Of course, Law of Attraction makes absolutely no sense at all when looked at from Linear Logic. Do the critics really think that
all who see this Law think that people with cancer, for instance, my mother, would consciously create their own death from a horrible disease, creating suffering for
themselves in that way? Or that anything can just be surfacely "positively thought-ed" away? Or that people who experience a natural disaster are "to blame" because they "created" a hurricane? Or that a woman in the Congo asks to be raped while her children watched? Please. Give me a break. It makes no sense at all.
It's unconscionable (not to mention rude, insensitive, and silly) to look at a child with leukemia and ask why they created this for themselves. If anyone uses this principle in this way they don't get it. If anyone uses this as an argument to refute it, they don't get it. They don't have to. What's important to me is that I do.
Linear Logic and Mystic Logic Linear Logic (LL) cannot find answers here. I understand. And I also understand some of the critics' frustration and protective blasting because of the message that some use to get this principle across. When the idea is distorted, it can potentially and mistakenly take suffering people places that bring more pain if they operate from their linear minds. One of the tools of linear mind is blame and its opposite, forgiveness. If you start to attach blame to Law of Attraction, you get nowhere. It has no meaning and gets lost in a carnival atmosphere.
When I was in college I took numerous Philosophy classes. I took them because I saw a religion there. Like a religion, it's trying to explain existence and how to operate in it. Like a religion, it has its laws, its rules of operation, its requirements to be able to discuss itself. I heard Philosophy trying to explain God and Religion, as if they are the same thing and like Philosophy was somehow outside that.
But Philosophy cannot explain The All in any way that makes sense to me. Philosophy goes all over the place trying to explain something outside its ability to grasp, using words that cannot apply, almost flailing it it's attempts. Reminds me of a dog chasing its tail.
LL holds duality, right/wrong/, up/down, separation, as Reality. LL will only consider thought that provides tangible outside proof of LL's self defined universal principles and rules. I am not demonizing LL here. It's a vital tool and has its purpose. It's the logic that builds roads, creates industry, takes thoughts and things in a line from point A to point B. LL lives in the physical world, sees the progression of time, sees differentiation.
But without its rules, it cannot function. When it's confronted with realities outside its existence it has to try to find a way to explain what it sees. But it only has its self defined, albeit limited, tools to operate from. What happens when something outside its ability to define/explain/understand presents itself? It grasps. Because the Linear cannot see it, will not accept that this something refuses to follow the very rules which supports its survival, it freaks out. It creates systems, rules, catagories that are more comfortable to that logic. It wants comfort in the form of "making sense."
It's a different story when another form of logic is used. Linear Logic (LL) does not acknowledge a type of logic I have named Mystic Logic (ML) as valid. ML is OK with that. It encompasses and includes LL, but is more. Because of its fluid nature, it allows for and accepts LL and all that LL wants to create for itself, but does not follow it or feel bound by it, its rules or its requirements. The reverse does not hold, as LL cannot go where ML goes. It doesn't have or allow itself the tools to go there. If it did, it's rules, the glue that sustains it, would not apply so it would die.
Mystic logic see wholeness. It recognizes that duality, right/wrong, up/down, exists for those who it serves, but that in the end, everthing is One, everything is Sacred. Whereas LL has to have tons of rules to sustain itself, ML only has one: that we create our worlds completely. The rest is all expression.
Death, happiness, cancer, catastrophe, joy, ecstasy, love, murder, pain, mass murder...it's all the same. There is no heirarchy of experience, no reward/punishment factor that is meted out by god, the Akashic records, karma, fate, whatever. No experience is "bad." No experience is
"good." We give things those meanings. Although tragic and horrible for her to have to go through all she did and beyond devastating to me as a human, my mother dying of cancer was not an awful thing to ML. She was born, she created, she did a life cycle, she died.
Likewise for me to win the lottery or have amazing orgasms is not a wonderful thing. They are all just "things" in the Dance of Life, having no meaning other than creation upon creation.
And why? What is the purpose of all this? Because. No bigger meaning. Creation begets creation. We return to creation.
This idea cannot make sense to LL, which has to have "importance" in its hierarchical mode. No point in even trying to explain it. This lack of a recognizable purpose to life sounds depressing, nihilistic to LL when nothing could be further from the truth. The thing about Mystic Logic is that once it's understood and accepted, much of what cannot make sense to LL suddenly becomes clear. Former mysteries are no longer mysterious. My body/mind/spirit can go places other than a line.
I think that there is a possibility that ML cannot be fully understood until it is experienced or felt. I say this because I didn't understand it fully until I went there (the only way I can express it) and embodied it. It's difficult to translate into words as words cannot get all the layers of it. I carry pieces of it back with me and can access it, but I definitely don't live there all the time (I often live in forgetting and get lost in fear). I don't say these things to stop conversation, I say them because I see no other way. Even though I try, it cannot be heard in the way it is conveyed because I cannot fully convey it.
I see/feel this relationship and energy of the two forms of logic. We all have both to varying degrees. I would like to see acknowledgement of the strengths and weaknesses of both forms of logic in disussions on the topic of Law Of Attraction. This post has spent most of its time pointing out what I consider the weaknesses of LL. This was done primarily to compare and contrast the two as an offering for different considerations to those who question or discount ML. Again, I hold LL as vital to our time here on Earth. It helps us learn, gives us structure. I believe it may be true that one can find God through the linear mind. I also admit I don't understand how that can be. I am not wired that way so it's as foreign to me as the linear mind's ideas about me.
.jpg)
Me