Manifestation is Bullshit

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, PenguinPablo said:

mechanics of manifestation

The irony.

Manifestation does not require a mechanism. It's direct, out of nothing.

If something requires a mechanism, then it is not manifestation, it's just causality.

New agers surely have loose definitions of everything.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

The irony.

Manifestation does not require a mechanism. It's direct, out of nothing.

If something requires a mechanism, then it is not manifestation, it's just causality.

New agers surely have loose definitions of everything.

The intentions that are "doing" the manifestation could be influenced by other things (mind states, etc.) perhaps in positive or negative ways, so that would be one mechanism. And the way the intention actually does the manifestation could also have a mechanism (i.e. it has a causal structure you can analyze), but we maybe just don't know about it yet (hence you would call it "magical"). And of course, like I've put earlier, mind states associated with manifestation beliefs can influence actions that create the desired outcomes (that would be another mechanism).

You can also create a causal model based on interpersonal psychic assumptions. If intentions formed in one mind can affect another mind psychically (or the intentions exist in the larger "mind space" that people's individual minds are somewhat tapped into), it could influence the actions of other people in a given direction. Hence the "universe" (other people) selects for actions in that direction, in a "magical" way. Besides, interacting with other people with an intention in mind could create microscopic non-verbal cues that influence people in a certain way (which would again be a case of mind influencing actions).

Edited 22 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

15 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The intentions that are "doing" the manifestation could be influenced by other things (mind states, etc.) perhaps in positive or negative ways, so that would be one mechanism. And the way the intention actually does the manifestation could also have a mechanism (i.e. it has a causal structure you can analyze), but we maybe just don't know about it yet (hence you would call it "magical"). And of course, like I've put earlier, mind states associated with manifestation beliefs can influence actions that create the desired outcomes (that would be another mechanism).

You can also create a causal model based on interpersonal psychic assumptions. If intentions formed in one mind can "travel" to another mind (or they exist in the larger "mind space" that people's individual minds are somewhat tapped into), it could influence the actions of other people in a given direction. Hence the "universe" (other people) selects for actions in that direction, in a "magical" way.

I really enjoyed this passage 🫶

[Breakingthewall]

The only form of manifestation that actually works is an obsessive, sustained focus, one that methodically breaks down every aspect of the desired goal, constantly refining the details, looking past the obvious, and burrowing into the deepest layers of the matter like a termite digging ceaselessly.

It operates like an unstoppable, inevitable mechanism that cannot halt until every facet of the objective has been clarified, every test conducted, and every lesson from trial and error noted. That is simply how life works.

 if you think you can manifest wealth, or anything else, by merely thinking spiritually about it, you are so mentally retarded and naive that I would give you a hug and pat you on the back many times, the way people do at funerals. Because your life will be a funeral. 

[Jirh]

You need to prove the phenomenon before providing explanations for its possible mechanisms.

It's useless to speculate about the mechanisms of a delusion.

[Salvijus]

Here's an argument for manifestation being true:

"There are no idle thoughts. Every thought, no matter how insignificant you may think it is, results in some kind of impact. That's the creative power of your mind, aka manifestation." 

Edited 17 hours ago by Salvijus

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Jirh said:

You need to prove the phenomenon before providing explanations for its possible mechanisms.

It's useless to speculate about the mechanisms of a delusion.

Not at all, hypotheses tend to precede the testing of said hypotheses. But if we provide evidence, will you read it or will you pretend like you never asked for it?

By the way, if we need evidence of psychic phenomena, I had intially planned to simply type the sentence about evading presented evidence instead of the long disposition of hypotheses. But you would've accused me of being obsessed and passive aggressive (you'll maybe still do that).

Edited 13 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[eos_nyxia]

12 hours ago, Jirh said:

The irony.

Manifestation does not require a mechanism. It's direct, out of nothing.

If something requires a mechanism, then it is not manifestation, it's just causality.

New agers surely have loose definitions of everything.

Two Points:

1) In this case, the burden is definitely on you to come to your own conclusions about what is true and what is not. A person who is capable of manifesting is putting their work at risk if they get sucked into a skeptical mindset and then self-sabotaging before their work is done, and at best they gain a skeptic's approval. Likewise, you have everything to gain (valid proof, assuming you actually want it) and nothing to lose if you decide that person is full of shit. 

2) Very few mechanisms are strictly required, and they also serve different purposes and not just "manifesting". Sometimes it is placing appropriate boundaries around a thing (one of many possible uses, your imagination is the limit), like creating a container specifically for that purpose, if it's a thing that works well in conjunction with your INDIVIDUAL psyche. Sometimes it is because you do a certain type of task over and over and human beings like to create both physical and psychological mechanisms for the purpose of efficiency and ease of replication (which ironically, often ends up being the next thing which straitjackets us because we often get addicted to the comfort of our own systems). Direct manifestion? Take the "good" and the "bad" then, and also the personality that comes with such a thing. Pull off the guard rails around the expression of raw emotion and vital energy and then tell me if it's a good idea especially if you live around people and have any kind of unaccounted for things in your psyche, lol.  By the way, very few mechanisms are strictly necessary in the psyche, period.

But the kind of mind that can instantly manifest...sure. Why not?

 

I wrote a couple of posts recently on the topic:

 

Edited 11 hours ago by eos_nyxia

[Leo Gura]

Manifestation works at the level of mindset. Don't forget than mindset affects all behavior, and behavior generates all material results.

You can build The Pyramids with the right mindset.

But if you think The Pyramids will appear without labor, you are delusional.

Edited 9 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Natasha Tori Maru]

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Manifestation works at the level of mindset. Don't forget than mindset affects all behavior, and behavior generates all material results.

This is aligned with how I view manifestation.

[Willy Phallicus]

There's two kinds of belief.  

One works, one doesn't.

[Eskilon]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Manifestation works at the level of mindset. Don't forget than mindset affects all behavior, and behavior generates all material results.

@Leo Gura Then just call it self-hypnosis or belief. You don't need the word manifestation.

Unless you can literally manifest money out of thin air in front of you it is not manifestation. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Eskilon

[Jirh]

4 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

1) In this case, the burden is definitely on you to come to your own conclusions about what is true and what is not. A person who is capable of manifesting is putting their work at risk if they get sucked into a skeptical mindset and then self-sabotaging before their work is done, and at best they gain a skeptic's approval. Likewise, you have everything to gain (valid proof, assuming you actually want it) and nothing to lose if you decide that person is full of shit.

1. The sun doesn't (and never did) require my belief. It's just there. Evident. Self-sufficient. Unaffected by anyone's opinion. Gravity is the same. Electricity is the same. Technology is the same. There are clear mechanisms and principles that when applied, they generate the same results universally, regardless of belief or lack thereof.
2. I can't deny it (the sun, gravity, electricity, technology, etc...), even if I wanted to. Even if the whole world denied it. We can debate its nature and its qualities. We can create narratives about it, like flat earth. But we can't deny it. The fact that it exists remains despite lack of accurate comprehensive narrative.
3. If your belief in something is so fragile (i.e. dependent on what others think of it), then that says more about the validity of your belief, and less about others whom you blanket labelled as "skeptics". Contrast that with my belief in the sun, you can deny it all you want, and my belief will remain intact, and the sun will remain intact.
4. Why call it "risk"? A more positive mindset will take it on as a challenge. An even more positive and generous one would just give away manifestation powers to everyone around. If I am a blind person, and you can awaken the gift of vision in me, it makes sense that you would want to do it, with or without a price tag. So why so scared?
5. Did you manifest the disbelief (i.e. the risk)? If so, just stop manifesting it and crawl back into your little fragile, although comfortable world.

5 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

2) Very few mechanisms are strictly required

We're not there yet. Until we can assert that the phenomenon is actually real (i.e. there is a clear direct link between mental processes and the physical world), any suggestions about mechanisms is at best speculative and at worst delusional.

I didn't open the links you provided. I assume it's more of the same.

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Eskilon said:

@Leo Gura Then just call it self-hypnosis or belief. You don't need the word manifestation.

Unless you can literally manifest money out of thin air in front of you it is not manifestation. 

Notice I do not use the M word.

[Jirh]

@Leo Gura

Your model of reality is more coherent. It's more accurate to say everything is imagination than to say imagination works in magical ways. If everything is imagination, then manifestation is possible through imaginary mechanisms. Nothing changes about life. It only gets recontextualized into a more palatable frame than naive materialism.

[eos_nyxia]

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

1. The sun doesn't (and never did) require my belief. It's just there. Evident. Self-sufficient. Unaffected by anyone's opinion. Gravity is the same. Electricity is the same. Technology is the same. There are clear mechanisms and principles that when applied, they generate the same results universally, regardless of belief or lack thereof.
2. I can't deny it (the sun, gravity, electricity, technology, etc...), even if I wanted to. Even if the whole world denied it. We can debate its nature and its qualities. We can create narratives about it, like flat earth. But we can't deny it. The fact that it exists remains despite lack of accurate comprehensive narrative.

1. If you're a materialist, why are you even here in this section?
2. The sun doesn't require your belief, and neither do I. Nor does manifestation. But you'll stay wherever you are, being whatever you are though. No loss if it's not real, right?  

Quote

If your belief in something is so fragile (i.e. dependent on what others think of it), then that says more about the validity of your belief, and less about others whom you blanket labelled as "skeptics". Contrast that with my belief in the sun, you can deny it all you want, and my belief will remain intact, and the sun will remain intact.

Like you said, your belief in the sun serves no specific practical function except as a thing that exists within your psyche. You just believe it because you believe and/or know it to be unfalsifiably true. A belief in manifestation, according to a more modern magick ethos (pre-Youtube and Tik Tok manifestation gurus, and also before "The Secret" ever got famous), potentially serves the function of getting things done. It's not even intended as a truth function necessarily.

You believe just to believe, but that is technically optional too. People get very attached to these type of beliefs usually to make themselves feel more secure, to make the world feel more "solid", and to make themselves feel more grounded/ sane. If you do manifestation seriously, you don't get to indulge in this way of thinking and get anything done lol.

Quote

Why call it "risk"? A more positive mindset will take it on as a challenge. An even more positive and generous one would just give away manifestation powers to everyone around. If I am a blind person, and you can awaken the gift of vision in me, it makes sense that you would want to do it, with or without a price tag. So why so scared?

1. Psychic openness brings fragility and openness to influence in a way that being closed off does not. If you don't get it, there's no point in arguing with me about it.
2. I assume that I could give it -- I certainly would not. It's a weapon just as much as a tool, and also a curse as much as a gift potentially. People who taught this sort of thing typically vetted people heavily for a reason. A person with a lack of openness and a confrontational attitude surely would not make the cut. Also, assume that it is effective, would it be ethical to hand a person who just opened their eyes for the first time... a gun?

Quote

Did you manifest the disbelief (i.e. the risk)? If so, just stop manifesting it and crawl back into your little fragile, although comfortable world.

Unless you are free of issues relating to belief and disbelief yourself (or doubt and self doubt), you are probably not in the position to judge meaningfully. Anyone can tell anyone else to do better, while doing and being what themselves, exactly? 

Quote

We're not there yet. Until we can assert that the phenomenon is actually real (i.e. there is a clear direct link between mental processes and the physical world), any suggestions about mechanisms is at best speculative and at worst delusional.

You missed the point of everything I said.  I never asked you to believe me, and I do not care if you do. After all, I have absolutely nothing to lose. Whatever I shared was just for the openminded. You are not; you've made up your mind. Good day. 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by eos_nyxia

[eos_nyxia]

In any case, I tend to follow a general guideline: 9 parts working on refining myself as a personality (which is super boring and non-controversial), and 1 part working on anything that would be considered externalization. That includes "asking"/"demanding" anything at all.  

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, eos_nyxia said:

If you're a materialist, why are you even here in this section?

That's an ad hominem (attack on character instead of topic) + a strawman argument (cuz I'm not a materialist).

And I'm here to discuss. To gain clarity and offer clarity. Truth hurts sometimes. Just gotta get used to it.

1 hour ago, eos_nyxia said:

The sun doesn't require your belief, and neither do I. Nor does manifestation. But you'll stay wherever you are, being whatever you are though. No loss if it's not real, right?

You certainly don't need my belief. But your claims about manifestation do.

No loss. I enjoy deep discussions with sharp minds like yours.

1 hour ago, eos_nyxia said:

Like you said, your belief in the sun serves no specific practical function except as a thing that exists within your psyche. You just believe it because you believe and/or know it to be unfalsifiably true.

That's not true. The belief in the sun has many practical functions, like solar power and time management and countless others.

I mentioned other examples, like electricity. If you'd like to engage on that.

1 hour ago, eos_nyxia said:

A belief in manifestation, according to a more modern magick ethos (pre-Youtube and Tik Tok manifestation gurus, and also before "The Secret" ever got famous), potentially serves the function of getting things done. It's not even intended as a truth function necessarily.

You don't need a belief in manifestation to get things done. But you need to be realistic and pragmatic, and a little optimism would probably help.

1 hour ago, eos_nyxia said:

You believe just to believe, but that is technically optional too. People get very attached to these type of beliefs usually to make themselves feel more secure, to make the world feel more "solid", and to make themselves feel more grounded/ sane. If you do manifestation seriously, you don't get to indulge in this way of thinking and get anything done lol.

That's a mischaracterization of who I am. A reiteration of that same assessment of my existential philosophy and a reduction of its complexity down to naive materialism.

1 hour ago, eos_nyxia said:

Psychic openness brings fragility and openness to influence in a way that being closed off does not. If you don't get it, there's no point in arguing with me about it.

That makes sense to me, actually.

But I still don't see the connection between this truth and the delusion of manifestation.

I am familiar and comfortable with the feminine as much as I am with the masculine.

1 hour ago, eos_nyxia said:

I assume that I could give it -- I certainly would not. It's a weapon just as much as a tool, and also a curse as much as a gift potentially. People who taught this sort of thing typically vetted people heavily for a reason. A person with a lack of openness and a confrontational attitude surely would not make the cut. Also, assume that it is effective, would it be ethical to hand a person who just opened their eyes for the first time... a gun?

You could give a refined version of it that is only capable of doing good, like curing illnesses and such. And I encourage you to do that. Many people are suffering from terminal illnesses that science fails to cure. You'd be a miracle.

Also, arguing with me would seem like an attempt at the unethical. According to your analogy, you're trying to hand me a gun, and I'm refusing to take it. So, I'm still morally superior here 😌

1 hour ago, eos_nyxia said:

Unless you are free of issues relating to belief and disbelief yourself (or doubt and self doubt), you are probably not in the position to judge meaningfully. Anyone can tell anyone else to do better, while doing and being what themselves, exactly?

I get it. And I didn't mean to be harsh. But you poked me. I only responded to what you said to me.

1 hour ago, eos_nyxia said:

You missed the point of everything I said.  I never asked you to believe me, and I do not care if you do. After all, I have absolutely nothing to lose. Whatever I shared was just for the openminded. You are not; you've made up your mind. Good day.

Good day. And much love.

[Mellowmarsh]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Notice I do not use the M word.

People don’t manifest.People are the manifest. Think backwards to what’s manifesting.