You probably have heard of the law of attraction-- that idea that our mental state or "energy" influences the sorts of things that happen to us. It is commonly mentioned in a number of self-help trends that suggest a way to improve ones life is through focus on the correct things so that they are attracted to you.
I've personally been skeptical of this, mostly because of the way it's presented. Many of the ideas out there in the self help industry concerning the law of attraction seem to suggest that by merely fantasizing and wishing for things repeatedly will yield real world results. However I'll admit there is probably a shred of truth to this. Mainly one's attitude or frame of reference can influence things around them.
Although I feel this is pretty basic, hence I say 102, implying this idea is like a 101. What I'm really keen on though is extending this idea. Mainly:
- If it is possible to attract positive results with a positive attitude, is it possible to attract negative things with a negative attitude? A law of "detraction"
- If one can receive something positive from another by merely a positive disposition, all other things ignored, doesn't this imply that we are not only influenced by our internal attitudes but the attitudes of others?
- If the above two things are true then isn't it possible for one to influence another in a negative direction through detracting or attracting certain things to them?
Basically the principle states things like if I have a good attitude I will attract positive things-- a significant other, a dream job, or fine jewelry. But what it doesn't mention (negative space) is that by the same principles one could attract negative things to another by instilling a negative attitude in them; loosing a significant other, a job, or having fine jewelry stolen. After all the original principle suggests things like rewards for positive outlooks, but who is going to give you that reward? This suggests influence. These may be negative or positive and may even be appraised incoherently from multiple perspectives. After all something obtained by one person implies exclusion from another.
I don't intend to bring this up to be "negative" though, in fact I find personally that the rebuttal of such a simplistic outlook only opens the door to a deeper pursuit of something and that with that journey a stronger and less flimsy outlook is obtained.
Finally I'd mention that the law of attraction as it is presented in many portrayals seems incredibly selfish. It seems to focus on how an individual can improve there own station in life through positive outlook. It doesn't mention at all about how one can improve another person's station through positive energy they expend on their own behalf. Or how it is possible for people to be bombarded by negative influences in circumstances that are unusual.
If every interaction was a transaction like a traffic network it's plausible that a few people would just be "unlucky" and bombarded by overpowering circumstances. It seems like there is no real silver lining to the idea when it's all self focused. Further it doesn't explain how contributing positively to those individuals struggling may help revert others with out of control "negative spinning" recover and create positive things that relate back transactionally to a chain of events directly influenced by an individual. Or "karma".
I think it's a reasonable idea, mainly because of synchronicity and the like as mentioned by Jung. However I find the presentation to be a bit ironically short sighted on the scope of its vision. It's not that the "idea" is wrong, but it's presentation seems very simplistic and unctuous. It's a bit patronizing. I think this is similar to a lot of religion, the way that in practice or presentation it comes off poorly. Many enlightenment age people rebelled against the church for this reason, I sort of transpose this onto elements of the self-help industry in the present era.
Thoughts?
I've personally been skeptical of this, mostly because of the way it's presented. Many of the ideas out there in the self help industry concerning the law of attraction seem to suggest that by merely fantasizing and wishing for things repeatedly will yield real world results. However I'll admit there is probably a shred of truth to this. Mainly one's attitude or frame of reference can influence things around them.
Although I feel this is pretty basic, hence I say 102, implying this idea is like a 101. What I'm really keen on though is extending this idea. Mainly:
- If it is possible to attract positive results with a positive attitude, is it possible to attract negative things with a negative attitude? A law of "detraction"
- If one can receive something positive from another by merely a positive disposition, all other things ignored, doesn't this imply that we are not only influenced by our internal attitudes but the attitudes of others?
- If the above two things are true then isn't it possible for one to influence another in a negative direction through detracting or attracting certain things to them?
Basically the principle states things like if I have a good attitude I will attract positive things-- a significant other, a dream job, or fine jewelry. But what it doesn't mention (negative space) is that by the same principles one could attract negative things to another by instilling a negative attitude in them; loosing a significant other, a job, or having fine jewelry stolen. After all the original principle suggests things like rewards for positive outlooks, but who is going to give you that reward? This suggests influence. These may be negative or positive and may even be appraised incoherently from multiple perspectives. After all something obtained by one person implies exclusion from another.
I don't intend to bring this up to be "negative" though, in fact I find personally that the rebuttal of such a simplistic outlook only opens the door to a deeper pursuit of something and that with that journey a stronger and less flimsy outlook is obtained.
Finally I'd mention that the law of attraction as it is presented in many portrayals seems incredibly selfish. It seems to focus on how an individual can improve there own station in life through positive outlook. It doesn't mention at all about how one can improve another person's station through positive energy they expend on their own behalf. Or how it is possible for people to be bombarded by negative influences in circumstances that are unusual.
If every interaction was a transaction like a traffic network it's plausible that a few people would just be "unlucky" and bombarded by overpowering circumstances. It seems like there is no real silver lining to the idea when it's all self focused. Further it doesn't explain how contributing positively to those individuals struggling may help revert others with out of control "negative spinning" recover and create positive things that relate back transactionally to a chain of events directly influenced by an individual. Or "karma".
I think it's a reasonable idea, mainly because of synchronicity and the like as mentioned by Jung. However I find the presentation to be a bit ironically short sighted on the scope of its vision. It's not that the "idea" is wrong, but it's presentation seems very simplistic and unctuous. It's a bit patronizing. I think this is similar to a lot of religion, the way that in practice or presentation it comes off poorly. Many enlightenment age people rebelled against the church for this reason, I sort of transpose this onto elements of the self-help industry in the present era.
Thoughts?