What is the Law of Attraction?

[reasonvemotion]

"The Law of Attraction is a deceptively simple philosophy by which we can live life on our own terms and attract things, experiences and people to us. In the simplest possible terms, the Law of Attraction says that "like attracts like." This is evident in the world around us -- think about old sayings like, "birds of a feather flock together," or "tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are."

But the Law of Attraction takes the concept of "like attracts like" to a deeper level: the level of thought. This means that not only do we attract circumstances, material objects and people to us according to our actions, but also according to the thoughts we consistently hold in mind.

On a deeper level, is the Law of Attraction based on the concept that everything in the universe is simply energy?"

[tbieter]

"The Law of Attraction is a deceptively simple philosophy by which we can live life on our own terms and attract things, experiences and people to us. In the simplest possible terms, the Law of Attraction says that "like attracts like." This is evident in the world around us -- think about old sayings like, "birds of a feather flock together," or "tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are."

But the Law of Attraction takes the concept of "like attracts like" to a deeper level: the level of thought. This means that not only do we attract circumstances, material objects and people to us according to our actions, but also according to the thoughts we consistently hold in mind.

On a deeper level, is the Law of Attraction based on the concept that everything in the universe is simply energy?"

RE: "In the simplest possible terms, the Law of Attraction says that "like attracts like." This is evident in the world around us -- think about old sayings like, "birds of a feather flock together," or "tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are."


The Scholastics considered the law to be a metaphysical principle and described it as "Like things rejoice in their own kind."

[Thundril]

It would be a very odd universe if all the electrons ended up in one clump, and all the protons in another.

[reasonvemotion]

RE: "In the simplest possible terms, the Law of Attraction says that "like attracts like." This is evident in the world around us -- think about old sayings like, "birds of a feather flock together," or "tell me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are."

So the Law of Attraction is based on the concept that "everything in the universe is simply energy".

Would it be reasonable to say that by thought I could create a life that I desire and to liken the law to be translated to "We become what we think about." This seems difficult and rather simplistic to accept. If I concentrated on "positive" changes in my life, does that mean they will come to me, simply by the Law of Attraction. Does it mean that our attention and our thoughts have power? Anything I give my attention to will grow stronger and become a bigger part of my life? I could reverse that and concentrate on negative things, so by thought alone my life would become poorer in quality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ignoring the physical, with reference to the mental, the Law of Attraction as based on induction and beliefs, is a general law that facilitates survival and thus is adaptive.

From the beginning of life, entities steer off things that are likely to endanger life and move toward things that facilitate survival. This principle of habituated attraction had been embedded into the brain and minds of all living things. In the higher forms of living this is established as the pain (detract) or pleasure (attract) factors.

The effectiveness of the Law of Attraction is based on instinct and the Law of Average which supposedly will promote the preservation of the specie.

However, the problem with human beings is the elements of pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and limited free-will which need to be balanced with the inherent and instinctual impulse of attraction and survival.

The danger arises when the law of attraction and the other elements are deviated from the basic principle of effective survival.
For example, the drug addict is influenced by the compounding law of attraction toward pleasure for survival of the moment but not for the effective survival period of a typical human being.

The law of attraction is basically a primal survival strategy which must be used effectively at all times.

[ForgedinHell]

There is no "law of attraction". Quote from any physics textbook where it states this law exists?

[windy36]

There can be no such thing as the law of attraction because every action that happens is random. For example I could think and do one thing, and something else in the environment happens opposite of what I am thinking. So what happens in the environment does not always correlate with my thoughts.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.












.......................................................................










The law of attraction is the name given to the belief that "like attracts like" and that by focusing on positive or negative thoughts, one can bring about positive or negative results. For example, if a person opened an envelope expecting to see a bill, then according to the law of attraction, the envelope would "confirm" those thoughts and contain a bill when opened. A person who decided to instead expect a cheque might, under the same law, find a cheque instead of a bill.


Although there are some cases where positive or negative attitudes can produce corresponding results (principally the placebo and nocebo effects), there is no scientific basis to the law of attraction

~~~ From Wikipedia; The Fountain of All Knowledge ~~~











........................................................................









.

[Bernard]

It would be a very odd universe if all the electrons ended up in one clump, and all the protons in another.

Sir, the lady is discussing like things, not same things. This is an important distinction.

[Bernard]

There can be no such thing as the law of attraction because every action that happens is random. For example I could think and do one thing, and something else in the environment happens opposite of what I am thinking. So what happens in the environment does not always correlate with my thoughts.

Your example doesn't demonstrate why every action is random. We would not have a word such as random if every act was random. If every act was random there would be no acts at all. It's the same if there were only quantum waves of light to produce light and no particles
to produce it. Light would simply not (percievably) exist under those conditions. 'Randomness' is a fundamental (and important) perceptual interpretation we have of the nature of acts, not what they can acquire in terms of meaning and knowledge to us as phenomena and phenomenon. We even create acts.

[pharaoh]

It would be a very odd universe if all the electrons ended up in one clump, and all the protons in another.

Sir, the lady is discussing like things, not same things. This is an important distinction.

Would you mind shedding some light on that 'important distinction' between 'like' and 'same'?
To me, the likeness of two electrons is not essentially different from the likeness of two pigeons. In fact, if it is intended to mean ‘exact similarity between properties’, the most scrutinizing understanding of 'the same' would turn out to be void; nothing in the world is the same as anything else. Even two electrons differ in the amount of energy they possess; or however quantumly oriented one's thoughts may be, two electrons occupy different locations in space, at any given moment. Furthermore, even one electron is not the same as itself in two different moments.

[Bernard]

If things are the same it generally follows that they are alike, but if things are alike it doesn't generally follow that they are the same.

There is a group of three particles: two electrons and one proton. We look at the and can say they are similar but not the same. They would be said to be the same if they were all electrons or all protons.

But I don't know why I bother arguing. Derrida murdered argument. Everything gets deconstructed instantly and philosophy is zombie land as a result.

[duszek]

If I have two apples they are not the same. They are two different apples.

But the apple sort can be the same, for example Cox Orange or Boskop.

Sometimes two different apple sorts can be alike but not the same.
Cox Orange and Rubinetta are alike (similar in taste and shape) but they are not the same.

Would you agree ?

[pharaoh]

If things are the same it generally follows that they are alike, but if things are alike it doesn't generally follow that they are the same.

If you don't provide a definition for 'same' and 'like', you could not reasonably consider their relation to each other.

There is a group of three particles: two electrons and one proton. We look at the and can say they are similar but not the same. They would be said to be the same if they were all electrons or all protons.

please pay attention to what I said about the sameness of even one electron, at two different moments; let alone two or more electrons.

But I don't know why I bother arguing.

It is good to know, why you bother arguing about the "important distinction" between 'same' and 'like', when you are going to address the allegedly missed point by Thundrill, but you don't bother arguing about your own argument?

Derrida murdered argument. Everything gets deconstructed instantly and philosophy is zombie land as a result.

By what means did Derrida commit that crime? Was it anything but ARGUMENTS? Do you realize stating that

"But I don't know why I bother arguing. Derrida murdered argument. Everything gets deconstructed instantly and philosophy is zombie land as a result."

is a kind of ARGUMENT? You can never refute arguments through arguments.

[Bernard]

Like see what I mean about Derrida? Like disregard for context and syntax as a way of avoidance has been de rigueur ever since deconstruction.Like try telling us that there is a like sex marriage debate going on and not a same sex marriage debate.

The words have different etymology, but same refers mostly along the lines of identical quality of objects as when making a selection or collecting. Like however has less objective and more subjective weight to it. It infers selecting because of desirable qualities rather than because of identical natures.

The law of attraction RVE brought to our attention is obviously less to do with objective comparisons and more to do with subjective choices in which 'like' as used in the context that like attracts like is more likely to bear the meaning that living beings more naturally adhere to the company and things they enjoy more readily than to what they do not enjoy. It also does not use the word law in the syntax in which it is more currently found with this sort of phraseology: physics.

All you... well, not necessarily you... are doing here is taking exception to the fact that someone has apparently bent the syntax a little.
Like Ooh... nasty nasty law of attraction people!




like (adj.)
"having the same characteristics or qualities" (as another), Middle English shortening of Old English gelic "like, similar," from Proto-Germanic *galika- "having the same form," literally "with a corresponding body" (cf. Old Saxon gilik, Dutch gelijk, German gleich, Gothic galeiks "equally, like"), a compound of *ga- "with, together" + Germanic base *lik- "body, form; like, same" (cf. Old English lic "body," German Leiche "corpse," Danish lig, Swedish lik, Dutch lijk "body, corpse"). Analogous, etymologically, to Latin conform. The modern form (rather than *lich) may be from a northern descendant of the Old English word's Norse cognate, glikr.

Formerly with comparative liker and superlative likest (still in use 17c.). The preposition (c.1200) and the adverb (c.1300) both are from the adjective. As a conjunction, first attested early 16c. The word has been used as a postponed filler ("going really fast, like") from 1778; as a presumed emphatic ("going, like, really fast") from 1950, originally in counterculture slang and bop talk. Phrase more like it "closer to what is desired" is from 1888.
like (n.)
c.1200, "a similar thing" (to another), from like (adj.).
like (v.)
Old English lician "to please, be sufficient," from Proto-Germanic *likjan (cf. Old Norse lika, Old Frisian likia, Old High German lihhen, Gothic leikan "to please"), from *lik- "body, form; like, same."

The basic meaning seems to be "to be like" (see like (adj.)), thus, "to be suitable." Like (and dislike) originally flowed the other way: It likes me, where we would say I like it. The modern flow began to appear late 14c. (cf. please).

same
perhaps abstracted from Old English swa same "the same as," but more likely from Old Norse same, samr "same," both from Proto-Germanic *samon (cf. Old Saxon, Old High German, Gothic sama, Old High German samant, German samt "together, with," Gothic samana "together," Dutch zamelen "to collect," German zusammen "together"), from PIE *samos "same," from root *sem- "one, together" (cf. Sanskrit samah "even, level, similar, identical;" Avestan hama "similar, the same;" Greek hama "together with, at the same time," homos "one and the same," homios "like, resembling," homalos "even;" Latin similis "like;" Old Irish samail "likeness;" Old Church Slavonic samu "himself").

Old English had lost the pure form of the word; the modern word replaced synonymous ilk. Colloquial phrase same here as an exclamation of agreement is from 1895. Same difference curious way to say "equal," is attested from 1945.
sameness (n.)
1660s, from same + -ness.
gossamer (n.)
c.1300, "spider threads spun in fields of stubble in late fall," apparently from gos "goose" + sumer "summer" (cf. Swedish sommertrad "summer thread"). The reference might be to a fancied resemblance of the silk to goose down, or because geese are in season then. The German equivalent mädchensommer (literally "girls' summer") also has a sense of "Indian summer," and the English word originally may have referred to a warm spell in autumn before being transferred to a phenomenon especially noticable then. Cf. obsolete Scottish go-summer "period of summer-like weather in late autumn." Meaning "anything light or flimsy" is from c.1400. The adjective sense "filmy" is attested from 1802.
selfsame
"identical," early 15c., from self + same. Written as two words until c.1600.
sesame
mid-15c., probably from Middle French sisame, from Latin sesamum (nominative sesama), from Greek sesamon (Doric sasamon) "seed or fruit of the sesame plant," via Phoenician from Late Babylonian *shawash-shammu (cf. Assyrian shamash-shammu "sesame," literally "oil-seed"). First as a magic password in 1785 translation of Galland's "Mille et une nuits," where it opens the door of the thieves' den in "Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves." Phrase open sesame current since about 1826.