Practically everyone will agree on the importance of truth. Depending on the field of study, however, the margin of error for acceptable variations in the objectivity of truth will vary to some degree. In fields such as history, it is generally accepted that truth is subjective to the interpretation of the victors. Political truth is viewed by most as an oxymoron. Religious truth is a topic best avoided, particularly due to the divergence of belief systems and the emotional attachment, and in many cases, zeal, that so many have invested in their spiritual ideologies. Scientific truth is generally viewed as authoritative, barring any conflicting religious beliefs that may introduce a dichotomous uncertainty as to which institutions version of truth is correct. For those who have come to an understanding, through individual research and study, that all societal institutions have been infiltrated by a small group of power elite that have used the inherent flaws of pyramidal, hierarchical design systems to influence the truths that we take for granted in all fields, finding objectivity in truth becomes an even more daunting task. Among individuals who can agree that groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergs can unduly influence the institutional paradigms that lie underneath them, there can be disagreement about certain specifics that are not often agreed upon, even within so-called conspiracy circles. One of these divergences is the interpretation of The Law of Attraction. Generally speaking, everyone will agree that this spiritual law is designed to explain the outcomes one attains in life based on the thought processes that precede them. Simply stated: you get what you think. However, despite the simplicity of the aforementioned maxim, there are nuances to consider in its interpretation. In one interpretation, the law of attraction is responsible for everything that happens in and individuals life, and collectively, in society. The more an individual engages negative thoughts and focuses on negative outcomes (and some would go as far as to suggest, even focusing on the possibility of such outcomes), the more that person affects the quantum potentialities of manifesting these outcomes in favor of negative scenarios. Another version acknowledges the importance of our thoughts in determining the direction and course with which one carries out certain actions, but does not respect the consideration that merely thinking about potential negative events will drive events towards such a result. This divergence is important as it relates to truth, because if the first interpretation is correct, then truth plays second fiddle to the importance of the focus on positivity; whereas if the second alternative is correct, then truth is more important than the effects that such truths may have on ones emotional states. Rather than viewing the law of attraction within the framework of a false dichotomy, one can interpret the law of attraction in a way that respects both presented viewpoints. Informed optimism would accomplish such a merger. An individual can be aware of reality, and be well-grounded in the palpable truths that confront them in actuality, without allowing his or her thought processes to become infected with a negative outlook. However, there does come a point where one must decide, in considering information that relates to promised positive outcomes, whether such material is more skewed towards truth or hope. The important question to consider in such a scenario is: Does the benefit of believing in potentially false, yet positive, information outweigh the harm that disbelief would cause, if the information were later found to be true? If the answer is yes, then one can, at the very least, entertain the possibility of truth to be found within the information. If the answer is no, then the outcome of a persons actions will be based on their interpretation of the law of attraction. In cases where someone is adamantly devoted to the idea that indulging even a false belief will result in a positive outcome, that individual will simply believe in anything that is positive. In the situation, however, where a person believes that deviating from truth, even if only for the musings of entertaining potentially false hope, would actually hurt the quantum probability of manifesting such a desired outcome, then that person will be more likely to refuse to engage in such a belief. Ultimately, the question of what to believe and what not to believe must be answered at the individual level. In the final analysis, assuming an individuals sincerity of positive intent, some will support all positive beliefs regardless of their truth; while others will support all truths, regardless of the emotional outcomes of such a decision (with gradations in between these possibilities).
Posted on: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:14:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015