I actually appreciate this question - it’s the kind of pushback I think the topic needs.
I wouldn’t try to “convince” someone in a hard sense, because the moment it becomes something you have to believe in, it starts turning into the kind of thing I was trying to move away from in the article.
For me, the distinction is more practical than philosophical. Whether someone calls it a “law” or not, the part that can be examined is this: your repeated thoughts and emotional patterns influence your attention, your decisions, and how you interpret what’s happening around you. That’s something anyone can observe directly over time, with a bit of awarness and self analysis.
So instead of asking “is this universally true?”, I tend to look at “what happens when I consistently think and feel this way?” That’s where it becomes less abstract and more testable in your own experience.
I agree it should be examined critically. Otherwise it just becomes another idea people adopt without really understanding it. The article was more about offering a lens to look through, not something to accept at face value.
And I’m glad it made you question it - that usually means it landed somewhere real.
This was so interesting! Thank you!
I am pleased you found it useful :)
😊
This was good - clear, structured, easy to follow. redefining “law” in a grounded way rather than a mystical one. Not overcomplicating things.
Can I ask.. how would you try to convince sceptical readers that it functions more this way than simply just being a belief system?
By which I mean, the core theme throughout is heavily persuasive but could it be critically examined?
These questions may sound like criticism; but they are actually a compliment because the article itself challenged and provoked those thoughts
I actually appreciate this question - it’s the kind of pushback I think the topic needs.
I wouldn’t try to “convince” someone in a hard sense, because the moment it becomes something you have to believe in, it starts turning into the kind of thing I was trying to move away from in the article.
For me, the distinction is more practical than philosophical. Whether someone calls it a “law” or not, the part that can be examined is this: your repeated thoughts and emotional patterns influence your attention, your decisions, and how you interpret what’s happening around you. That’s something anyone can observe directly over time, with a bit of awarness and self analysis.
So instead of asking “is this universally true?”, I tend to look at “what happens when I consistently think and feel this way?” That’s where it becomes less abstract and more testable in your own experience.
I agree it should be examined critically. Otherwise it just becomes another idea people adopt without really understanding it. The article was more about offering a lens to look through, not something to accept at face value.
And I’m glad it made you question it - that usually means it landed somewhere real.
Thanks for the reply. It’s interesting and the main reason I asked is because of who I am and always have been.
When someone tells me something those words have to be verifiable in some factual basis. That’s the only way I can “close the loop”.
That doesn’t mean if they can’t be its wrong, it just means I’d see it as something I can’t reconcile.
Hence the question, but I have a very rigid - black and white brain.
No worries at all… If you have further questions, happy to share my views.
Beautifully written & a joy to read. 👏
Thank you Liz :)
WOW!!! This could be Life*-changing, for a lot of people!!! Thank you!!;
Thank you so much! I am happy you enjoyed and found it helpful :)
Of course!! I just wrote a positive letter to someone important thanks to your message!! No more playing the victim; thank you!!;
Amazing! You are setting a great example... thanks for sharing this
Spot on Alexandra!
What if we switch the words to "The Attraction created from the Laws"?
That’s an interesting idea! 💡 it gives a different perspective
Thank you 🙏