I knew very well that I would be educated on the “True Meaning” of LOA before I clicked the publish button. Of course, these sorts of arguments are hard to rationalize as you are deadset on your definition of LOA.
The concept you described as the definition of LOA is in fact productive positivity. Yes, LOA leans heavily on positivity and thus I can see why these two might look similar. And then you went on to explain how we use our brains. Of course, I know we need our brains to think and do stuff. Yet, thanks for reminding me.
Here’s the thing. If LOA was nothing but positive thinking, I wouldn’t be writing this article. LOA makes several gigantic leaps afterward. They blame you for having any natural negative emotions. They make tall tales about making physical manifestation. They use false scientific, religious, and even spiritual connections to make their product look good. They even use false quotes. No nuance there, is it?
Claudine, I suppose you must know how a “law” works. A scientific law is established after years of tangible research, experiments, and observation. Any scientific theory goes through thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Yet, for some reason, so-called scholars of LOA are extremely sensitive to valid criticism. Why so? Law is very definite in its particulars. Not everyone has their perceived version of it. We don’t have our versions of Newton’s Law, Ohm’s Law, Pascal’s Law, or Hooke’s Law. So how come you guys are so flexible with your LAW of attraction?
What is it anyway? Is it science? If so, then where are the papers? Is it philosophy? If so, then why does it have a “LAW” in its title? Is it a lifestyle? If so, then why is it claiming to be capable of physical manifestations? Or is it a cult? Well, that’s more like it.
I say it is a combination of unfalsifiable claims, fueling a lucrative business behind it. And I have explained it pretty well.