I'm not done with me either. LOL

Jeannie...you wrote :

"Like vibrations attract like vibrations. That is the Law of Attraction."

Now Jeannie.....

How are the vibrations of an an innocent child....

anything even remotely LIKE.....

the vibations of a brutal rapist...who rapes an innocent child?


NOTHING ALIKE in the two different vibrations !!!

This is where LOA gets MISCONSCRUED by people.

Again...no different than when parts of scriptures get

MISCONSCRUED by some people who

don't fully understand all of scripture yet.....

so therefore, I am not surprised that the same seems to be

happening with some people MISCONSCRUING parts of LOA.

But Otherwise Jeannie( at least from what I have read on here thus far),

some of the other points you have shared on here regarding LOA , seem pretty positive .

And reasonable.

The Law of Attraction is NOT the Only Law at work in

people's lives.

There are other laws at work too .

Good Morning you beautiful skeptical people.....another day to attract big words and negative thoughts on a thread!!!I can not wait to see where we go today.I live for diversity...and coffee too!

This is true.

As far as vibrations go, the vibration of fear is a common one that is projected by both a victim and predator or criminal.

Jeannie.....I admire and love you as the beautiful and

kind and caring person that you are,

but I strongly disagree with you on this one particular point here.

Period.

I will leave it at that.

Good Morning Salvatore....

Speaking of coffee.....

I just got blessed by someone , with a

brand spankin new Cuisinart cofeeemaker....

and it makes the BEST coffeee in the world!!

Good Morning Morningsong!I awoke from a dream and straight into a daydream...now i just wonder instead of wandering!

So anyone who disagrees is mind poison. I think this explains a lot.

AAAHHh...Bushi..I was anticapting your arrival.Good morning old friend...let the games begin!

Well....I wonder why I'm still on here....

when I need to wander out of here ...

to work.



Salvatore.... Jeannie ...and Everyone....

You All Have a Great Day Now!!!

I think if people could learn to disagree in an

intellgent and healthy and mature manner....

there actually would not be any negativity in disagreeing at all.

I agree. Its when certain concepts are made to shore up our ego's that we tend to get angry and use name calling against anyone who disagrees with those concepts.

However when someone disagrees with a concept that can be objectively demonstrated that's a different story, then the only name that is appropriate is ostrich, or ignorant.

If I am ignorant, then I would prefer to be shown the evidence in a positive objective way then remain ignorant. If no positive objective way exists to demonstrate the concept, then perhaps one should reevaluate the likely hood of its existence.

All these comments truly amuse me...I love how people are so passionate about there own beliefs..that is the way it should be.Never let go of what you feel is your truth...Kudoos people..this thread is achieving what it was suppose to!

Amused???

Never change your mind once it is made up???

Supposed to???

Hmmmmm.....

Change is constant and so am I!God is also a salami sandwhich!

Yes it is mind poison when you imply that because I believe differently than you I am either unreasonable, delusional, or insane and that I need to be on medication.

Take the red one JB!

This whole thread is basically a misunderstanding of semantics as far as I'm concerned., although Jeanniebean refuses to accept this.

There are at least two meanings to the word "Philosophy" so let's clear this up first.
(allow me to use superscripts to clarify the rest of the post)

Philosophy¹ - A mindset by which to live one's life.

Philosophy² - A rational exploration of the possible actuality of existence.

Having said this it should be clear than Philosophy¹ needs no defense, proof, or justification. Anyone can hold any Philosophy¹ they choose and if it "works" for them and they are happy then more power to them.

They don't need to prove it rationally to anyone. In fact Philosophy¹ requires no justification at all.

However, if one is proposing to have a Philosophy², then they must certainly be able to rationalize it. Because this is the whole point of Philosophy². This is what philosophers do. They tackle and examine the very deep rationality of Philosophy².

If Jeanniebean would like to share the insights of the so-called "Law of Attraction" as a Philosophy¹, then no one can argue with her. In fact, I personally would be the first to agree that as a Philosophy¹ it's a great mindset to live by!

However, if she intends to put it forth as a Philosophy², then she absolutely must explain and justify her rationality for doing so. Because that's precisely what Philosophy² is all about!

So my conclusions in this thread is that if she wants to put it forth as a Philosophy¹, then I'm all for it and support it fully! However, if she wants to argue that it can be justified and rationalized as a valid Philosophy² then I totally disagree. As a Philosophy² the "Law of Attraction", as she proposes it, cannot be justified or rationalized. As a Philosophy² it contains huge contradictions that are totally irresolvable IMHO.

I've already addressed these rational issues in the past, and Jeanniebean could not rationalize them.

Every time she is asked to rationalize something she starts screaming foul that everyone need proof and she falls back to the position that she's merely presenting it as a Philosophy¹ and asks what right anyone has to say that her Philosophy¹ is irrational!

But then, when we say, "Ok, if that's just your Philosophy¹, (view of life) then fine. No problem. All we are saying is that it doesn't hold up as a Philosophy².

But then she starts screaming again, "No! No! No! It is a Philosophy²! It is the true nature of the universe!"

Well, if she wants to claim it as a Philosophy², then she has every responsibility to justify it rationally because that's precisely what Philosophy² is all about (proposing rational views of reality)!

I think that both Jeremy and Michael are thinking in terms of Philosophy²

And if Jeanniebean doesn't understand why they are asking her to rationalize her view, then she is most definitely speaking in terms of Philosophy¹.

If she wants to claim it as a Philosophy², then she has every responsibility to give her rationalization of it.

Otherwise she has no Philosophy². All she has is an unsupported Philosophy¹.

These is how this thread appears to me.

It seems to be a totally futile argument where Jeanniebean demands that the "Law of Attraction" qualifies as a Philosophy², but then when asked to rationalize it as a Philosophy² she leans back on the idea that it doesn't need to be rationalized it because it's a Philosophy¹.



Like I say, professional philosophers who are interested in Philosophy² would politely show her to the door and wish her the very best with her Philosophy¹, and then go back to discussing the real concerns of Philosophy².

Jeanniebean will then wrongly assume that because they don't recognize her Philosophy¹ as Philosophy² that they didn't 'get it'. But they did and they may very well live their own lives by the principles of the so-called "Law of Attraction" which is really just a cheesy name for the philosophy of Buddhism.

I might add here also that Buddhism is indeed a Philosophy¹ without a doubt. And most Buddhists openly recognize this. Although there will always be radicals holdouts as usual.

In any case, this whole thread is silly because it's not about the "Law of Attraction" at all. It's entirely about a confusion between Philosophy¹ and Philosophy². The first needs no rationalization, the second is all about rationalization.

No I mentioned that in response to reptilian aliens who are controlling a shadow government . . . not the blind belief that there exists a universal law that takes thought and creates reality: that just makes you credulous.