Law of Attraction - Explain this Discrepancy

I saw this briefly mentioned in another thread, but I didn't want to hijack the thread, so I thought to start a debate centering around the issue.The secret says, and I quote, "As you resist what has appeared, you are adding more energy and more power to those pictures you don't like, and you are bringing more of them at a furious rate."Jack Canfield and Lisa Nichols both say the focus on the war against X or the anti-war movement only brings more of "it" into our lives.Well, explain the '60s to me. It was a culturally violent, ever changing period. You had people protesting and bringing attention to the very same negative things that eventually did CHANGE. I can't help but think of the Civil Rights movement, the Women's Right movement during the 60s, César Chávez, Malcolm X- the list goes on and on.They focused on those negative aspects of our culture back then...AND IT CHANGED. Wouldn't that suggest that the LOA in terms of protesting and world change, doesn't apply as perfectly as the book would suggest?I still think the LOA is applicable to individuals, but on a grander world scale...I dunno...especially if we can't come up with a good logical explanation to the 60s. (That doesn't involve re-writing history, loves!)

You need to be a member of Powerful Intentions. A Law of Attraction Community to add comments!

Join Powerful Intentions. A Law of Attraction Community

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Well, the comment I have to make is a side question about another discussion. Do we evolve? Sometimes as I wrestle with something, I learn things. While I'm wrestling I wonder why I should have to wrestle; I wonder if I'm resisting, I wonder about letting go, I wonder about love and forgiveness and tolerance, I wonder about my ego and my intentions and my motives, I wonder about communication, I wonder if I'm evolving or if my being should just know. But I know that afterwards I can look back at all these questions and see that I learned a few answers, maybe moved a few more notches towards some manifestation of what I want to see inside myself, and feel more reinforced. It's not to say that there are not losses. Social consciousness sort of goes through the same kind of process, but I think human nature is probably the last frontier. We can go to the moon much easier than we can become enlightened!
  • Hi everyone, I read only some responses so far. This is a very interesting topic. I will come back to you. Tonight, I am so tired.
  • Hee!

    You know a lot of what you said resonated and spoke to the little historian in me. I think I liked this line best, "There will always be cautionary reactionary negative behaviors, permeated on a lower-thought vibration, but the dominant mass consciousness wins out." You should be on a debate team.

    I liked how you brought up the recent election. It makes sense. You know what's funny, I almost brought up the supreme court case you mentioned in an earlier post.

    It was helpful, thank you chicky!

    Lots of Love!

    Divine Muse
  • The Secret isn't something that you should take as a "complete" guide to LOA. Remember, it was a meant for a commercial audience, so they left out some important things to keep it "consumer friendly". That's why you should look at other LOA material. It doesn't matter what they SAID in those movements, so much as it does what they were VIBRATING, they all vibrated the solution to their problems.
    • I wasn't focusing on what they said, rather their actions- negative actions! =D

      And yes, even if The Secret was meant for mass consumption it still didn't pull away from the core of my argument. Or rather the most curious aspect of all! (In my mind, at least.) Even in science there's always an exception to a rule, so that's why I brought this up. If I recall correctly even some of the elements in the periodic table were not confined to specific "laws" or "rules," but they still are elements. (If you're wondering what I'm talking about, it's those elements to the far right of the periodic table. They had a specific name, but I can't recall it right now.)

      Like I find it odd that you focus on vibrations where as others focus on thoughts and inspired action, and I'm specifically thinking of people here who are much more familiar with the Law of Attraction and the various other universal laws at play.

      I mean, you have to admit it's quite interesting. =D
    • I focus on vibration because it's what really matters; it's the language the universe speaks. People who "are much more familiar with the Law of Attraction and the various other universal laws at play" speak of vibration in the same manner I do. You think a thought and vibrate according to the meaning that the thought has to you. You think, you interpret your own thought, you vibrate, the universe responds. They said in the Secret(the book, I don't think they say it in the movie) that thought causes vibration. The universe gives you "what you're feeling about, not so much what you're thinking about"(that's from the movie). They said several times in the movie and book you get what you're feeling about. Virtually every Law of Attraction teacher, involved with the Secret or not, says you have to feel it in order to get it. Feeling is vibration. Two people could both say "I want to get out of debt", but the one that sees himself freely spending and making money will still get out of debt because he vibrated, or felt, having money. Also, there's really no need to talk about the other laws because the Law of Attraction, sometimes referred to as "the Law" is the most powerful law in the universe and basically overrides other laws; most teachers say that as well.
  • Hi Brian & Donna!

    (I love a good debate!)

    You know from a historical argumentative perspective, some might argue that there were a lot of non-violent peace protests. I can't argue against factual historical evidence. However, I think it's unfair to assume that simply the positive brought about the major cultural changes in the 60s. Whether it was the Black Panthers, or the several protesters that were harmed-especially African Americans, these negative acts brought attention to the greater picture. I think to say that the 60s was an entire movement built upon peace and non resistance, in some ways is devaluing the sacrifices made amongst many people. Several people died, people were harmed brutally, and because of the attention to the negative situation, people became aware and the change that was needed was brought about.

    I don't mean this to be specifically a discourse on race. (Although, that's another great topic, for another debate!) There's other incidents in history, where major positive changes were brought about after negative civil uprising. Think of Marie Antoinette and the French Revolution, the American civil war, or events such as Mexico's 5th of May that eventually led to the overthrow of Maximilian the 1st.

    These weren't all based upon the focus of positive thought. Many civil uprisings occurred, because of the focus on the negative and though there could have been positive and negative actions associated with these uprisings, the end result still brought about positive change.

    I suppose I should be clear and state that my hypothesis is that the LOA does not apply perfectly to major cultural movements that are at play. So incidents such as the economic crisis, wouldn't necessarily count, because that's simply a thought, a temporary action and situation. However, when you have real pivotal changes that's when the LOA does not seem to work as fluidly.

    Even recently, I remember how the 90s there was a major shift towards the negative when rappers and riots brought attention to the unfair police harassment towards African Americans. I don't think some of the progress would have been made, had someone not thrown that first stone. It was a major cultural shift, causing others to see some of the disadvantages that even at that point in time African Americans faced.

    I dunno, it just seems to me, as a history lover, that so many of the most significant changes across the world were brought about by both positive and negative actions & thoughts. And that to me doesn't seem to mesh with the whole LOA thing.

    Anyways, I do appreciate and respect your opinions. I just wondered who else saw this odd dichotomy of sorts.
    • You find what you look for. If you look for negative events having a positive impact on history, you will certainly find it. I think it would be difficult to "prove" as this whole concept seems to me to be a matter of opinion, or perception. What is "negative" and what is "positive" anyway? The Law of Attraction doesn't know and doesn't care. All it knows is that what you think about is what you get.

      You can look for negatives in history, and find all sorts of "examples" where LoA doesn't work. You get what you look for.

      Or you can choose to see how LoA does work, and use it to further inspire yourself to fulfill your vision of the life you want.
    • True, perspective does play a role, but I wanted to look at the larger picture in question, which includes negative acts.

      As far as what negative and positive, well, one could argue it's based on intent or the action itself. But even that's getting a bit too philosophical for this debate. It reminds me of Kant, when I took philosophy in college. I hated Kant, LOL! =D

      You do allude to a bigger picture, which is that there is truly no way of proving if it was the negative or positive actions alone, during such monumental moments, that affected history. We can't rewind time. At least, for now. (And when you said, "examples" the historian in me cried! But then again, historians love arguing with each other, as history is based on perspective and interpretation.)

      But, like many of the lovely people here, I still think that the LOA has allowed me to live my life through the lens I see fit. And I think that's the best part of the LOA as it gives individuals control over their lives once again! =)

      I just questioned the law on a larger world scale. We'll have to agree to disagree. =D
  • I wouldn't quite agree with your argument. You seem to believe that the country changed BECAUSE OF "...people protesting and bringing attention to the very same negative things..."

    But the Law of Attraction suggests that the country changed IN SPITE OF these very things. Many of the protests were not negative, and I think there's a strong argument to make saying that the negatively charged protests harmed the peace movement efforts rather than helping them.

    There was so much love, good will, "hip vibe," whatever you want to call it in the 60s, that ultimately this is what changed America, overcoming the crazy, paranoid, anti-communist dictatorship mentality that had gripped the country since Kennedy was killed (or before?). But this is just my opinion.
This reply was deleted.