|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 25, 2021 11:03:22 GMT -5
I'm reminded of "God helps those who help themselves". Perhaps one way to think of profit-seeking is simply a way that people attract. But this is beyond what my initial interest was here, which was to draw a distinction between the destructive effects of commercial/socio-economic systems, and the potentially positive effects of genuinely free-market action. It's all quite abstract, and, of course, any genuinely free markets never stay that way for long. Conversely, as every communist experiment seems to have demonstrated, there's no way of completely suppressing the emergence of markets, especially by brute force. Yes, for sure, I think engaging in business is currently one way that the LOA operates currently. If our intuition is to set up a business, then we should follow that. We have to work with the systems we are given, the systems in front of us. It doesn't really serve us to be at war with these systems, so for me there's a delicate balance to be found in all this. I guess my approach is to engage with the systems in a fun and responsible way, while retaining a degree of awareness that the systems aren't generally aligned to higher universal principles. There was a huge protest in London today, I saw a report that there were up to 500000 people there (doubt this will be shown on MSM). I didn't go, but I support this protest fully, so I support this 'war'. I also donate to some of the groups that are protesting. Contributing to a 'protest' is not aligned to LOA principles, but...I'm just fumbling through all this too, I'm no LOA master! I'm just working with the system in front of me, the best I can. Of course it can be in alignment with LOA and following the path of least resistance - YOUR path of least resistance, that is. It may not be someone else's path of least resistance though. It all depends on where your starting point was. If you were at the bottom of the emotional scale, at hopelessness and despair, then going to a protest would probably breathe new life into your being and give you a new purpose. And that would feel really good, even though in absolute terms, it would rank rather low. Also, path of least resistance is what feels best, it's not always the easiest path, i.e. what your autopilot suggests. That's not the path of least resistance. A lot of people think they go with the path of least resistance, but what they actually do is just going by habit or by what the strongest vibration in their environment demands. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 25, 2021 11:12:41 GMT -5
We are talking about the idea of capitalism, right? And the original idea of capitalism is pretty close to just letting LOA sorting it all out. Now, what people then do with that idea is a different story, especially people who believe in lack or have all kinds of other psychological issues. Then it all gets distorted and you get an unbalanced and unhealthy system that collapses regularly and needs to be rebooted regularly. Also, I think that different political and economic systems naturally appeal to different kinds of people, depending on their individual personalities, mental predispositions and overall life purpose. Some people are just better suited to thrive in a capitalist system, some are better suited to thrive in a community oriented system - just by virtue of how they are wired from birth. So that the question about which economic system is the best, is somehow not the right question to ask, because it is asked from a flawed premise. yes, the idea of capitalism is somewhat closer to LOA than the idea of government control, but I went into some depth to illustrate that at the core of capitalism is lack consciousness, and a false belief about the way the universe works. So...I think there's always been, and will be, a limit to how well capitalism can go...as said, it's brought some cool stuff with it, but now more than ever, we are seeing the problems that it causes. Essentially, capitalism respects the material over the spiritual, it HAS to. It's a good thing for people to do to bring spiritual ideas INTO the material...and that can produce some relatively good results, and we might see some good 'ethical' businesses, but the driving force of capitalism is 'advantage', and so in the end, materialism wins....and the inevitable result of that is commodification of everything...the air, the the water, the land, even our bodies. They would fight over who owns Mars and Jupiter if they could. They would try and 'own' the whole universe if they could. But I do agree that the question of 'which economic system is best' is intrinsically flawed. In a sense, LOA is beyond systems and models. I didn't mean to defend capitalism or any other ism. I just wanted to point out that based on the original idea of capitalism what people blame capitalism for may actually just be their own shortcomings projected onto this ism or that ism. Sometimes, I think, some ideas have to be experienced in their extremes until people realize the inherent idiocy of that idea.  Yes, LOA actually just describes how mind works. And since how mind goes, manifestation goes, it essentially describes how creation works. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 25, 2021 11:13:50 GMT -5
Well, 'the best' by what standards anyway? And as you may have noticed, your personal standards keep changing. First you want a bigger room. When you have a bigger room, you want a bigger apartment. When you have a bigger apartment, you want a house. When you have the house, you want a bigger house with more rooms. When you have that house with more than enough rooms, you want an even bigger house with a big garden. When you have that huge house with a huge garden, you notice that's a lot of work. So you want a smaller house with just a small garden. And when you've got that downsized house, you realize that you are always stuck in one place with a house, so now you can really appreciate just renting an apartment that makes it easier to move around... I guess I just mean 'the best' that I know if in this moment. For example, I know the difference between a cheese sandwich and a Michelin star restaurant, but sometimes, I'd much rather have a cheese sandwich than a gourmet dinner. And I think there's a common misconception that if we were given everything we wanted, then we would all want 'the best things'...all of the time...and that we'd all want the same things. But everyone has different personalities, proclivities, interests, desires. Reminds me of a guy I spoke to working in McDonalds a few years ago....an old guy, just doing a bit of work because he wanted to....and he loved the job. We are an incredibly diverse bunch, and even one person has many different facets. Yes, perfect match in the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 25, 2021 12:22:16 GMT -5
Can I dream myself being a robot? Having a personality as I have now, but attached to an inorganic body? In an organic, or in an inorganic world? Surely: I can! There is the possibility of such a reality, that could originate from a reality like this, or in a different way. The purpose of such a reality could be identical with the purpose of our reality. There is nothing that mandates that our souls have to incarnate in this kind of human form, in this kind of environment. There is nothing specific to this form, or to this environment that is sine-qua-non to our purpose of being. After all, there is nothing wrong with imagining this humanity changing course form wise, more or less gradually. Imagining en mass may set such a course. You'd still have an identity, an existence, a form of movement toward the fulfillment of your potential. Are you a personality? Yes, I am a personality. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 25, 2021 14:22:29 GMT -5
Sometimes people get rich playing the zero-sum game - say, by deliberately putting a competitor out of business. Sometimes people get rich by innovating or expanding a market, but it's rarely done without some aspects of the zero-sum games. Mostly, people who are rich stay rich and get richer, and why that is isn't really simple, say, as in terms of LOA. If you reduce it to the essentials, it really is simple. However, you cannot rail against the injustices of a system and then expect to succeed in that system. That's a self-defeating attitude (contradictory vibrations). As I mentioned in my reply to ZD, in terms of LOA, it really is just about expectation and focus. And actually much much more about expectation than focus. Not hard work or playing by the rules or against the rules or knowing the right people or being born into the right family or in the right country - although all of that might help initially and make things a lot easier. Napoleon Hill, who studied highly successful people, trying to find out the rules that made some successful and others not, had an interesting list in his book about the 30 major causes of failure: Now, this is a rather long list, with lots of good points and I'm sure Hill had the statistical data to prove it. But this is an entirely intellectual and action oriented perspective on success/failure, so going thru that list after almost 30 years not having looked at it, it now seems rather convoluted to me. In comparison, the A-H perspective on success/failure is just so simple and elegant - alignment/misalignment and following/not following your inner guidance. That's it. Now, a lot of people who mostly have calibrated to the lower half of the emotional scale will not like this and probably ridicule it as too simplistic. But I've never seen highly successful people do that. Mostly it's people who are not successful who find fault with this. Those who are successful intuitively know that this is true. A-H once said that if you would confiscate everybody's money worldwide and then distribute it evenly again, in less than 10 years, you would have the exact same rich/poor disparities again that you had before the great redistribution. Because it is not really about external circumstance. Haven't made a study of what successful people think about how they got successful, but I have heard two conflicting reports on the notion of "do what you love and the money will follow". And while I didn't keep track of exactly who was on which side, my intuition would tell me that people who failed multiple times before succeeding would most likely reject it. One example of this that is counter to my intuition is Rush Limbaugh, who tried multiple careers before making it big, and he fully embraced the "do what you love" deal. Internal conflict is an issue, no doubt. I've had my ups and downs in terms of earning and yes, when I was committed, with no 2nd-guessing and full confidence, the action and money flowed, and vice-versa. Hill's last point is very much related to the old adage, "the rich get richer". And one can absorb this in one of two ways. If someone attaches a victimhood to it then it will hold them back, but - and again, this is from experience - if one just accepts it as reality (cold, hard, or otherwise), then the next logical conclusion is that you have to either be of service to or have some other relationship with people who have money in order to give them a reason to give you some. That's about as simple as it gets. I don't know Esther's bio, but most of the people whom I've heard as advocates of "do what you love" have encountered what most other's would consider to be unusually good luck at some point. Also, many of them never had a bad turn after that lucky strike. Now, luck has several facets to it: it involves being in the right place at the right time, and much of that is just dumb luck .. but, it also involves doing the right thing in the right way at that right place and right time - that might seem like luck to someone looking from the outside in, but it's not so much, really. Finally, while money has a major potential to make many people miserable, there are another group for whom it makes it very easy to be happy. If they're happy long enough, then they're more likely to start saying "do what you love and the money will follow", but for most people, in most places, at most times, it is incredibly impractical advice. The world is full of all sorts of people, but it seems to me that the common householder who makes do and optimizes whatever opportunity is available to them, works hard, stays honest, and is committed to their family is the primary reason the rest of everyone else doesn't starve naked out in the elements. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 25, 2021 20:29:17 GMT -5
Yeah, sadly, and unfortunately, science fiction writers have been the prophets of the last century .. sooooo ...  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2021 5:44:38 GMT -5
Well, at no point since humans have begun trading...even in its most basic form....have we ever lived in alignment with universal principles. We have been bound to work 'by the sweat of our brow, to eat our bread'. Capitalism has been inevitable, necessary and useful for our evolution, and I'm definitely not suggesting we should suddenly stop, or suppress commerce. What I do believe is that a 'quantum leap' of some sort is possible...perhaps even inevitable...at some point. At which point we stop valuing and measuring what we have to offer, instead we begin a period of synchronistic giving and receiving. You've already got that to some extent thru the internet and crypto. But even the best and ideal economic system can't work as it should if you populate it with the wrong people. What you suggest requires a populace that is wide awake in terms of knowing who they are, what they are here for and what their own value in that system is. yes. Just saw this, reminded me of me  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2021 5:48:11 GMT -5
Yes, for sure, I think engaging in business is currently one way that the LOA operates currently. If our intuition is to set up a business, then we should follow that. We have to work with the systems we are given, the systems in front of us. It doesn't really serve us to be at war with these systems, so for me there's a delicate balance to be found in all this. I guess my approach is to engage with the systems in a fun and responsible way, while retaining a degree of awareness that the systems aren't generally aligned to higher universal principles. There was a huge protest in London today, I saw a report that there were up to 500000 people there (doubt this will be shown on MSM). I didn't go, but I support this protest fully, so I support this 'war'. I also donate to some of the groups that are protesting. Contributing to a 'protest' is not aligned to LOA principles, but...I'm just fumbling through all this too, I'm no LOA master! I'm just working with the system in front of me, the best I can. Of course it can be in alignment with LOA and following the path of least resistance - YOUR path of least resistance, that is. It may not be someone else's path of least resistance though. It all depends on where your starting point was. If you were at the bottom of the emotional scale, at hopelessness and despair, then going to a protest would probably breathe new life into your being and give you a new purpose. And that would feel really good, even though in absolute terms, it would rank rather low. Also, path of least resistance is what feels best, it's not always the easiest path, i.e. what your autopilot suggests. That's not the path of least resistance. A lot of people think they go with the path of least resistance, but what they actually do is just going by habit or by what the strongest vibration in their environment demands. yep good points there In a sense, the ideal is when the relative terms aligns with the absolute terms. This actually relates to what I've said about Tony Robbins idea about people's core needs (beyond physical needs). Everyone has the same needs, but equally, everyone's getting them met (or attempting to get them met) in a million different ways. Ideally, we want to be getting our needs met in a fulfilling, joyful and healthy way. Even the 'enlightened' have these same needs, they're just getting them met in a pretty cool and unusual way. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2021 5:48:29 GMT -5
I guess I just mean 'the best' that I know if in this moment. For example, I know the difference between a cheese sandwich and a Michelin star restaurant, but sometimes, I'd much rather have a cheese sandwich than a gourmet dinner. And I think there's a common misconception that if we were given everything we wanted, then we would all want 'the best things'...all of the time...and that we'd all want the same things. But everyone has different personalities, proclivities, interests, desires. Reminds me of a guy I spoke to working in McDonalds a few years ago....an old guy, just doing a bit of work because he wanted to....and he loved the job. We are an incredibly diverse bunch, and even one person has many different facets. Yes, perfect match in the moment. exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 26, 2021 6:00:03 GMT -5
Haven't made a study of what successful people think about how they got successful, but I have heard two conflicting reports on the notion of "do what you love and the money will follow". And while I didn't keep track of exactly who was on which side, my intuition would tell me that people who failed multiple times before succeeding would most likely reject it. One example of this that is counter to my intuition is Rush Limbaugh, who tried multiple careers before making it big, and he fully embraced the "do what you love" deal. Internal conflict is an issue, no doubt. I've had my ups and downs in terms of earning and yes, when I was committed, with no 2nd-guessing and full confidence, the action and money flowed, and vice-versa. Hill's last point is very much related to the old adage, "the rich get richer". And one can absorb this in one of two ways. If someone attaches a victimhood to it then it will hold them back, but - and again, this is from experience - if one just accepts it as reality (cold, hard, or otherwise), then the next logical conclusion is that you have to either be of service to or have some other relationship with people who have money in order to give them a reason to give you some. That's about as simple as it gets. I don't know Esther's bio, but most of the people whom I've heard as advocates of "do what you love" have encountered what most other's would consider to be unusually good luck at some point. Also, many of them never had a bad turn after that lucky strike. Now, luck has several facets to it: it involves being in the right place at the right time, and much of that is just dumb luck .. but, it also involves doing the right thing in the right way at that right place and right time - that might seem like luck to someone looking from the outside in, but it's not so much, really. Finally, while money has a major potential to make many people miserable, there are another group for whom it makes it very easy to be happy. If they're happy long enough, then they're more likely to start saying "do what you love and the money will follow", but for most people, in most places, at most times, it is incredibly impractical advice. The world is full of all sorts of people, but it seems to me that the common householder who makes do and optimizes whatever opportunity is available to them, works hard, stays honest, and is committed to their family is the primary reason the rest of everyone else doesn't starve naked out in the elements. I've read a book once about billionaires and their mindset. And there's two things I remember: 1) they do what they love and they love doing it and they only do that, all day every day 2) before they do something, they think it thru thoroughly and when they do something, they go all in, there's no plan B, all eggs in one basket. Now, from the outside that may look like 1) they really work hard, mostly a 70+ hour week and 2) that they are bold risk takers. But when you interview them, you'll see that that's not really the case. Since they love what they are doing, it's without resistance and mostly effortless and almost like playing. And since they envision and think things thru thoroughly before they leap, the risk of landing in the ditch is almost zero. The dumb luck thing is exactly what alignment is. It's like living in a magical bubble. And that's how it is supposed to be, ye know?!  Yes, money can make everyday things a lot easier, like when you go shopping, you don't even need to look a a price tag anymore because whatever the price is, you can afford it, and you are also much closer to instant manifestations, because money can make a lot of things happen. However, there's also a catch to this. When you've got more than enough money and you don't really think things thru, you end up with a lot of unwanted manifestations really fast. In that sense, money is only going to amplify your problems of sloppy thinking. Another thing is that once you've moved to a different level of financial abundance, you are playing in a different arena with a different set of standards and suddenly things that you previously thought to be important become a nonissue and other things that you didn't even think of suddenly become an issue. And the goal post keeps moving, of course. You adjust and calibrate to ever rising standards. When you're used to having at least 500 dollars in your pocket because it allows you the freedom to buy whatever you want based on your personal standards, you may feel abundant and at ease, but when you are suddenly down to 100 dollars, you may feel a bit uneasy. Similarly, Warren Buffet once said that he has always about 1.5 billion dollars in cash ready which would allow him to basically by any company he likes whenever he wants to. And when his cash is down to 1 billion, he said that's when starts feeling a bit uneasy and gets a little worried. Now, on quality of feeling level, what's the difference between Warren with his 1 billion and you with your 100 dollars? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2021 6:01:22 GMT -5
If you reduce it to the essentials, it really is simple. However, you cannot rail against the injustices of a system and then expect to succeed in that system. That's a self-defeating attitude (contradictory vibrations). As I mentioned in my reply to ZD, in terms of LOA, it really is just about expectation and focus. And actually much much more about expectation than focus. Not hard work or playing by the rules or against the rules or knowing the right people or being born into the right family or in the right country - although all of that might help initially and make things a lot easier. Napoleon Hill, who studied highly successful people, trying to find out the rules that made some successful and others not, had an interesting list in his book about the 30 major causes of failure: Now, this is a rather long list, with lots of good points and I'm sure Hill had the statistical data to prove it. But this is an entirely intellectual and action oriented perspective on success/failure, so going thru that list after almost 30 years not having looked at it, it now seems rather convoluted to me. In comparison, the A-H perspective on success/failure is just so simple and elegant - alignment/misalignment and following/not following your inner guidance. That's it. Now, a lot of people who mostly have calibrated to the lower half of the emotional scale will not like this and probably ridicule it as too simplistic. But I've never seen highly successful people do that. Mostly it's people who are not successful who find fault with this. Those who are successful intuitively know that this is true. A-H once said that if you would confiscate everybody's money worldwide and then distribute it evenly again, in less than 10 years, you would have the exact same rich/poor disparities again that you had before the great redistribution. Because it is not really about external circumstance. Haven't made a study of what successful people think about how they got successful, but I have heard two conflicting reports on the notion of "do what you love and the money will follow". And while I didn't keep track of exactly who was on which side, my intuition would tell me that people who failed multiple times before succeeding would most likely reject it. One example of this that is counter to my intuition is Rush Limbaugh, who tried multiple careers before making it big, and he fully embraced the "do what you love" deal. Internal conflict is an issue, no doubt. I've had my ups and downs in terms of earning and yes, when I was committed, with no 2nd-guessing and full confidence, the action and money flowed, and vice-versa. Hill's last point is very much related to the old adage, "the rich get richer". And one can absorb this in one of two ways. If someone attaches a victimhood to it then it will hold them back, but - and again, this is from experience - if one just accepts it as reality (cold, hard, or otherwise), then the next logical conclusion is that you have to either be of service to or have some other relationship with people who have money in order to give them a reason to give you some. That's about as simple as it gets.
I don't know Esther's bio, but most of the people whom I've heard as advocates of "do what you love" have encountered what most other's would consider to be unusually good luck at some point. Also, many of them never had a bad turn after that lucky strike. Now, luck has several facets to it: it involves being in the right place at the right time, and much of that is just dumb luck .. but, it also involves doing the right thing in the right way at that right place and right time - that might seem like luck to someone looking from the outside in, but it's not so much, really. Finally, while money has a major potential to make many people miserable, there are another group for whom it makes it very easy to be happy. If they're happy long enough, then they're more likely to start saying "do what you love and the money will follow", but for most people, in most places, at most times, it is incredibly impractical advice. The world is full of all sorts of people, but it seems to me that the common householder who makes do and optimizes whatever opportunity is available to them, works hard, stays honest, and is committed to their family is the primary reason the rest of everyone else doesn't starve naked out in the elements. There was a time in my life when money was very easy for me...I was renting out a property in the UK, working abroad in sales (I was good at the job), and the company paid for my accommodation, bills and food lol. The work itself could be challenging and stressful (same for everyone I guess), but I enjoyed it, and never gave a thought about money. Then one day, I was almost literally gifted £5000 out of nowhere. It was utterly bizarre in the way it happened, and really quite nice. It's a good example of LOA, though at the time I had never heard of LOA, and in a perfect world...I think.... folks would never have to think about it. Then again, when conditions seemingly turn bad...as they do for most folks at some point in their lives.....and our conditioning reacts negatively to those conditions (in one way there's no gap between the negative conditions and the negative conditioning), I think that's when knowing about LOA gets pretty useful. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 26, 2021 6:03:08 GMT -5
Haven't made a study of what successful people think about how they got successful, but I have heard two conflicting reports on the notion of "do what you love and the money will follow". And while I didn't keep track of exactly who was on which side, my intuition would tell me that people who failed multiple times before succeeding would most likely reject it. One example of this that is counter to my intuition is Rush Limbaugh, who tried multiple careers before making it big, and he fully embraced the "do what you love" deal. Internal conflict is an issue, no doubt. I've had my ups and downs in terms of earning and yes, when I was committed, with no 2nd-guessing and full confidence, the action and money flowed, and vice-versa. Hill's last point is very much related to the old adage, "the rich get richer". And one can absorb this in one of two ways. If someone attaches a victimhood to it then it will hold them back, but - and again, this is from experience - if one just accepts it as reality (cold, hard, or otherwise), then the next logical conclusion is that you have to either be of service to or have some other relationship with people who have money in order to give them a reason to give you some. That's about as simple as it gets. I don't know Esther's bio, but most of the people whom I've heard as advocates of "do what you love" have encountered what most other's would consider to be unusually good luck at some point. Also, many of them never had a bad turn after that lucky strike. Now, luck has several facets to it: it involves being in the right place at the right time, and much of that is just dumb luck .. but, it also involves doing the right thing in the right way at that right place and right time - that might seem like luck to someone looking from the outside in, but it's not so much, really. Finally, while money has a major potential to make many people miserable, there are another group for whom it makes it very easy to be happy. If they're happy long enough, then they're more likely to start saying "do what you love and the money will follow", but for most people, in most places, at most times, it is incredibly impractical advice. The world is full of all sorts of people, but it seems to me that the common householder who makes do and optimizes whatever opportunity is available to them, works hard, stays honest, and is committed to their family is the primary reason the rest of everyone else doesn't starve naked out in the elements. I've read a book once about billionaires and their mindset. And there's two things I remember: 1) they do what they love and they love doing it and they only do that, all day every day 2) before they do something, they think it thru thoroughly and when they do something, they go all in, there's no plan B, all eggs in one basket. Now, from the outside that may look like 1) they really work hard, mostly a 70+ hour week and 2) that they are bold risk takers. But when you interview them, you'll see that that's not really the case. Since they love what they are doing, it's without resistance and mostly effortless and almost like playing. And since they envision and think things thru thoroughly before they leap, the risk of landing in the ditch is almost zero. The dumb luck thing is exactly what alignment is. It's like living in a magical bubble. And that's how it is supposed to be, ye know?! Yes, money can make everyday things a lot easier, like when you go shopping, you don't even need to look a a price tag anymore because whatever the price is, you can afford it, and you are also much closer to instant manifestations, because money can make a lot of things happen. However, there's also a catch to this. When you've got more than enough money and you don't really think things thru, you end up with a lot of unwanted manifestations really fast. In that sense, money is only going to amplify your problems of sloppy thinking. Another thing is that once you've moved to a different level of financial abundance, you are playing in a different arena with a different set of standards and suddenly things that you previously thought to be important become a nonissue and other things that you didn't even think of suddenly become an issue. And the goal post keeps moving, of course. You adjust and calibrate to ever rising standards. When you're used to having at least 500 dollars in your pocket because it allows you the freedom to buy whatever you want based on your personal standards, you may feel abundant and at ease, but when you are suddenly down to 100 dollars, you may feel a bit uneasy. Similarly, Warren Buffet once said that he has always about 1.5 billion dollars in cash ready which would allow him to basically by any company he likes whenever he wants to. And when his cash is down to 1 billion, he said that's when starts feeling a bit uneasy and gets a little worried. Now, on quality of feeling level, what's the difference between Warren with his 1 billion and you with your 100 dollars? That's hilarious, but I totally get how that would work. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Apr 26, 2021 6:13:00 GMT -5
Ha yes, great bit of TV. Did you watch the whole series? www.imdb.com/title/tt8694364 There's a speech the Gran gives in the last episode about how we got from there to here and, for me, it felt that that speech was the first thing the writer put down and the rest of the show grew around it: |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 26, 2021 7:03:25 GMT -5
You've already got that to some extent thru the internet and crypto. But even the best and ideal economic system can't work as it should if you populate it with the wrong people. What you suggest requires a populace that is wide awake in terms of knowing who they are, what they are here for and what their own value in that system is. yes. Just saw this, reminded me of me Yes, true. And that dream keeps expanding, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 26, 2021 8:49:24 GMT -5
Haven't made a study of what successful people think about how they got successful, but I have heard two conflicting reports on the notion of "do what you love and the money will follow". And while I didn't keep track of exactly who was on which side, my intuition would tell me that people who failed multiple times before succeeding would most likely reject it. One example of this that is counter to my intuition is Rush Limbaugh, who tried multiple careers before making it big, and he fully embraced the "do what you love" deal. Internal conflict is an issue, no doubt. I've had my ups and downs in terms of earning and yes, when I was committed, with no 2nd-guessing and full confidence, the action and money flowed, and vice-versa. Hill's last point is very much related to the old adage, "the rich get richer". And one can absorb this in one of two ways. If someone attaches a victimhood to it then it will hold them back, but - and again, this is from experience - if one just accepts it as reality (cold, hard, or otherwise), then the next logical conclusion is that you have to either be of service to or have some other relationship with people who have money in order to give them a reason to give you some. That's about as simple as it gets.
I don't know Esther's bio, but most of the people whom I've heard as advocates of "do what you love" have encountered what most other's would consider to be unusually good luck at some point. Also, many of them never had a bad turn after that lucky strike. Now, luck has several facets to it: it involves being in the right place at the right time, and much of that is just dumb luck .. but, it also involves doing the right thing in the right way at that right place and right time - that might seem like luck to someone looking from the outside in, but it's not so much, really. Finally, while money has a major potential to make many people miserable, there are another group for whom it makes it very easy to be happy. If they're happy long enough, then they're more likely to start saying "do what you love and the money will follow", but for most people, in most places, at most times, it is incredibly impractical advice. The world is full of all sorts of people, but it seems to me that the common householder who makes do and optimizes whatever opportunity is available to them, works hard, stays honest, and is committed to their family is the primary reason the rest of everyone else doesn't starve naked out in the elements. There was a time in my life when money was very easy for me...I was renting out a property in the UK, working abroad in sales (I was good at the job), and the company paid for my accommodation, bills and food lol. The work itself could be challenging and stressful (same for everyone I guess), but I enjoyed it, and never gave a thought about money. Then one day, I was almost literally gifted £5000 out of nowhere. It was utterly bizarre in the way it happened, and really quite nice. It's a good example of LOA, though at the time I had never heard of LOA, and in a perfect world...I think.... folks would never have to think about it. Then again, when conditions seemingly turn bad...as they do for most folks at some point in their lives.....and our conditioning reacts negatively to those conditions (in one way there's no gap between the negative conditions and the negative conditioning), I think that's when knowing about LOA gets pretty useful. Yes, the better it gets, the better it gets as they say (or the worse it gets the worse it gets). IMO, LOA is such superior model for explaining our experiences. And it's also so intuitive. At a time when I didn't even know about LOA I always did this intuitively, envisioning how I would like things to turn out and then just following the path of least resistance and most joy. Which is basically what Abe teach, to only think about and talk about what you want, not caring about the how's and the when's and then just following your inner guidance wherever it takes you. But we are trained to be objective, realistic and fact oriented because being prepared for all kinds of scenarios is going to be the safer and more reliable route. But in reality, that's doing it the slow and hard way. I remember the first time I traveled to Thailand, quite literally on a shoestring, coming from Cambodia and armed with just one really cheap Lonely Planet copy we bought in Saigon a week earlier. The guide book turned out to be totally useless when we arrived in Bangkok well after midnight in the middle of a thunderstorm, because the pages where the map of Bangkok and the list of places to stay were supposed to be were almost blank. And we didn't book anything in advance either. So we got off the bus, in the middle of the night, no idea where we were and no idea where to go. So I just started walking and after only 5 min we found a cheap and decent place to stay for one night. The next day we went to visit a temple and there we met a lovely elderly gentleman who was fascinated by our travels, coming all the way from China, via Vietnam and Cambodia to Thailand, on the way to Laos. So after we had a nice chat for a while, he walks with us to the street, calls a tuk tuk, talks to the driver for several minutes and then says: "I talked to the driver and told him to take you to the most beautiful tourist spots in Bangkok. He will take you there and wait for you, you can walk around take some pictures and when you are done he will take you to the next stop and bring you back here. When you are finshed, you give him 80 baht. Enjoy and have fun!" And then he went back into the temple. And we had a lovely day. Now, how do you explain complete strangers doing everything in their power to accommodate you? You never met them, you are probably never going to see them again, by helping you they gain absolutely nothing, and yet helping you suddenly becomes their most important mission in the moment? Using the economical model, where everyone looks for the most gain in a relationship, it doesn't make any sense. But it does make sense using the LOA model (and maybe the karma model, hehe). |
|
