …

Yes Mary, this is exactly it. Thank you for summarizing my thoughts for me :)

Pelle

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I disagree with what Pelle said about Stuart's argument.  See my post for details.  :p

arthur

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Further clarifications with why I'm not impressed by Stuart's rant:

Stuart Davis:
First, the good news. The secret is (partly) true. Our thoughts and feelings are of consequence, and positive thinking and feeling can significantly characterize our experience of reality, even influence the way reality unfolds.

Why doesn't Stuart tell us more about this partial truth? Now that would have been very informative and the kind of material I would have expected from a guy who aspires to be a cutting edge integral thinker. Pointing out all the mistakes the movie makes is peachy fine, but that's easy. The hard and challenging part would have been to devote half the rant to summarizing this partial truth that the Secret brings and how that would fit into AQAL.

The antidote to a meme (=virus of the mind, not v-meme) is not attacking it, but spreading another more truthful meme


Stuart Davis:
The Secret says our thoughts and feelings manifest that which we desire. In fact, according to the teachers of the Secret, this works 100% of the time, for 100% of the people who use it. The Universe responds to our wishes, providing whatever we desire. This is because “we create our own reality”, and The Secret says science confirms this.

There is a sliding scale of confusion here, and it's very important that we as integral thinkers stay focused and not let ourselves be part of the confusion. Us having emotional knee-jerk reactions of condemning the movie doesn't accomplish very much in the big scheme of things.

The highest level of confusion is “You create your own reality”. This suggests that if I think about something it will magically pop into existence immediately or sometime soon. Hence that statement is more or less magenta by definition. On the other hand, to say that “you attract things into your life” can be interpreted in many ways, all the way from magenta up to turquoise or beyond. In other threads in this pod I've discussed the magenta and orange interpretations of this statement, and tentatively tried to explore what it might mean within a turquoise worldview. I'm not going to reiterate what I wrote earlier, but I will say that it would have been a great help if Stuart had fleshed out his thoughts on this subject (his “partial truth” in other words).


Stuart Davis:
The secret takes a statement like
Thought can influence reality
and amplifies it to “Thoughts create reality.” Not just any thoughts, but YOUR thoughts

Again, I don't believe that core message of the Secret is that “Thoughts create reality”. What it says is that “Thoughts attract things into your life”. Now even this is a confused reduction, but let's not accuse the Secret of worse things than it actually conveys. People who have a serious interest in the LoA, usually don't say what the Secret says. They don't say that thought will attract things into your life. They say that very strong and long-lasting intentions, combined with a congruence of behavior, emotion and thought will over time affect your life greatly. They also say that this is a skill that takes time to develop, we're talking years and not days.

So again, we need to separate what Stuart says about the Secret from what the Secret actually says. We then need to separate the Secret from people who are approaching the LoA in a realistic and grounded fashion.


Stuart Davis:
The Secret is working in one realm (interior individual). And it actually does a useful thing in that realm. Positive thought is important. We can change the way in which our thoughts and feelings symbiotically produce healthier behavior. That's good. But there is so much more to the story. We have an inside, and an outside. We are individuals, and we are also social beings. These realms are all part of who we are. All four realms come together at once, they tetra-arise as Reality. No one domain “creates” the others. Each is indispensible. The interior of an individual (where thought occurs) does have correlates in the exterior of the individual (manifest as measurable biological change). We are beings with an inner and an outer worlds. But Reality is not composed of individuals. We are also collective beings, with shared interiors, or inter-subjective domains. Such as culture, collective consciousness, and all that goes with the inner World of We. That shared inner world is complemented by the outer world, the inter-objective domain of Nature, the biosphere, and all that can be seen and observed in corporeal form. These FOUR domains:

This is a fine regurgitation of Integral 101, but it does not address the issues of non-locality nor the issue of intention.


A final question for everyone to ponder: Why is it that nobody gets upset when Ken claims that there is such a thing as Karma? To me that is a much more prerational metaphysical idea than a mature view of the LoA. Why isn't Stuart writing any rants about the crazyness of promoting Karma?
How does Karma pass through the lens of Integral Post-Metaphysics?
Is the Integral movement as a whole still embracing amber mythology from the old traditions?


Pelle

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Pelle: “Why doesn't Stuart tell us more about this partial truth? Now that
would have been very informative and the kind of material I would have
expected from a guy who aspires to be a cutting edge integral thinker.
Pointing out all the mistakes the movie makes is peachy fine, but
that's easy. The hard and challenging part would have been to
devote half the rant to summarizing this partial truth that the Secret
brings and how that would fit into AQAL.”

Give Stu a break;-)  Not picking on any persective, or anybody's posts in particular.  This quote just caught my attention the most….that is, I find it very attractive to my line of thinking!

Explain Law of Attraction?  Hmmm.  Can you explain the Kosmos?  Maybe a better term would be the Law of Interaction.  Do you attract me or do I attract you or to we attract each other in a dance of interaction?  I think the latter is more precise.  As far as describing the Kosmos, AQAL does a pretty good job.  Tetra-arising, tetra-interaction, tetra-attraction….whatever.  To that this attracts that makes no sense to me, because that attracted something else, which was attracted by something else, which attracts me but not you, but we both maybe see it from different perspectives, and we attract each other….See the dualistic mess we get into when we play simplistic subject-object games? I attract other.  Do I attract the earth to my feet or does it attract me?  Attraction ad-infinitum.

Keith

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Further clarifications with why I'm not impressed by Stuart's rant:

Stuart Davis:
First, the good news. The secret is (partly) true. Our thoughts and feelings are of consequence, and positive thinking and feeling can significantly characterize our experience of reality, even influence the way reality unfolds.

Why doesn't Stuart tell us more about this partial truth? Now that would have been very informative and the kind of material I would have expected from a guy who aspires to be a cutting edge integral thinker. Pointing out all the mistakes the movie makes is peachy fine, but that's easy. The hard and challenging part would have been to devote half the rant to summarizing this partial truth that the Secret brings and how that would fit into AQAL.

~~~~~~~~~~

Pelle, I think this would be an awesome opportunity for you to “criticize by creating” - you've obviously got the intelligence and AQAL knowhow to write a loving critique of The Secret that would show the limitations of Stuart's rant by demonstrating how to do it better.  I'd love to read such an article, what do you say?  :)

spiral out,
arthur

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Why is it that nobody gets upset when Ken claims that there is such a thing as Karma?

Because Ken doesn't make claims to understand how karma influences people and events, or propose underlying physical mechanisms, or – and this is important – market and sell a system of spiritual practice to seekers based on those knowledge claims. I'm not accusing anyone of bad faith here, I'm just pointing out that Ken doesn't “promote” karma, his references to karma are limited to “Well, maybe there's some kind of karmic thing going on here, I don't really know,” and that's quite different from what the LoA is proposing. It is, after all, supposedly a law and to me, that requires a level of scrutiny that Ken's brief, speculative remarks do not. Its certainly true that the Integral model does not entail an acceptance of the existence of karma.

How does Karma pass through the lens of Integral Post-Metaphysics?

I'd like to know this too. This is a great question, and worthy of sustained inquiry.

Is the Integral movement as a whole still embracing amber mythology from the old traditions?

I think there's a pretty good chance that we are – its definitely worth considering. The effort to support an integral Christianity looks to me like a recognition of the possibility that integral seekers might simply adopt mythology from Eastern traditions. Adopting competing metaphysical schemes like integral Christianity – and indeed, integral Atheism – and asking people to make room for them is a helpful move.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

What an impossible stretch this is. You're giving this stupid movie way more credit than it deserves. You're reading depth that simply isn't there. Sounds like you actually have enough sense to go on without this silly crutch of a movie.

Liz

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Arthur wrote:

“I think you're failing to see how toxic a movie like this is.  It blatantly encourages selfishness and narcissistic regression.  This movie is the exact opposite of the “conveyor belt” we need to help people move to higher levels of development, and I don't think it serves anyone to minimize that fact.  The world is in deep shit and I think we need more than just happy thoughts to make it through this crisis period.”

I smacked up against some of this narcissistic regression just yesterday from a follower of The Secret. I don't want to get into too many details but sufficed to say, she showed little respect for others, all in the need for her to “express herself” (at all costs, I guess).

Taken to extreme, the philosophy expoused in The Secret can be used by some as means of self-aggrandizement masked by so-called “spirituality.”

Someone who only works from a place of “it's right because it feels good to me” is someone with a stunted psychology. At worst, it's a character disorder.

I know someone who follows LOA and she's carrying a lot of resentment and anger from childhood. Instead of dealing with that, she chooses instead to simply push anyone away  who pushes those buttons, because it's easier than going through therapy.

I do have friends who enjoyed The Secret and are sane and reasonable generous people. My observation is that those who are dealing with deep psychological issues, however, get worse after applying The Secret, not better.

Also, my friends who do follow The Secret don't believe it's the be-all and end-all, and I think that is a crucial difference. They take it with a grain of salt.

The Secret is the McDonald's of spirituality. Cheap and fast and easy to get, but ultimately really bad for you if that's the only thing in your diet.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Would this blanket contempt for narcissitic, wishful thinking also condemn praying for your daughter to survive a  bout with cancer?  Would it also include mantra meditation?  How about chanting?  How about simply yearning to be reunited with the source or thusness?  Is that wishful thinking?  How about using the principle collectively to encourage world peace, or relief from clinical depression?  All bad, bad, bad?

Frankly, the overall lack of respect and flat out contempt, shown by the anti-LoA camp towards those who are open-minded about the possibilities of such a principle, is alarming.  Those employing fighting words ought look to themselves and their own perspective  base to see just where their venom is REALLY coming from - that is, not from outside “reasons” but from inside doubts and fears.

I hear NO personal reflection on the part of the anti-LoA camp as to any doubt about their convictions whatsoever.  Where I come from that is known as a “tell” - a sure sign of a lack of true confidence in your “position.”  Self righteous indignation is a poor substitute for true confidence,  It shows big time.  Surely you can do better than that.

best,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Michael, I appreciate your perspective, but I don't think it's appropriate to tell others what their issues are without their explicit consent. You seem pretty angry yourself. So perhaps just a general backing away from the computer keyboard is in order for all of us.

This, unfortunately, is one of those issues that attracts people who are not actually interested in pod participation here at I-I+*zaadz.. As with the Andrew Cohen threads, there are folks out there who simply go trolling for their pet issues and post wherever they find them. They bring their religious zeal with them. I find this particularly offensive and intrusive.

I know that's what I reacted to.

Liz

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Michael, the accusations you are levelling against me and other so-called “anti-LoA” posters simply reveals that you're not reading my posts very carefully. If you were, you'd see references to the LoA as a partial truth, and you'd see me explicitly saying that I disagree with the LoA as it's presented in the movie The Secret.  My quarrel is not with the LoA, which I consider a partial truth.  My quarrel is with the movie The Secret, and how it deals with this topic.

Please note that trolling for hot-button issues and inflammatory personal attacks are not what this pod is about.  Feel free to respond strongly to someone's argument, but without attacking the person or identifying their supposed shadow issues without their prior consent.  Please review our basic guidelines here, the Road Rules for Transformation.

spiral out,
arthur

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Arthur,

I feel your pain.  This is the exact experience I have been having myself - suffering through one post after another where the poster gleefully rips the Movie and anyone who remotely supports it without ever addressing the possiblitiy that the Principle or Law may exist independently of the Movie.  That would be ok however off the point if they did not just repeat the generic “How can anyone who considers this Secret to be worth while call themselves intregral?”  Words like “stupid”, “magical” and “silly” have been generally leveled at any one who supports the LoA.  Additionally your personal accusations of my “trolling for hot button” issues or “inflammatory personal attacks” are unwarranted.  I assume, as you have made the charge that you have such evidence?  Evidence of my “trolling” - a particularly disgusting practice - are you accusing me of that?  Everyone has hot button issues Arthur.  One of mine is predjudice.  You have introduced the subject of the Secret (The Movie) twice in recent months on this pod.  Both times you telegraphed your opinion about the value/inherent worth of the Geoff Olsen and Stuart Davis reviews of the Movie.  Why not let individuals determine that for themselves.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and the right to voice it any time you want, including at the beginning of what you know to be a very controversial thread.  I would suggest that when beginning a thread such as these that you withhold your personal opinion until the first wave has passed.  Just a suggestion, this is your baby, but, back to the accusation of “trolling,” this use of such a word suggests to me that you are not aware of the impact of your “opinion.”

I have repeatedly asserted that discussion of the Movie as a cultural phenomenon should be separated from discussion of the LoA.  Your acknowledgment of the LoA as a “partial” truth seems limpid and conditional, I think.  What do you mean “partial?”  Now that I would love to see come under discussion.

Pelle and Balder among others have offered considerable, highly civil, opportunities to take this discussion into the realm of the law or principle.  So far, all we have from you and/or others is this bone of “partial.”  I contend that the movie makes such an inviting target for criticism that it is irresistable.  Is it the purpose of this pod to get into movie reviews?  Or is it our purpose to, from a “we” space set of perspectives hold intelligent, caring, respectful discussion, about the real point, the LoA or principle.

Liz had it exactly right.  I am angry, or was, now I am resisting resentful reaction.  I was angry because of what I considered wanton trespass on the “we” space.  Trespass is a legitimate reason to be angry.  Once the trespass ceases, so does the reason for anger.  Anger maintained after trespass is not anger but resentment.  You accusing me of “trolling” in open forum is significant trespass.  Especially in light of your admonition that I was making “inflammatory personal attacks.”  So, what then is this “trolling,” tit for tat?  I am angry.

I could give a crap about the movie.  I will concede that it is pandering, misleading shit.  But I will not censor it or criticize those who might use it for whatever purpose they choose.  I beg you to consider that the real issue has nothing to do with the movie.  Nothing.

respectfully,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Michael said:

“Would this blanket contempt for narcissitic, wishful thinking also condemn praying for your daughter to survive a  bout with cancer?”

Of course not, because *by definition* concern for others is not *narcissistic.*

I'm not sure how you think we should feel about “narcissistic, wishful thinking”? Joyful? Excited? Glad that this is being encouraged?

Michael then wrote:

“Frankly, the overall lack of respect and flat out contempt, shown by the anti-LoA camp towards those who are open-minded about the possibilities of such a principle, is alarming.”

I don't have contempt for people who are “open-minded” about the possibilities; as I stated quite clearly in my last post, many of my friends are fans of The Secret.

What I do find alarming is how many people are willing to overlook the obvious flaws of The Secret and its materialistic message. Josh at least suggests that pandering to this materialism is a way to get attention and open up people to new ideas. I can kind of “buy” that, except that I think some of those folks in The Secret actually do get their rocks off on the idea of visualizing a new car for themselves as the pinnacle of their personal spiritual achievement.

So do I need to accept every philosophy put out to the world to risk being told I'm not open-minded? How about Hitler's idea of an Aryan supremacy? Should I be “open” to those possibilities as well?

I'm not saying that The Secret is as bad as Hitler, but I don't think it's fair to label people who don't buy into The Secret as not having open minds.

Frankly, I have yet to see any sort of intelligent reasoning behind believing in The Secret and LOA other than some of the stuff that David Monk and a few others have written in one of the Secret pods, and even with that they always provide a *measured* view of it.

But fanatical acceptance of it? That's not open-mindedness. When Rhonda Byrne tells overweight people to stop looking at fat people in order to get thin, I think people *should* be offended and say something about the sort of spiritual bigotry she is advocating.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

ozma
But fanatical acceptance of it? That's not open-mindedness. When Rhonda Byrne tells overweight people to stop looking at fat people in order to get thin, I think people *should* be offended and say something about the sort of spiritual bigotry she is advocating.

It's not possible to be turquoise and fanatically accept every word of the Secret.

One of my main points in this thread and in other similar threads is that yes, we may very well need to deconstruct the Secret when speaking to those who believe that thoughts can magically change their life in 24 hrs. But this pod is not where those people hang out!

This pod is the only place I know of where intelligent integral people come together to discuss things. But simply trashing the Secret is not intelligent, we can all see the shortcomings of that movie without needing anyone to point them out. What I'm looking for is a turquoise group inquiry into what the partial truth of the Secret is, and how the LoA can be described in integral terms.
But I realize that this is still a much too triggery issue for all of us to have that discussion. Maybe with time we can all be ready for it.

Like R-thor says,

spiral out

Pelle

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Pelle: “What I'm looking for is a turquoise group inquiry into what the partial truth of the Secret is, and how the LoA can be described in integral terms.”

I did offer some potentially integral takes on LoA here, here and here.  The threads where they appeared were pretty contentious and I haven't been paying that much attention lately.  I just noticed this by Balder.  I'm sure there are other integral attempts at understanding LoA.

Here's a bit about my history with LoA.   I found it early in my search for truth.  I think the circumstances by which I found it were oddly in line with the principles of LoA, so it resonated with me immediately.  I never got too far into the manifesting desires practices, but I vigorously pursued an intellectual understanding of LoA for while, while also engaging in serious inner work to clear out resistance in my self.   I have no idea why, but my life has changed immeasureable for the better since beginning this journey.  My suspicion is that the clearing work allowed attraction principles to work in some way, but maybe it was just luck.  Eventually, maybe due to some growth up the spiral or whatever, I decided that LoA was too dualistic for me, but I still harbored some desire to understand it and fit it into the Kosmos.  Now, I am so thoroughly polluted by absolutistic thinking, I have a hard time making relativistic sense out of most philosophical concepts.  It all just get's mushy mixing around in the One without other.  LoA still seems hopelessly dualistic, but so does everything else in this realm, so I still play with it like I play with life…not intentionally trying to get anything out of it, but just seeing what comes up.

Keith

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Interesting experiences, thanks for sharing Keith.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

> What I’m looking for is a turquoise group inquiry into what the partial
> truth of the Secret is, and how the LoA can be described in integral terms.

There is fundamental, rigorously scientific, ongoing research which is begining to quantify, using the very same tools of the the scientific materialist priesthood, how consciousness and intention can *affect* this 4D world. A world that we perceive with our senses and then delude ourselves into believing that what our senses have collected, and we have processed and then ‘labeled’ with our ‘conceptual designations’ is, what is ‘really’, ‘out there’.

I don’t believe that there’s any argument within, serious circles of Integral thinkers, that UL phenomena, especially UL phenomena from a mind–or many minds in concert (LL)–that have gained a significant capacity toward directed attention, and high meditative states (as shown via UR corelates observable via instrumentation, I.E Hemispheric Synchronization, Heart/Mind entrainment, etc.) can have measureable effects on matter/energy/space time.

William A. Tiller (one of the *bright spots* in what the Bleep!?) is developing a body of mathematical theory, and a model of physics to account for the experimental data that he, and his team, have laboriously collected over years of work. In my opinion, this is acting, among many other things, to ground the LoA within a much more integral model, where the UR correlates of UL intention, emotion, and thought, can (often robustly) manifest to alter, and/or affect, our 4D spacetime. See: http://tillerfoundation.com/tillermodel.htm and my comments here: http://rigpa.zaadz.com/blog/2007/3/william_a_tiller_and_a_new_paradigm_in_physics_and_mathematics

It is 4 meditators of this capacity (including Tiller himself) that Tiller used to ‘imprint’ intention in simple electronic devices, that then caused significant, empirically measurable, UR and LR changes to the targets of the experiments (PH change in water, change in an enzymatic reaction in liver enzyme, growth rate of fruit fly larvae, qualities of the space itself within which the experiments were performed, non-local events).

The problem with the LoA, or more correctly what is though of as LoA, is that it seems to be exclusively embedded in the UL, in the popular consiousness of those that have embraced it, with the notion that it is absolute in its capacity to manifest phenomena in the other quadrants. Unfortunately, those that embrace it most absolutely, have almost certainly (at the risk of not being PC, lol) yet to develop a sufficient cognitive capacity to grasp the implications of an AQAL model let alone the Wilber/Coombs Latice. They have “altitude sickness” and misinterpret the phenomenon of LoA. They’ve translated from one fundamentalism (Blue/Amber), then very rapidly (but a blink of an eye) through Orange, and into Green.

Like Stuart said, its good and bad. What I see good about this entire Secret thing is that its precipitating these very discussions within this Pod; as well as discussions at other levels; though discussions of translation, rather than transformation.

> FROM STUART:
> It is appealing to a person’s desire to attain, acheive, and better their
> personal station. It is promising you a better STORY. And that is indeed
> one altitude of spirituality. But it’s the bottom, and inflating it can end up
> keeping people stuck in the cycle of suffering even longer. Because the
> self is addicted to its STORY. The Self is the end of all stories.

Maybe so. Maybe its worse than being stuck in Amber/Blue, “God is in heaven, and he has all the answers, and only he can save me, and if I kiss his ass enough, and follow all of his rules, when I die, he’ll fish me out of purgatory, and I’ll live in white robes on the tops of clouds”…. Or worse yet, “if I kill enough non-believers who oppose Allah in holly Jihad, then when I die I’ll be given by Allah 72 virgins (ONLY FOR ME!) and milk, and honey, etc.”

I’m not convinced that the former will be worse than the latter. I think I’d rather see forward translation, regardless of how broken it is. I think that more, a LOT MORE, self obsessed, green meme, narcissistic, self indulgers trumps bible pounding Armageddon is coming, so lets blow up the middle east bible pounders any day (or their Islamic analogues, etc.).

If The Secret, Abraham (Esther Hicks), and others, can provide tools, flawed as they are, that might help a LOT more people to *translate* from faith in an external, agentic, mythological God (Amber/Blue) and replace that ‘God’, with a narcisistic Orange to Green God of Ego, then maybe its doing *something* positive, and since it *IS* happening anyways (if its on Oprah, its happening), and we are not going to stop it regardless of how much it irritates and frustrates us (and it does) we might as well see what good can come of it. We could, obviously, hope for a cleaner translation, not one so infused with highly problematic narcissism but this is the cards we’ve been dealt. We need to play them with as much skillful means, patience, and wisdom as possible (for the sake of the entire planet).

And, regardless, over time, these newly minted ‘self’ manufactured ‘Godlets’ are going to cause them’selves’ a GREAT DEAL OF PAIN, but then so has their Amber/Blue God, or they wouldn’t be ready to die to it and be receptive to the flawed message of “The Secret”. When their narcisistic self obsessed craving and grasping to make permanent that which is impermanent, causes enough pain and suffering, I believe that these ‘self’ absorbed ‘selves’ will begin to “get a clue”, and/or become receptive to someone (like us) *offering* them a clue (when they’ve had enough self inflicted pain), as to the difference between ‘Self’ and ‘self’, and why identification with, and as, ‘self’ (an object) can only cause one to perpetually bash into other objects and thus suffer; and as Ken says, “Welcome to Hell”.

As to Stuart’s tone, it is meant to wake us up; to shock us into attention. It is a skillful means. Do you all remember his masterfull, stronger than Boar’s breath, posting “Vajra Sword” of a few months back? Did that piss off and shock some people? You betcha. But did it cause others of us to snap out of self indulgence and pay attention? It did for me. I can see this post might set folks reeling a bit. To read Stuart at his best, sometimes, is like taking ‘good medicine’, it might taste terrible, and burn our throats on the way down, but if it works (as it does) my only response is gratitude.

–dragpa gyaltsen

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Dragpa Qyaltsen,

Awesome post.  I AM reeling in gratitude and admiration.  That you managed to pull the true worth of Stuart's comments on the LoA out of his latest rant on the subject of the cultural phenomenon of the film, and balance it with the emergent evidence coming from Tiller's work has really helped me to focus my thinking about the “partial” nature of the “truth” of the LoA.  So much to consider.

best,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Dragpa,

One problem that I see is that Integral theory is strongly influenced by Whitehead's process philosophy, which in turn has implications for quantum theory that potentially conflict with William Tiller's proposed mechanism. Following Whitehead, Wilber believes that all holons have interior and exterior dimensions, and this means that even an atom contains an UL interior “consciousness” and intentionality, although obviously in a way that's so basic that it doesn't share a whole lot with human consciousness. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that within human consciousness, there's an element of interiority that all other entities also have. This means that we might say that consciousness does indeed create reality, but so does every other entity and the consciousness within the atoms and electrons get the first shot at it. By the time we get a chance, physical reality has been pretty much agreed upon.

That's not to say that Whitehead is absolutely right and everyone else wrong, but to point out that LoA's quantum theory conflicts with process theory, and my attempt at an obvious synthesis removes the main selling point of LoA. Maybe the two can be reconciled in some other way or maybe process theory is simply wrong, but at the moment, there's no way to throw that mechanism into the mix without seriously disturbing some of the other work that's been done. Additionally, Ken has identified problems with process theory – that it misses intersubjectivity – that make it even harder still to reconcile with Tiller's view.

If there was some thought given to considering some of these problems, I think I would be a bit more sympathetic to the viewpoint. By itself, it doesn't fit neatly into existing thought.

The point you make that the LoA's possible green-level spirituality, and its superiority over amber and orange cognition is well-taken. My view is that its perfectly appropriate at certain levels.

-MrTeacup

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Mr. Teacup,

> One problem that I see is that Integral theory is strongly influenced by Whitehead’s
> process philosophy, which in turn has implications for quantum theory that
> potentially conflict with William Tiller’s proposed mechanism.

Tiller’s mechanisms, as far as I understand them, are not based upon quantum effects (indeterminacy, observation collapsing the Schrödinger wave equation, or other WTB!?!#$isms), but on classical physics and Gauge Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory) extended and adapted by mathematics and new physical theory that (elegantly) account for otherwise ‘anomalous’, yet impeccably and rigorously acquired, experimental data. Tiller posits that there exists two, ‘mirror’, realms of 4 dimension; 4 (3 spatial and one temporal) of normal U(1) Gauge Symmetry accessible by our normal 5 senses, and another 4 dimensions of a ‘higher’, more subtle SU(2) Gauge Symmetry that though no less ‘real’ are not normally (consciously) accessible by most humans; and that these, in turn are ‘embedded’ within a dimension of ‘emotion, then another of ‘mind’, and then one of spirit (the unqualifiable thusness from which all phenomena arises). In all, an 11 dimensional model of reality. I’ve MUCH more to study of Tiller’s work before I feel I have a really firm grasp of it (and I’d have to bone up on higher math and physics as well). However, looking at Tiller’s work from an AQAL model I think that what he’s asserting in his model is that trained, experienced, meditators manifesting objects of interiority (focused intention and emotion in the UL) can, affect, and or produce, UR phenomena of a ‘subtle’ nature occurring within SU(2) Gauge Symetry that can in turn affect ‘normal’ U(1) Gauge Symmetries. Such phenomena is enhanced when there are multiple, trained, synchronized, ULs (LL) engaged in the effort, and that over time, such effects modify the local space-time of the region where the phenomena was invoked.

> Following Whitehead, Wilber believes that all holons have interior and exterior
> dimensions, and this means that even an atom contains an UL interior
> “consciousness” and intentionality, although obviously in a way that’s
> so basic that it doesn’t share a whole lot with human consciousness.
> Perhaps a better way of putting it is that within human consciousness, there’s an
> element of interiority that all other entities also have. This means that we might
> say that consciousness does indeed create reality, but so does every other
> entity and the consciousness within the atoms and electrons get the first shot
> at it. By the time we get a chance, physical reality has been pretty much agreed
> upon.

Yes, the atoms and electrons may get a first shot at it and whatever caused them to act within the causal trajectories which they inhabit, unless acted upon by some agency, will cause them to interact with other objects of manifestation in their paths with results as a function of their interaction upon such a collision. I would submit, however, that the untrained, undisciplined minds of ‘normal’ human beings in a normal waking consciousness state, would have very little effect upon this ‘barrage’ of ‘atoms and electrons’. But could the same be said for long time meditators, trained in single pointed attention, acting in concert? Tiller’s experimental data shows, rather convincingly, that such is the case.

If a man, weighting 200 lbs, were to push against a building weighing 2,000,000 lbs, would he be able to move it? Not in any readily measurable way (though he would, in fact, cause micro vibrations to emanate from the source of his efforts). Equivalently, would a person holding a thoughtful intention to acquire some object of material fancy be able to attract it to themselves? Maybe in some minor way they might make it, metaphorically, to ‘twitch’. Over time, how are we to categorically deny that they might, in fact, improve the probability that would cause such an object to arise in their experience? Equivalently, if a ‘shit storm’ of major proportions overwhelms a person and thrusts them into experiencing a horrible illness, could such be characterized as random chance? Could they be, in some way responsible for this illness as a function of a negative LoA effect? Or through classical forces of Karma as per Buddhist and Vedanta Philosophy/Religious thought? Regardless, for anyone to assert that it is the ‘fault’ of a person overwhelmed by disease, because they failed to ‘properly’ engage in LoA practices is as ridiculous as claiming that one could somehow, through rigorous physical training and confidence in one’s strength, manage to prevail, in stopping in its tracks, a locomotive and train approaching at speed. I believe that there are issues of magnitudes of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ that are as yet far from well understood.

> That’s not to say that Whitehead is absolutely right and everyone else wrong, but to
> point out that LoA’s quantum theory conflicts with process theory, and my attempt
> at an obvious synthesis removes the main selling point of LoA

Well, my point is that Tiller’s theory on how the effects of consciousness and Intention affect mater/energy/space-time are *NOT* based upon quantum effects, as I’m attempted to indicate above. Additionally, I believe we are engaged in a semantical dilemma regarding my use of LoA in my arguments. LoA is a label, a conceptual designation, imputed upon a notion that intentionality affects mater and energy, to an extent that is a range between the infinitesimal effect to the absolute dependent on the perspective, and beliefs, of the person employing the label. I have used the label of LoA in a context that I though implied its more defensible aspects, rather than its magically deluded extravagances.

As to a synthesis between Tiller’s model and Whitehead’s Process Theory/Philosophy, such requires more reading, study, and thought. From what I’ve grasped so far of Process theory, Whitehead posits that experience/process precedes matter, that the universe (reality) is composed of units of process.

From: http://www.improverse.com/ed-articles/richard_wilkerson_2005_jan_whitehead.htm
—o—
For Whitehead, there is no matter, no mind. Not initially, anyway. These are both errors of abstract concreteness, where we have confused an abstract idea of something as being the real thing itself. Science, Whitehead says, is quite valuable, and has finally seen that matter is really a set of processes in motion, of events. But what science fails to see is that these processes are creative, experiential processes. Rather, science reverts back to its old notion that processes are just a new container for materials. Whitehead’s process theory proposes a radically different stuff of which the universe is made, creative experience, or feelings. This doesn’t mean that the world is just a projection of our own mind, but rather that the universe is a process of multitudes of experiencing individuals.
—o—

However, for me, all of this is flawed in the sense that Whitehead and subsequent process theorists, seem to be reducing, flattening, the non-dual ground, Dharmakya, Sprit–or whatever label we might attempt to attach as a reference to an unqualifiable referent–with process. Process/experience, itself, is phenomena which arises from the unmanifest/absolute. Whether it be process/experience, or units of quanta, or my cat’s droppings, these manifest objects only exist in relation (in a relative fashion) to other objects. They have no intrinsic existence *on-to-themselves*.

What I’m attempting to do is to offer insight into a very promising theory and model (Tiller’s) that offer’s a scientific and defensible basis (within this relative, rather than absolute, realm of experience and existence) for the observed (over millennia) phenomena that acted as a precipitate for this popular notion of LoA, which now has tragically agglomerated into a mishmash of ill conceived quantum babble, egoic grasping, and regressive, magical, thinking. My gravest concern about all of this flaming of “The Secret” and “What the Bleep@#$!%^&” is that we end up throwing “the baby out with the bath-water” as so often happens in human events.

Tonight, on my way home from my 12AM-2AM prayer shift at KPC, I listened to Ken and Julian Walker’s discussion on Integral Naked regarding “The Secret” I agreed with everything they said; however, I was dismayed that at no time, by either party, was there any discussion regarding the *legitimate* study of how intention and consciousness does affect ‘reality’. Ken is well aware of Tiller’s work. I have heard him praise his work with subtle energies in an interview (I need to find the instance and I’ll post it) yet what appears to be happening is that there seems to be a reluctance for an *INTEGRALLY* Informed discussion that INCLUDES the defensible aspects of LoA.

The bottom line is that we really don’t know enough, as yet, about the mechanisms at work here to know for sure the what, and the how, of LoA (or its underlying defensible attributes), Karma, etc. We would be succumbing to a scientific materialist mythology to deny that such things happen at all, and I would presume that all present here within this discussion have some manner of ‘knowing’ that such phenomena in fact occurs; we simply don’t know enough as yet. For me, Tiller’s work represents a critically important step in the right direction. I only hope that equivalently qualified practitioners of physics and mathematics take up his work and continue to, either substantiate his findings and model and further flesh it out, or to replace it with another theory and model that accounts for his data, and proves better able to model subsequent experimental data and survive peer review.

–dragpa gyaltsen

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I guess I assumed that Tiller's involvement in What The Bleep meant that his model is based on the same quantum mechanism that the movie proposes.

the untrained, undisciplined minds of ‘normal’ human beings in a normal
waking consciousness state, would have very little effect upon this
‘barrage’ of ‘atoms and electrons’. But could the same be said for long
time meditators, trained in single pointed attention, acting in concert?

It's an idea worth considering. I haven't read the book, but let's suppose it is true. To my understanding, Tiller's model is that physical reality could be altered by means of intention, not that all of reality is created from intention, so it passes the Auschwitz test. Also, the Tiller model predicts effects for long-time meditators, whereas the LoA model says that this effect is not only available to everyone, it is already being used by everyone. The upshot of this is that, yes, LoA dynamics might work, but very few people could have experienced it. Certainly, the popularizers of LoA do not seem to agree to this fairly high barrier to entry.

all of this is flawed in the sense that Whitehead and subsequent
process theorists, seem to be reducing, flattening, the non-dual
ground, Dharmakya, Sprit–or whatever label we might attempt to attach
as a reference to an unqualifiable referent–with process.

My understanding of Whitehead is that his idea of process is roughly equivalent to the Buddhist concepts of impermanence, and he defends the existence of a transcendent God or Spirit. Process theory is integrated into integral theory because of its compatibility with the Eastern traditions, and Ken mainly critiques its lack of intersubjectivity.

Please let me know if you find Ken's reference to Tiller's work.

Mr Teacup.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Mr. Teacup,

I am cheered to hear that you think that the LoA passes the ugly Auschwitz test.  I would ask that, at Arthur's request, we concentrate this conversation about the LoA so as not to have it splattered all over the I-I pod.  Pelle's thread in Chapel Perspicacious, Integral perspectives on the LoA is such a place.  Care to move there?  Dragpa?  Others?

best,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Dragpa, Teacup and Michael

Please continue this highly interesting discussion the thread Integral Perspectives on the LoA.

I've reposted all your posts there.

Best wishes,

Pelle

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Michael,

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I don't think LoA passes the Auschwitz test. I said that Tiller's model – that highly trained meditators can create small, non-quantum physical effects using intention alone – passes the Auschwitz test. LoA says that everyone is already using the LoA to create their own reality, and therefore fully responsible for the bad things that happen to them. Maybe you can outline (on this thread, or some other) why you think that LoA does pass the Auschwitz test.

I'm also keeping track of the other thread, but honestly, I don't get the obsession that some of the mods have with staying on-topic, and splitting up threads. Conversation topics don't fall into neat categories. As far as I'm concerned, whatever people want to talk about is on topic, unless its unambiguously disruptive. It might be useful to write up the discussion in the wiki for future generations though.

~TC

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

dragpa: Beautiful. I loved the second part of your post, where you wrote about how much more positive you believed The Secret and the tenets of the LoA were in comparison to the Armegeddon-preachers, and especially your pentultimate paragraph. There's actually a great post / discussion on a Zaadzster's blog that demonstrates, perfectly, the evolution you described. (And guess what? Stuart agrees.)

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

There is another part to the talk between Ken and Julian coming up, so it seems a bit premature to say that Ken doesn't mention this or that theory.

Liz

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

> There is another part to the talk between Ken and Julian coming up, so it seems a
> bit premature to say that Ken doesn’t mention this or that theory.

Cool. Lets see if there’s any mention, then….

–dragpa

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Dragpa, Teacup, Michael, Siona, Liz

Please continue this highly interesting discussion the thread Integral Perspectives on the LoA.

I've reposted all your posts there.

Best wishes,

Pelle

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Appropos of nothing, I jump into a lively discussion of the Secret.  Having no history on most pods, I cannot be accused of personal attacks on anyone–Sweet!
On the down side, I may be unintentionally repeating other people's previous comments, so forgive me if I bore you.

To the concern that this is a “how to book “on Narcissism and flawed:

1. To be able to really manifest according to the guidelines given, is not so easy. Most people are awash in conflicting psychological fears and desires and cannot hold a consistent thought force in their minds over time. As the movie states, most people are just too busy reacting to what's in front of them. 

2.  One does not teach advanced mathematics to 1st graders. The scope of the Secret had to be limited to appeal to mass audiences. Therefore the “get a new car” pitch of the movie. It was put in a simple format for a reason. So the average guy on the street who doesn't have the time to debate intellectual issues on a web site or read lots of spiritual type books because he's too busy putting food on the table or dealing with real time relationships, can grasp this in an hour.  Wouldn't you pick up a book that said “win the lottery in 3 easy steps” ? No? well NORMAL people would. It's a gateway, ok? A GATEWAY to more complex concepts.

To the concern about how this information can somehow hurt “progress” in spiritual or global advancement:
 
1. Everything happens for a reason and our limited minds can never see the larger picture, no matter how hard we try.

2. Instead of debating pros and cons about it's impact for other people, why not take what is of value to you and LIVE it in your own world. We are not responsible for others people's karma or lives. As much as we should be kind and giving and of service to others, in the end (and don't we all know this), change only comes from within. This movie has no power to hurt or heal, only individuals have that power. And frankly, if we individuals were so good with this whole idea of self transformation, the world wouldn't be like it is now.

TO ME: The REAL meaning/impact of this movie which I think many people aren't getting and are taking offense to by getting sidetracked into whether it's “good” or “bad” IS:

Personal Responsibility.
Personal Responsibility.
Personal Responsibility.

Ok, that's my 2 cents. My spiritual teacher gave me some good advice once. He said “Never offer you advice or opinion unless some one asks you 3 times for it. And then when you do, be prepared to duck. ”  I wish I was a better listener!
Peace,
Parri

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

“Appropos of nothing, I jump into a lively discussion of the Secret.  Having no history on most pods, I cannot be accused of personal attacks on anyone–Sweet!
On the down side, I may be unintentionally repeating other people's previous comments, so forgive me if I bore you.”

I didn't read past this point. I don't want to be swayed from my opinion on this, since I might agree with you and I can't claim objectivity.

Actually, it's more annoyance than boredom. I feel like if people aren't willing to at least read the thread they're posting to, they are being inconsiderate. This is a pet peeve of mine, so if you have the intention of actually participating in an integrally informed pod, then a seriously hearty welcome to you and all the people who've joined in this discussion as their first postings.

If not, I hope you go on your merry way, with my blessing.

Liz

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Well, Parri, unlike Liz, I appreciate you comments and reflections on this subject
and welcome to the discussion.
Jane

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I would also welcome you, Parri, and I thank you for your honesty about where you're coming from. I don't feel particularly strongly about either The Secret or the anti-LoAists, though I am a little bemused by how much energy has been stirred up around in communities of otherwise intelligent, otherwise level-headed people around what seems to me like a not-terribly-well-produced, nor particularly deep, film.

:)

I saw the film a while back and got the same message you did; the importance of personal responsibility. It doesn't seem to me that most followers of LoA are using the tenets to blamess others;  rather, those I've encountered seem to be using it to take ownership of their reactions and thoughts and to stop blaming others for their problems. This is why I'm a little bemused by the charge of narcissism. I recently finished a report on clinical Narcissistic Peronality Disorder, and while I know that's not at stake here, I do want to note that one of the defining tendencies of the narcissist is that she'll blame the world, and others, for any mishaps and failings, and aver that any problems in her environment are NOT her fault. Others must change to suit her needs. What The Secret seems, to me, to be saying, is that each of us much change if we wish to see any change in the world.

On the whole, though, I wasn't terribly impressed by the film, and again, I'm confused by those who see it as somehow dangerous. I don't believe people need to be protected from themselves, and I have a feeling that The Secret will end up teaching a lot of people a LOT of lessons … just not of the sort it intended.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Well said, Siona. Thank you.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Hi all,

I'm new to the thread and an to integral thinking. This topic in a general sense is what had me sign up for zaadz to begin with. I'm having trouble integrating the two (thanks to all here for the discussion and links to other discussions for helping think through it).

I've been a student of LoA for about 10 years through Abraham-Hicks. The Secret is a mass-media version of the concept, which was coined by Abraham-Hicks but described by many other teachers for a long time. The movie was deliberately stripped of some of the non-flashy, deeper thinking in order to market to Oprah and others. Details here and here.

The thing to remember about this “law” is that is offered and described on a personal level, but it is much deeper/broader than that. Of course, this personal application is the sexy part and gets blown out of proportion for mass consumption.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Donna,

Thanks for speaking up.  As a ten-year student of the Teachings of Abraham, you have some real experience to offer.  I have read The Law of Attration and am impressed with the repeated insistence that the Point of Attraction (POI) is of central importance. 

Would you be willing to offer some of what you have learned about The LoA - POI and their significance to appropriate employment of the Law, or principle?

Glad you're here.

best,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I have not read any of the Hicks literature, but I have spent a lot of time wondering ‘what makes a difference.’

More than 10 years ago, I participated in a ‘visioning’ workshop in the community I was working in. …… Dream up, dream big….’what do you want this place to be like’ was the basic assignment.
It became clear that the community members had no ability to dream the future…”Drugs, diabetes, suicide, more death, bigger trucks, the sad list went on” …I have a long essay written about this on one of my defunct computers “broken hearts and clay feet”…. this was the first time that i really became aware that such a social incapacity could actually exist. ‘community depression”. Since then, I have been involved in a few workshops called “Path”…. A tool designed basically for dreaming the world like you would like it to be, considering what would be possible and positive in 5 years, and then thinking the steps backwards to the present moment. There is nothing ‘magical’ about it, but it allows for conscious direction of intention. Also, when people dream up the utopian world, it is not generally filled with piles of polluting crap(though it was in the visioning workshop in my community–and 10 years later, the results speak for themselves!). what people want is a balanced resplendant world, health, family, to love and be loved, meaningful work, joyous play, connection, community, celebration….. none of this is beyond the possibility of changing our minds. Figuring out what it takes to change our minds, this is a fascinating topic.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Siona makes an interesting statment severals posts above this one.  She says that she is  a little bemused by how much energy has been stirred up by the secret.  Well, to cut a long story short -so am I.

I do take alot from the Secret, it has to be said.  None of it is new to me, nor is it fresh and original to a great many who have read or seen the story since it's conception.  But I am beginning to wonder if that is the point, or at least, how we should be looking at it.

There is no whole truth in any one thing, as I am sure many of use will agree or subscribe to in some sense.  There is no be all and end all particular one medium or another.

The same thing happened with the initial release of What The Bleep Do We Know as that which is happening now with the Secret.  Many people discovered and accepted (if at the very least thought that it may be interesting or fun to explore) the possibility that they had a spiritual side: that there was something more to the immediate world and the universe to which is part.

Surely that is a damn good thing by anyones standards?

I mean, we may not personally like the movie…  (I partiqulary like the Vision Board idea, but that's asides the point ;)  …We may not like the movie, or the book, but they have created a whole community of people, moving in different directions, trying to achieve something above and beyond themselves. 

I know it preaches of money and other (lets face it) base or lower spiritual -human- wants and desires.  But that in my opinion is asides the point again.  I would rather embrace this opportunity to have more folks in my inner circle open to the idea of greater conciousness than I would have, should the screen time have been donated to another re-make of Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Jane and Siona, you're completely missing my point. It's standard netiquette that it's impolite to come into a thread and offer opinions without first reading at least a good deal of it first. The thread then tends to go round and round with people saying the same things over and over again.

Since I don't have anything new to add to the actual thread, I'll bow out. Apologies to everyone for the tangent.

Liz

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Well, Liz, Parri did not say that she had not read the thread. She just said she hoped she was not repeating what other people said (maybe on this thread, maybe on others, who knows!) My take is that your comments were very abrupt and dismissive, and had they been directed to me I would have felt anxiety and shame, and I would have been discouraged from further participation. Jane

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Ok, fair enough. Perhaps I was reading into her post.

Mea Culpa.

Liz

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Thank you all who welcomed me and thank you Liz too. I should have said I did in fact read about 20 posts back before I commented. Having no history just meant I don't have flaming baggage with other pods members. I don't like to carry baggage, so I might not be a daily contributor here…(that was a joke!).. but do enjoy the ocassional contribution if I feel I have something to add and not subtract. 
Actually, I think many of us share more opinions in common with this thread than differences, but we all tend to get hung up on differences and usually fail to appreciate commonality.  We are, as human beings, somehow more fascinated by car wrecks than when the traffic runs smoothly. 

Thanks for listening.

Parri  :)

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I saw 5 or 10 minutes of The Secret on youtube or myspace. I felt unwell in my tummy. Not sure how to interpret that. Just sayin'.

I thought the example of a CHILD wishing for a bike, then grandpa giving him the bike was telling. It's indicative of the market the film is aimed at. And why don't these people think their glasses and baldness away? Maybe they like them and thought them into existence.

I think people who write books etc on creating your reality through (wishful) thinking are creating wealth through writing nonsense for consumption by the gullible. Mind you, I was one of the gullible for a while. Way back then I thought people wouldn't write a book unless what they had to say was true. There's a market for everything.

Martin Gifford.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Per someone's request above, here is a link to the excerpt from The Secret on the weight issue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17317691/site/newsweek/page/2/

A quick response to someone else regarding whether people could end up having full blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder by following this stuff too much. Maybe not, maybe it just enhances an existing neurosis.

I just dealt with one of these folks very recently, a fan of The Secret, someone who obviously has some serious psychological disorder. But then again, I notice a lot of new age people (speaking as a new age person) often slightly have a nut loose. It has been hard for me, since I have so many mixed feelings about new age in general due to all the crazy ass people I run across in Los Angeles.

Or maybe, it's just Hollywood. ;-)

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Seems a bunch of us are getting caught up in this “Secret” issue.  I haven't even seen the movie or read the book, but that won't stop me from giving my two bits worth…here's is my best shot, in concise terms, at the partial truth of the Law of Attraction:

Let's see if I can state my own view on Law of Attraction, as concisely as possible.  The law of attraction, as I understand it, points to the power of intentionality or subjectivity in shaping experience.  I believe this is partly true, and this partial truth was very much emphasized in the world's ancient wisdom traditions.  However, with modernity came an understanding of objectivity in a way that the ancients never understood.  For example, I may have great intentions but my genetics may kill me relatively early, in spite of how well I live my life in accordance with the Law of Attraction.  Further, in postmodern times we have come to understand the power of intersubjectivity – especially cultural and linguistic forms.  We know that forms of intersubjectivity such as cultural meanings also powerfully inform subjects without those subjects necessarily being aware of that fact.

Thus, the integral move is to recognize all three of these and to seek to understand the relationships between them – these three being subjectivity (intentionality, thoughts, feelings), objectivity and intersubjectivity. 

Furthermore, we need to make some distinction between relative and absolute subjectivity.  Yes, the action of my relative subjectivity can influence my experience; but on a deeper level, there is an absolute subjectivity, call it God or Spirit, that attracts me, and in that case, surrender or alignment with that  Subject is  the order of business.  Being attracted to That, I may experience communion, union and even identity with the ultimate source of all attraction.   But that ultimate source is never to be confused with the “little me” who might seek union with it, since the “little me” who seeks union invariably turns out to be at best a “useful fiction”.

Cheers,
Durwin

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Just a heads up to IN subscribers…

”Be sure to tune into Integral Naked next Monday (March 19) to hear Ken's own thoughts about The Secret”

xo
cree

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Listening to Ken & Julian on Integral Naked right now…..

xo
cree

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

While allowing for the possibility that Julian said something about this that I missed (who can read everything on  here?), I feel an incredible urge to kick his ass for not telling me personally that he has a dialog with Ken on IN.

OK, is there anyone who hasn't spoken with Ken recently??

Liz

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Me.  I'm still too much of a friggin' Integral naif, to suppose I could frame a question to Ken appropriately.  I will rely on the expertise of others for the moment to ask those thoughtful questions for me.

best,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

He'll get to you eventually, Michael. He has to!

Meanwhile, my fave quote of the dialog, while Julian and Ken were discussing the preposterous notion that one should look away from fat people if one does not want to be fat:

“I tried looking away from idiots who believe in 'The Secret,' but they're everywhere!” -Ken Wilber

Liz

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I haven't spoken with him recently either.  But I did just submit a question for an upcoming call…

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Dearest Liz,

I have tried to respond to this twice using the most careful and respectful language I am capable of in the moment and it has twice disappeared due to the various weirdnesses of the world.  I will therefore, take this as a sign to shut up about it except to say the following:  once Ken decides to consider the LoA as independent from the movie, then I will pay attention to what he has to say about it.

I will bet you a “doing” of your's or my laundry at least once during the remainder of our “lives” that the LoA will become to be seen as transrational Truth of the highest and most impartial order.

Deal?
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I know this is near and dear to your heart, Michael, which means you should listen to the dialogue with Ken and Julian for yourself, before allowing your preconceptions (or my gloating) to affect your opinion. They do talk about the higher truths involved. Heck, just read the text that goes with it and keep an open mind.

Liz

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I had a dream that I was talking to Ken.

Does that count?

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Dear Ones,

Despite the fact that the following summation of the conversation between Julian and Ken continually references the movie, The Secret, and the LoA only in terms of its relationship with the movie, I will promise to remain open through a paragraph-by-paragraph consideration of what has been said here about their dialogue.  I have italicized the synopsis and included my comments in regular type.  In some paragraphs of the synopsis, I will highlight in bold the comments I choose to draw particular attention to.

“Julian Walker is a respected yoga teacher known for his integrally-informed approach to transformation, healing, bodywork, psychotherapy, and spirituality.  He also maintains an active blog on Zaadz.com, and some of his recent posts regarding the pop-spiritual phenomenon known as “The Secret” caught our attention.  Although clearly not alone in expressing concerns about The Secret, we found Julian's views to be remarkably comprehensive, precisely because it's based in large measure on an explicitly integral framework.

A
gain, the movie.  ”It's?” What's “It's?” What part of the explicitly integral framework is this “It's” based on and who is making this judgment?

The Secret, which can be found in both DVD and book form, has managed to hit #1 on the New York Times bestseller list, and maintain a firm grip on the top two spots at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, and Borders for weeks.  The central tenet of The Secret is “The Law of Attraction,” whereby one's feelings and thoughts quite literally attract, manifest, and create real events in one's life-the assumption being that most of us do this unconsciously, and making this process conscious is “The Secret” that “has travelled through centuries to reach you.”

Essentially no quibble here except for the profound oversimplification of  “… and making this process conscious…”

As Ken and Julian agree, what can be so tricky when evaluating a new approach such as The Secret, is that at first glance it can appear fairly innocent, even if lacking any kind of critical depth.  If it's helping people feel empowered and positive about their lives, what's the problem?

Again, evaluating the movie as THE authority on the LoA saying it is innocently beguiling even if lacking critical depth.  Critical depth according to whom?  There are discussions underway right now on the I-I pod that are giving depth considerations of the LoA a new meaning.

Well, the problem is that it's not a basically solid approach with room for improvement, it's a fundamentally confused way of understanding reality that misunderstands and contorts the genuine truths that it intuits.  Some of the central points that Julian and Ken discuss are as follows:

Again and again, this comment can only be made in reference to the movie's woeful representation of the LoA phenomenon.  I friggin' agree.  Still, its beside the point.

• As with any “you create your own reality” schema, The Secret fails what can be called “the Auschwitz test.”  According to The Secret, everyone who was murdered at Auschwitz-or Rwanda, or Darfur-created that reality for themselves, and therefore they are to blame for their fate.  For obvious reasons, this position is an unconscionable as it is untenable.

This crosses the line into exaggeration and misrepresentation of the movie itself (god spare me from ever having to defend that crap.)  Where in the movie does it say such?  This thought is someone's personal reductio ad absurdum, their own extension of implications not really considered by the movie, onto a grand scale of horror which the movie did not anticipate (its fault) and, for which, I propose to contend, the LoA IS responsible.  I am going to venture into no man's land here but before I do, allow me this disclaimer:  I have the deepest respect for the Jewish people and their traditions.  I am no scholar of their plight or flight, but, if I had to pick between the fundamentalism of Islam and Christianity, I would defer and choose Judaism.  Read Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe.  It is a powerful and poignant statement about the origins of Eastern European Jewry, the main target of the Holocaust.

Nearly 1400 years of successive pogroms accompanied the unbelievable survival of Judaic tradition before the rise of the Third Reich.  During this time, what else could occur within this besieged community BUT a resignation to suffering and a reliance upon tradition to salve their ever open wounds?  What else could have possibly happened?  I know of no one who could hold pure joy in the face of such abuse except perhaps the most enlightened of Rabbis.

Enter the Third Reich with its demonic cabal, fully aware of the impartiality of the LoA, and practicing it for all it was worth to hype the fear and desperation of the Jewish community in particular and the whole of Europe as well.  Imagine the collective humiliation and despair building through Kristalnacht, the wearing of stars, the tattooing, the pounding on doors and the contempt of the righteous racists ringing in your ears.

What conscious person with a shadow of compassion seeks to blame the Jews for their plight?.  Drawing that extension from the movie makes a puerile joke out of this supposed “Auschwitz Test.”  In the end, if the LoA works with such fierce impartiality, and though they truly had no other choice given the interminability of their suffering, the trapped Jews did not help their “chances” by dwelling on the suffering.  Please forgive me.  This has not been easy to say.

What occurred was the irreducible fault of the Nazi demonic cabal.  They directly employed the LoA with full conscious intention by empowering their wishes with hatred - a poor substitute for the much greater power of gratitude and compassion - but effective nonetheless. If you doubt this, I suggest you do some reading in the occult underpinnings of the Nazi regime.  I would suggest for starters, The Spear of Destiny by Trevor Ravenscroft.

• By teaching that the world quite literally revolves around you, The Secret encourages and entrenches narcissism.  In developmental psychology, narcissism doesn't mean an unhealthy obsession with thinking only about yourself, it means you can't think about yourself.  The capacity for self-reflexive awareness just isn't there.  The entire world and everyone in it is simply an extension of your-self, and you are literally unable to take the perspective of another human being.  This is not mystical union; this is pre-rational fusion, and without the ability to take the perspectives of other sentient beings, the entire foundation for ethics evaporates.

Agreed as long as the qualifier “pathological” is attached to the use of “narcissism” above.  Narcissism may also express as a non-pathological character defect which is truly pertinent but would require a good deal of arm-waving to make the point.

• Actually, you are creating the universe moment-to-moment, but it's not the “you” that you think.  According to the great contemplative traditions, every person has at least two “selves”: the finite, temporal, egoic self-sense, and the infinite, transcendental, unqualifiable Self, or I-AMness.  Your Self, your I-AMness, is indeed giving rise to the entire radiant Kosmos in this and every moment, but The Secret teaches that your separate self has the power to personally manifest a new car, win the lottery, or cure cancer… and this simply isn't how things work.

Wrong, even the insipid movie does not make this distinction.  I will grant that it is implied by default, but, as such, the movie makes no distinction between the “selves” probably hoping, in their corrupt little producer hearts, to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, agnostics and atheists included.  In truth, it is only illusion that separates the self from the Self.  So by admission in the above paragraph, it doesn't matter what version of the self is employing the LoA - its all the same thing anyway.

• “The Law of Attraction” is true-as far as it goes.  The problem is that The Secret takes this one relatively small piece of the puzzle and makes it the entire puzzle.  A positive outlook will change your life and your intentions will co-create your reality, but so will brain chemistry, interior level of development, family relationships, natural disasters, cultural trends, language structure, environmental toxins, and, basically, the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

To the first sentence “… as far as it goes.” What does this mean “as far as it goes.?” Vague, limiting, no evidence of limitation.  Second sentence:  the movie again, the friggin' movie.  To the rest, yes, yes, yes and yes.  However, why in the face of these things over which we have little if any control, is the practice of the LoA not a good idea to tip the balance of conflicting factors in our favor however mundane the wishes?

• Developmentally, if one uses a scale ranging from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral to super-integral, The Secret teaches the magical thought structures that were humanity's leading edge several hundred thousand years ago.  As Ken explains, The Secret encourages childlike “primary process thinking,” which can be in the form of “the law of attraction” (e.g., if one black thing is bad, then all black things are bad) and “the law of contagion” (e.g., if this particular man was powerful, then a lock of his hair must be powerful too).

There is no argument that vestigial “magical” thinking still pervades the population.  But the above paragraph smacks of ivory tower elitism to me - criticizing others for doing the best they can within the limits of their perspective bases.

 

• The importance of understanding how unconscious psychological shadow elements color and affect one's experience, and how The Secret can agitate, alienate, repress, or-perhaps even more worrisome-act on these disowned elements of consciousness.

Now this is a problem directly related to the movie's failings and a concern I take most seriously.  Stuart Davis made this point earlier in his take on the movie and I totally agree with him.  Still, it is irrelevant when considering the LoA as a law or principal.  It is easy to see an analogy between the LoA and the phenomenon of gravity.  Ignoring the strictures of gravity will lead to disastrous results, but no one challenges gravity's principles, now do they?

• The genesis of the pre/trans or pre/post fallacy, and how The Secret is a perfect example of elevating pre-rational childish impulses to trans-rational spiritual glory.  Simply because both categories of experience are non-rational, they can easily be confused, and often are.

The movie is a perfect example, I will agree with that, but not the LoA.  As far as both categories of experience being non-rational, I beg to differ.  Who says they are non-rational?  I, for one, do not require cause and effect to be the only “rational” explanation for the way that the world seems to work.  How does the quantum field, alive in its chaotic percolations, somehow manifest “reality?”  Is that non-rational?  I don't believe so, we have just not discovered the connective tissue although mounting evidence suggests that intention has a great deal to do with it.  I contend that this is the arena where the wishful thinking, emotionally charged intentions of the “wisher” can influence the quantum field at all levels of the manifestation of the field whether large or small.  This is where the investigation will lead as soon as people get off the friggin' movie and on to the real trail.

The extraordinary thing about this dialogue is that, for all the critiques Ken and Julian have of The Secret, it's not meant as a put-down or a mean-spirited attack.  As evidenced by its incredible popularity, there are millions of people who are starving for something other than traditional religion or modern science in their search for meaning.  By using an Integral Approach, one is able to look at what new offerings like The Secret have to bring to the table, and assess in good faith what their strengths and weaknesses really are, for the health and nourishment of every soul who dare grasp for “something more”-and for what we consider to be the real Secret of transformation and human happiness, we recommend an Integral Life Practice and an Integral Spirituality, bringing together Body, Mind, and Spirit, in Self, Culture, and Nature.

A deep Amen! to this entire paragraph.

I will wait until the full text of Julian and Ken's discussion is posted before commenting further.

Namaste,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I want to be frank with y'all.  Speaking as an individual, I am getting tired of endless discussion of The Secret, and the LoA.  Kudos to people - Stuart, Julian, Ken, and Durwin among them - who are at least contextualizing the LoA within an integral framework (which, in case anybody was wondering, is the central organizing principle of this pod).   If I'm not very much mistaken, there are lots of places where The Secret (AND/OR the freakin' Law of Attraction) may be discussed - never have I used the following Latin expression with such sincerity - ad nauseam. 

I think the point has been made about 8,536 times by now in this pod - but please, let me restate it again - that the LoA has some truth about it, but it is a partial truth - and (pay attention now) AS PRESENTED IN THE POPULAR MOVIE “THE SECRET” is, in the strongly held opinion of many integral people, being presented in a grotesquely distorted, toxic and harmful way.  There are a lot of other dimensions of reality that those of us who find truth and value in an integral approach consider to be important.   Not everything can be reduced to the LoA; if you think everything can be so reduced, then you're not using an integral framework.

Could we please - for the love of the Good, the True and the Beautiful - focus on other topics now?

arthur

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Arthur:
Kudos to people - Stuart, Julian, Ken, and Durwin among them - who are at least contextualizing the LoA within an integral framework (which, in case anybody was wondering, is the central organizing principle of this pod).

As opposed to whom?

I have personally spent hours in this pod trying to put the LoA in an integral perspective and within an integral framework. I have discussed how it would look within the magenta worldview, within the orange worldview and tentatively tried to explore what it could look like within the turquoise worldspace. Michael has also spent hours trying to flesh out thoughts about the LoA and how it would appear beyond magical thinking.

Stuart, Ken and Julian have primarily used the integral framework to deconstruct the Secret , which is really really easy using AQAL. They then proceed to claim that the partial truth of the LoA is that positive thinking is a good thing. Personally I interpret this as them not being interested in discussing the subject further. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. The integral movement has never been focused on exploring these kinds of issues and that might in fact be a good thing.

I just want to humbly suggest to everyone that if you do not on your own explore and study the factors that make you successful in life (ie success from a turquoise perspective), you most probably won't get very far and won't be able to give your gifts to the world before you die. In other words solely studying AQAL and things that are usually considered “cool and integral” might indirectly enhance the turquoise shadow of not seeing and expressing your greatness. This is not to say that the LoA is the only component in being successful, I'm merely suggesting that AQAL and Ken Wilber do not address certain issues in people's lives. I apologize if this is self-evident to everyone reading, but I still wanted to share these thoughts.

My suggestion is that everyone who wants to explore the LoA limit that discussion to one single thread in the pod. That way we can make room for all the regular Integral/AQAL stuff that this pod should center around.

sincerely,

Pelle

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I have now started a new thread in Chapel Perspicacious for those who want to explore the LoA in a sincere and balanced way. The thread can be found here, and let's try to confine our discussions to this one thread.

If you want to share and discuss non-ordinary experiences in a general way, then check out this thread by Balder.

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Arthur, For the sake of the Good, the True and the Beautiful, there are pretty fundamental issues at stake here. I have participated in many of the discussion threads, and have been told on several occassions that though I am a lovely writer and write with passion etc, none-the-less I am pre-rational and engaged in magical thinking. Indeed, there are many of us who have been heaped into the same category. Indeed, Stan Grof, Joseph Campbell would be heaped into the same category as well, and certainly so would Ken Wilber if he really did believe that the winds that started up when Treya died were anything other than a mere coincidence

What is the miracle of ‘we’? are we ‘frisky dirt’? Are we connected? what is intersubjective knowing?, are there other ways of knowing besides ‘the cause and effect technologies’ of our time? what are siddhis? is enlightenment a red herring? is the universe paying attention? what is the physics of non-dual awareness? and on and on…
These are the fundamental questions that have been looked at, and explored in all of these threads, and with the best attempt of bringing an integral approach. It is my opinion, that these questions have barely even begun to be explored. To move on to ‘other’ things is preemptive at best.
(And in any event, with all the kerfuffle at IN and II, maybe they need a bit of a dose of the Secret…..from what I can tell, they haven’t even figured out what to do about Helen(e) yet, and the dialogue is grinding slowly down as a result)….

I am reminded of a joke I posted once before:
“There was a terrible hurricane and a town was being evacuated. On particularly devout man refused to leave. “God will protect me he declared”
The storm raged on, the seas rose higher. The police came to get him. “No, no god will protect me,” he claimed refuse their help.
Later the seas rose and flooded the downstairs of his house. A boat came by to rescue him. “Oh, no, God will protect me,” again refusing to go.
Next higher still the water rose, he was on a roof, when a helicopter came by hovering with a ladder dropped down to get him. “Oh no, I will be fine.”
By and by, the seas rose over his head and he drown and went to heaven.
Pissed off he said to St. Peter at the Gate, “Why did you guys let me down, I trusted in you and now I am dead.”
St Peter said quizzically, “Whaddayamean, we let you down? First we sent a car, then a boat , then a helicopter!”

There is something very fundamental in all of this discussion about being open to the ‘divine’ in a radically subjective and personal way…AND within the context of our lives, our communities, our societies, our ecology….. to hurry through this discussion, is to do it a great disservice……
Jane

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Dearest, most industrious, Arthur,

I hasten to remind you that it was you that started this thread.  It was you that posted Stuart's relatively insightful takedown of the movie.  It was your boy Stuart that proposed a partiality of truth to the LoA.  More or less, that has been the subject of discussion throughout the thread.  Criticizing those who have not secured their thoughts in an obvious Integral mode, does not mean that the posters are not considering it integrally.  Within my limited understanding of the concepts of the Integral, I sure as hell am. 

I will admit that the movie/LoA has bled into many conversations on the pod, and I will take some responsibility for propagating it.  But I have heard your suggestions and stopped doing it.  This thread, however, is one of the places where the subject persists.

Your dearest darling Liz posted an overview of the Julian/Ken dialogue, opening it to the discussion.  As is obvious, I am deeply interested in this discussion of the LoA, for reasons I cannot yet successfully explain.  I understand, and can empathize with your frustration as to the amount of creative time this is consuming.  My sense is that this will ebb soon, and the conversation will stop referencing the cultural phenomenon and focus on the partiality or impartiality of the “truth” involved.

In the meantime, I feel compelled to comment on the “comments” of any of the Integral leaders like yourself, Julian, and Ken if such comments lead towards the irrelevance of the cultural phenom. and away from the real issue.  IMO

best,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

“I tried looking away from idiots who believe in ‘The Secret,’ but they’re everywhere!” -Ken Wilber

“The extraordinary thing about this dialogue is that, for all the critiques Ken and Julian have of The Secret, it’s not meant as a put-down or a mean-spirited attack. ”
from the IN dialogue description between Julian and Ken.

What is wrong with this picture?!

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Sometimes forum topics become like dogs chasing their own tail (tale?), with much the same ultimate outcome - failure to achieve your goal, dizziness, disorientation and exhaustion.

I feel that my perspective on this has been well represented by now; I feel much the same is true of other perspectives.  My own interest in this topic is pretty well exhausted.  I like Pelle's suggestion of limiting serious discussion of the topic to one thread, but at this point I have subzero interest in personally helping to manifest that reality.  I'd rather spend my energy elsewhere - other threads, or back in the physical world where I need to manifest spring cleaning and preparation to move to California.  How shall I best achieve my goal?  By visualizing a clean apartment?  Hmm. 

arthur

http://www.softwaremag.com/archive/2001feb/images/ChasingItsTail.jpeg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors." />

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

Arthur,

I am now imagining, with righteos passion, you moving automatically through your duties in preparation for the move.  You will be humming your favorite tunes and, effortlessly, in your favorite teeshirt, the work will melt before your eyes.

I know this seems like tail-chasing and, to some extent, I am exhausted as well.  I feel an incredible irony about our conversations around the rationalization aspects of “learning.”  I have realized that I am in what may be the biggest rationalizing “burn” of my lifetime around the subject which will go unnamed.  Funny, huh?

I am all for the move to Pelle's thread.  Thanks for your patience.  When your exhaustion abates, please check in to the new thread.  I for one, would appreciate your feedback.

beet,
Michael

Re: The Secret: The Spirituality of Narcissism

I wanted to respond to this:

“What occurred was the irreducible fault of the Nazi demonic cabal.  They directly employed the LoA with full conscious intention by empowering their wishes with hatred - a poor substitute for the much greater power of gratitude and compassion - but effective nonetheless.”

Here's the problem. LOA people actually believe that people bring on their own suffering by “attracting it.” When you say the Nazis demonstrated the LOA you are missing out on the other side of the equation: LOA dogma states that then victim had to *attract* the negative for it to happen. In LOA thinking, it was not the Nazi's fault, nor the Nazis using the LOA, but the Jews' fault for attracting the holocaust upon them. Oh, they'll never state it that baldly, but that's the horrible conclusion of thought if you follow LOA beliefs.

LOA speaks nothing to personal responsibility in how you treat others - if something bad happens to you, it's your fault for attracting it, period, end of story.

And, in fact, the movie states this point quite clearly when it shows the guy whose bike gets stolen because he put two locks on it.

There is no commentary in the movie about the person who ACTUALLY STOLE THE  BIKE.

There is no explanation of how on earth a guy putting two locks on his bike somehow FORCED the thief to suddenly become a thief.

Nope. It's not really the thief's fault. It's the guy's fault for not locking the bike up.

This is an important distinction and if you read enough comments by people who believe in the LOA 100%, they honestly believe that people bring their own misery down upon them. They absolutely do not think about the perpetrator or the fact that the perpetrator used their own free will to perform the crime.

It is reductionist thinking at its worst, and based, in my opinion, solely on FEAR. People who want to believe in LOA 100% are afraid of being out of control in their lives. They are afraid of other people having power of them. This is why the LOA is so seductive…but ultimately, false.