Skip to main content

Do you know the secret? The “Law of Attraction”… what the bleep?!

“Do you know the secret?” I was surprised when, at Hickory Tavern, I met a CEO of a engineering-programming company who, while talking up his black porche and high-paid profession,  brought it up. I thought only hippy and hippy-wanna-be’s like me were into this stuff.

“What’s the secret?” asked my friend, accepting their kind offer to pay for our food and drinks, and get another round.

“Five years ago I had NOTHING.” Mr Porche informed us. “And now I’m 34 with everything I’ve ever wanted: the job, the car, the house on the water…”

Ok yes he may have been trying to get into someone’s pants. Shame girls aren’t attracted to men who think money can buy all those qualities that, well, money can’t buy. Anyway… the episode did remind me about the potential power of “the secret”.

Back at home I went to my blog to find some easy way to explain it to my friend. I was surprised to find that I’ve never actually blogged about it.

I believe in the secret. Everything I’ve applied it to has worked. But come to think of it these last couple of years it kind-of dropped off my radar. I think, particularly given my recent mishaps in Europe, it’s time to put the secret into action once again.

You DON’T know the secret? Ok, we better start with the basics…

The secret is based on the “law of attraction” – the idea that “like attracts like”. If you think positive, you will get positive. If you think negative then you will get negative.

Simple? Yep. But don’t underestimate its power.

So, for example, if you think to yourself “I need more money” then you will always need more money. But if rather than focusing on the problem of needing more money, you think about the goal of “having more money”, then before you know it you will have more money.

The secret is that if you ask for something, then imagine yourself having that thing, then you will attract the opportunities for this to become your reality.

Where did “the secret” come from? It’s old old old school.

It goes back to pagan days and witch spells. Ties into prayer, chanting, rituals and meditation. Was popular in New Age circles then poplarised is 2006 in a Rhonda Byrne’s book “The Secret” followed by a TV series by that same title.

Ok it starts out a bit gay. Ok ok most of it is a bit gay. But I think it contains some worthwhile ideas. If you disagree maybe you’ll like The Chaser’s War on Everything parody of it:

http://youtu.be/usbNJMUZSwo

If, like me, you laugh so hard you cry, dry your eyes and go back to watching the longer version. It’s not a half-bad intro to thinking about the power of your thoughts and feelings, and how they connect to your experiences.

When I first watched “The Secret” I immediately put it to the test. My dreamboard in 2006 read things like “photography”, “yoga”, “pilates teacher”, “learn Spanish”, “go to South America” and “$100,000”.

The opportunity for everything on my list presented itself, much faster than I expected. I became a pilates teacher, a photography assistant and got very into yoga, all in the same year. Did I get $100k? No. But I did get a job offer with a $100k salary. I may turned it down, and realized later that none of these things was what I wanted, but that’s not the point.

My second dreamboard in 2008 read all the things my two friends and I wanted for my time in South America. Once again the opportunity for everything on that list presented itself.

How does one go about explaining this? Coincidence? Positive thinking? Maybe. But could it be something more?

The law of attraction is based on the idea that there is power in words, thoughts, and intentions. There is a power in knowing what you want, asking for it, and noticing then seizing the opportunities to get it when they arise. Expressing gratitude for what you have and developing a clear vision of what life would be like with the things you want – some of the methods they suggest – are useful things to do, whether or not some form of quantum mechanic / spiritual element is involved.

An interesting documentary that ties these ideas to quantum physics is What the Bleep do we know? Down the Rabbit Hole…

An interesting book going into different tests with these ideas is The Intention Experiment which for example describes chickens influencing robots to spend more time closer to their cage.

I’m obviously not going to claim to understand quantum physics. I borrowed a real academic book on it once and didn’t get past page 3. Hundreds of detailed massive complex mathematical equations, all which went straight over my head.

The Double-Slit Experiment is worth watching though, gives a glimpse into the kind of things that happen at quantum levels.

http://youtu.be/DfPeprQ7oGc

I understand our level of reality has a set of laws that is different to that of the quantum world. We feel solid matter. We sit on chairs without falling through them. Unlike Ewen McGregor at the end of The Men Who Stare at Goats, as far as I know no human can walk through walls.

Still what is to say that every alternative reality doesn’t exist in parallel and you, as the observer, are choosing the reality you get to experience?

When I connect the Law of Attraction with the philosophy of thinkers like Alan Watts and Fritof Capra, ideas I have probably picked up from people like Deepak Chopra and Eckhart Tolle, and from books like The Celestine Prophecy and The Alchemist, and my own experiences, and reminders from people like Mr Porche-CEO-dude-living-in-Hickory, I must conclude that there is something in the Law of Attraction that’s at least worth exploring, and its about time I start to make use of these not-so-secret secrets again.

 

 

A curious boy and a curious old man: the voice behind The Pedagogy of the Oppressed

“The oppressors, who oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both.” (Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1970: 21)

Paolo Freire wrote about a sort of revolution in personal and collective freedom.

A Brazilian in the 1970s, Freire’s focus is more on economic/political oppression, and the education (and lack of education) maintains it. He looks at revolutions but says they must be conducted carefully. The must involve reflective participation of all involved.

Freire describes the process of conscientization – a process of unveiling different levels of reality, of becoming aware of the stories and assumptions behind the stories, which combine to create our lives.

It is a process that has no ending. It is a process driven by one thing: curiosity.

If you don’t know him already, I’m pleased to introduce the inspiring old man, Paolo Friere:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFWjnkFypFA[/youtube]

Like Paulo Freire, I think it’s good to be a curious child, and a curious adult. In this process we may discover more about ourselves, our world, and the worlds of people around us.

“Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift.”

The end of the questioning is the sign of a new form of oppression.

So be curious. Question!!!

 

Reference:

Freire, Paulo. 1970, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, (Penguin Education: Baltimore)

 

 

Synchronicity

Have you ever picked up the phone to call a friend, only to find your friend calling you? Do you notice the moments of “synchronicity” when everything you do happens with ease, green lights all the way, the right song on the radio at just the right time?

What does it mean to be “in sync”? To be “in tune” with each other, or with our selves or even the universe? How do we do it? And why? Or is it just in our minds?

On this TED Talks Steven Strogatz looks into how synchronicity works, not only between living things, but with non-living things too…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSNrKS-sCE0[/youtube]

 

Have you ever thought about the synchronicity of birds flocking or fish swarming together?

Three rules:

1. individuals are only aware of their nearest neighbours

2. tendency to line up

3. all are attracted to each other, but try to keep a small distance apart

With these rules you see in a computer model how it works…

4. when a predator is coming, get out of the way!

Out of the desire to save themselves, they do what is best for each other.

 

Photo:

So peaceful huh? A moment of synchronicity when I was walking in Pokhara, Nepal, around this time last year.

 

 

Open the Door (a poem about why I care about our future)

I am one, I am many,

I am part of something more

I dream, I wake, I laugh, I cry

I see a door, and I imagine…

A shift,

A new direction

From hierarchies, pyramids

To systems, patterns, webs

From unchanging objects

To dynamic relationships

From “ego” to “eco”

Farewell fear, embracing change

Why do you care?

Confused eyes gaze

What can you do?

Dismissal, a maze

Life is short,

At least it seems

I’ve never found happiness

In materials and such things

When I wake

I want to feel alive

Have meaning, have a purpose

A reason not yet to die

Giving gives more to the giver

I believe this to be true

As time is a gift so

My care for our world too

When I look and listen

When I feel, I understand

My fellow beings suffer

At the perils of their own hand

Suicide and depression,

Obsession with the unreal

Status, money, vanity

Unconscious ignorant un-bliss

Layers of stories

True yet not whole

A leg of the elephant

Much more to learn

Blind, I am, to those things

I do not wish to see

The systems, the networks

That connect you to me

The truth may hurt

But the pain will go away

That’s the cycle

Creation, destruction, creation

The separations, the unity

Each is true

Each has its purpose

As I, and as you

Without the land,

The oceans and the trees

Species will perish

Humans to bees

This is why I care

Why I look for change

I want to live on

In many different ways

What’s through the door?

How to we open it?

I think it’s through LOVE

A love of life: self, other, all.

Poem written 30 April 2011.

Photo from a Japanese TV show sometime in 2005.

Putting PEOPLE back into Democracy, and Corporations back in their place

Following my rants on the problems with our current corporatist version of capitalism, Annie Lennox does a much better job at summing up what’s wrong with our current “democracy”, and how it came to be that way:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY[/youtube]

The programming code in these entities we call “corporations” needs to change. Corporations are not people, and they shouldn’t have any of the freedoms or rights that people have.

We need rules and definitions that work for us, for ALL of us, not just the 1000 greedy bastards at the pyramid’s top.

Corporations should be defined as entities that work for humanity, not the other way around.

The big question is how??? Even if all of us wanted to change the rules of the game, if we all agreed it was time to reprogram these out-of-control machines, what could we do about it?

Has the game overpowered the players? Is that even possible?

People created the rules. People obey the rules. And people can change the rules.

There ain’t no game without the players, and there ain’t no global capitalism without humans.

We need a system that works for the people, and is governed by the people. Isn’t that what democracy is supposed to be about?

See more enlightening clips like this at: http://storyofstuff.org

“Te” – spontaneous creative marvellous accidents

Have you ever noticed that when you over-think something, it all falls apart? Te explains why. Te is ‘the unthinkable ingenuity and creative power of man’s spontaneous and natural functioning.’ Intrigued I continued reading The Way of Zen by Alan Watts.

The centipede was happy, quite,

Until a toad in fun

Said, “Pray, which leg goes after which?”

This worked his mind to such a pitch,

He lay distracted in a ditch,

Considering how to run.

Have you ever thought about how you pump blood through your heart? Have you ever forgotten to breathe? Like the centipede there are a lot of things we do without thinking. The idea of te is that we can ‘become the kind of person who, without intending it, is a source of marvelous accidents’.

You know, like when take a wrong turn but because of your wrong turn you meet a friend you haven’t seen in years, who offers you a new job and changes your life. Why did you take that turn? What a marvelous accident that might be!

How do we learn to make more of such wrong turns?

Taoism describes a path, but not using words. It’s through a different sense, a sixth sense if you like. Like representing a three dimensional object in two dimensions – what we can talk about in words can never be more than a representation.

Lao-tzu says:

Superior te is not te,

and thus has te.

Inferior te does not let go of te,

and thus is not te.

Superior te is non-active [wu-wei] and aimless.

Inferior te is active and has an aim.

Te is a ‘spontaneous virtue which cannot be cultivated or imitated by any deliberate method.’ Virtue in this sense is not a moral virtue, but the good that comes from something like, for example, the ‘healing virtues of a plant’.

We have to learn to ‘let our minds alone’. We have to let our minds function integrated with our surroundings, without trying. It can’t depend on rules or laws – this becomes ‘conventional’ rather than ‘genuine’.

So stop thinking, listen with your body, and simply be.

References:

Alan Watts, The Way of Zen, (London: Arkana, 1990). p 45 and 47.

 

Chomsky vs Foucault: On Peace & Justice

Chomsky and Foucault are two foundational modern and postmodern figures in the critique of “structures” of our society – from language to government to institutions – and analyzing whose has the “agency” to maintain or change these structures.

This is a debate between the two thinkers, who have very different ideas about structure and agency, and about the ideas of peace, justice, and oppression.

Part 1

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WveI_vgmPz8[/youtube]

Part 2

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0SaqrxgJvw[/youtube]

Chomsky has what is thought of as a “Modernist” or “Structuralist” perspective, holding that there is some common human objective and absolute definition of justice, goodness, and kindness.

Foucault on the other hand is thought of as more “Postmodernist” or “Poststructuralist”, believing that these definitions are always and entirely relative.

Knowledge from a postmodernist point of view is completely (might we cheekily say, “absolutely”) inseparable from the oppressive structures so that our definitions of peace and justice are in fact part of the oppressive structure and play a role in maintaining them.

Who is right, who is wrong?

Is, as Foucault argues, the “very notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as a justification for it”?

Or is there, as Chomsky defends, some kind of inner absolute notion that we may not be able to properly define, and yet that we all somehow share?

It’s a debate that has been going for millennium. Most of us have a modern or postmodern worldview – or some kind of mix of the two.

It’s a question of one Truth or many truths.

Some of us are likely to be on one end of the continuum upholding the idea of an objective truth (and hence some kind of objective definitions of peace and justice), while others might hold that all truth is relative (and hence our definitions of peace and justice are also relative).

I personally think the middle ground isn’t navigated enough, although I feel Chomsky in this clip is trying to get to it.

On one hand, like Foucault has emphasised, our entire way of thinking is based on our education and societal experiences. All our ideas, including that of peace and justice, are completely inseparable from these structures. Science, Philosophy, Religion and Culture – all our ideas and stories can be traced back to the beginnings of our recorded history, back to the “Ancient” cultures of Sumer, Egypt, Babylon and Greece. Everything that we know or think has a long  “ancient” history of their own.

Our experience of reality is entirely socially constructed, and entirely relative.

And as Foucault points out, most of this construction has been designed by power-hungry beings, greedy, hierarchical, and tailoring “knowledge” and definitions of “justice” or what is “normal” and “good” for their own benefit.

But does that mean we should throw our hands in the air and forget about peace and justice? On this point I agree with Chomsky.

I think after we acknowledge our definitions are relative and based on partial knowledge, we can’t escape our own embodiment to this structure and hence we need to work within it toward some kind of vision of future.

There seems to be some common and objective Reality that we all share, and experienced via our own unique reality. We will never share the same experience of that Reality, so we can only ever know a relative version of it.

The more capacity we have to critically reflect on our views, and their historical and cultural context, the more likely we can learn from the past and create a better future.

So, in conclusion, I think Chomsky and Foucault make points that work together like yin and yang: we need to hold some definition of peace and justice as tentative, acknowledging its relative limitations. We need to strive toward our ideals while never stopping to question, discuss and revise their meanings.

A small group of people can change the world

“A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that has.” Margaret Mead.

This quote came from the RSA clip below: The Enlightenment in the 21st Century.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo[/youtube]

The two questions I took from this are:

Where are we NOW, how’d we GET HERE, and where do we wanna GO next?

and

Who ARE we, who do we NEED to be, and who might we ASPIRE to be?

As the current ruling species on this planet that, in my opinion, are not such a bad bunch most of the time, or at least some of the time we’re not so bad… I think these are important questions to ask.

The Pleasure of the Text: Sites of Bliss

“If I read this sentence, this story, or this word with pleasure, it is because they were written in pleasure.” If anyone has written with pleasure, creating sentences that are near-orgasmic for the reader, it is Roland Barthes. The first time I picked up one of his books, called The Pleasure of the Text, I was encapsulated in it, aroused by a dead guy talking about words:

“In perversion (which is the realm of textual pleasure) there are no “erogenous zones” (a foolish expression, besides); it is intermittence, as psycholanalysis has so rightly stated, which is erotic: the intermittence of skin flashing between two articles of clothing (trousers and sweater,), between two edges (the open-necked shirt, the glove and the sleeve); it is this flash itself which seduces, or rather: the staging of an appearance as disappearance.”

He captures the little truths we rarely admit aloud:

“We do not read everything with the same intensity of reading; a rhythm is established, casual, unconcerned with the integrity of the text; our very avidity for knowledge impels us to skim or to skip certain passages (anticipated as “boring”) in order to get more quickly to the warmer parts of the anecdote… we boldly skip (no one is watching) descriptions, explanations, analyses, conversations … the author can not predict tmesis: he cannot choose to write what will not be read. And yet, it is the rhythm of what is read and what is not read that creates the pleasure of great narratives: has anyone ever read Proust, Balzac, War and Peace, word for word? (Proust’s good fortune: from one reading to the next we never skip the same passages).”

I think maybe that’s why I bold the most important stuff in my blog. Put your hand anyone who reads every word?

Yesterday I stumbled across another couple of Barthes’ books. This one from 1977, A Lover’s Discourse, unmasks the words lovers say, and the feelings that live behind them.

He describes the ‘socially irresponsible’ words “I-love-you” that ‘does not transmit a meaning, but fastens onto a limit situation’ and which most of the time one says in hope of hearing the words returned.

He talks about the suspense incurred during the ‘absence of the loved object’ which ‘tends to transform to an ordeal of abandonment’ and ‘the sigh for bodily presence’.

He talks about jealousy, saying it is ‘ugly, is bourgeois: it is an unworthy fuss, a zeal’.

He talks about contact, ‘when my finger accidentally…’ how one in love ‘creates meaning, always and everywhere, out of nothing, and it is meaning which thrills him: he is in the crucible of meaning. Every contact, for the lover, raises the question of an answer: the skin is asked to reply.’

He talks about being ‘in love with love‘.

He talks about the desire to be engulfed, be it in ‘woe or well-being’ – a craving for the intensity of the ‘outburst of annihilation which affects the amorous subject in despair or fulfillment.’

Agree with his opinions or  not, they are written in a way one can’t help be wooed into reading just a little more.

And so, as I edit the book I wrote long ago, I will try to follow Barthes’ advice and ‘seek out this reader (must cruise him) without knowing where he is…’ and from there try to create with words ‘a site of bliss.’