I also think that the variables involved are enormous and complex and involve a lot of unconscious beliefs, goals, and thoughts. So it’s not as simple as “think good thoughts”. And yet, generally, when I *do* it, then I *get* it again. When I come from the point of view that my life is a trap where I am forced to be unhappy, my life starts to really suck. When I come from the point of view that I am the Source of my life and it doesn’t *have* to suck- then my life gets better. So, I think it’s true, or at least, that it works, so there is something true about it.

Lastly I think that people generally understand it (or misunderstand it) from whatever place in consciousness they are at. So the best way to approach it is to say “I don’t really know how it works - but I’ll try it out”. That way any preconceptions and limited beliefs *about* the Law, and the possibility that good could be that simply attained, will not get in the way of practicing it.

But I think those things can be—even should be—understood separately from a theory of life that carries a lot of troublesome philosophical baggage. As I said in the original piece, I’d not deny that good can arise from one believing in the Law of Attraction, but I’d much rather that people pursued those goods in and for themselves and left behind the whole “Law of Attraction” frame.

I sense that you’re more attached to it, but willing to admit that it’s not really a law governing the whole universe. To me, that means we should completely dispense with the term, but I do see some logic in your keeping the term and idea around and alive.

My experience is anecdotal and correlative, not really causal proof. But I do believe that if I can work through my negative beliefs and change them, it will change how I interact with situations and therefore change my reality. Is there a deeper level of causality where my thoughts affect material reality? I’m not entirely sure, but I’ve had enough “coincidences” happen when I am really in the flow of life that it makes sense to me.

I don’t think it makes sense when you apply it to natural disasters as a whole, or systemic economic problems like homelessness. I think it generally is only helpful to individuals when it prompts them to examine and change their own thinking. For instance, how does a certain person deal with a situation like a natural disaster - do they react by shutting down or by going forward and finding opportunities in it? And how does that attitude affect what happens next to them? That is the level it is dealing with I think.

Focusing on “bad things happening to good people” misses the power and purpose of studying the Law of Attraction. There aren’t really “good” people - there are just people. We are all innocent, ultimately - all trying our best to meet our needs. And “bad things” happen to all of us. Such is our common humanity. From that place, we ask “How can life be better?” That is what the Law of Attraction addresses.

The Law of Attraction is ultimately not about control (although I do think people try to use it to control their fate) - it is about accepting a flow of good that comes from God. The idea is that this is available to everyone, and anyone can accept it at any time and their life will begin to flow more. It’s not a good you can control - only accept. It does not mean anyone is “bad” if their external circumstances look “bad”. If you are ignorant of how the Law of Attraction works, then of course you will end up drawing “bad” things to you, or limiting circumstances, because our culture is steeped in negativity and many of us are raised with many limiting beliefs about who we are and what we can have or do or be. So it’s not at all a judgment. Rather, it’s an opportunity to change the situation we find ourselves in, whatever that may be.

The Law of Attraction is not saying that people *mean* to cause their “bad” fates. It’s saying that they do so *unconsciously*. And that by becoming conscious of what those beliefs are, they can change them, and then attract better situations. There is no blame or fault because the unconsciousness is innocent.

Let’s say that someone is in a house surrounded by food, but for some reason he believes that he shouldn’t eat it, that it is not for him. In fact, he is so used to this belief that after awhile he hardly sees the food at all. But every day he is hungry. Then one day someone knocks on his door and says “Hey, did you realize that you are surrounded by food?”. He might argue and say “Why would I be so hungry if that were true? Do you think I’m stupid?”. But no - of course he is not stupid. He has been searching for food his whole life - and he is in a lot of pain from being hungry. He just did not realize that it was his own mind and his beliefs that kept him from seeing what was right in front of him. He needs to learn to see, to accept, that the food is for him, and that it is OK for him to eat it. He needs to accept that he doesn’t have to be hungry. It is OK for him to be nourished. That food was meant for him.

This might not make sense unless you’ve had the experience of realizing there is “food” right in front of you that you are not letting yourself have. Good that you push away - or that you don’t believe you deserve. This is a level of awareness that not everyone has - but eventually, after pursuing their “good” long enough by doing “real world” stuff many people realize that there are beliefs in their own mind that are stopping them *more* than what is outside them. That is certainly something I have realized. So this is where rewriting your beliefs comes in, and this is what the Law of Attraction is talking about. It is not about making people feel bad about their circumstances - it’s meant instead to offer a way to change those circumstances.

Nonetheless, whether it’s a moral or mere causal relationship, it remains deeply problematic. Consider the victims of a hurricane or earthquake. I have no doubt that’s it morally repugnant to say that they “deserved” their fate, but I only have slightly less doubt that it’s morally repugnant to say that they “attracted” or “caused” it.

Whether bad things happen to good people because they really “deserve” them or because they merely “attract” them, I find both answers deeply unsatisfying. It’s much more sensible to believe that these things happen for reasons that “only God knows” than to believe that they brought disaster upon themselves. And to me, it seems even more reasonable to say that we live in a world full of millions of random happenings over which we have no control nor hope of controlling.

And in order to use it, you have to accept that you are responsible for your condition in life - because that is a prerequisite for change. It doesn’t say you deserved that condition - just that you are the only one who can now change it. The concept of “deserving” is irrelevant. That’s tough to accept but when you do you realize the power of the concept.

However, I do agree that rich, healthy people could be more humble about explaining it. But they aren’t the only ones who work with these concepts - just the ones with enough money/influence to talk loudly about it.

i’m in full agreement with you. it’s a thought process used by a number of christians to justify things in the name of god, as well.