I have been racking my brain for months to go further in depth into the Secrets' philosophy and logical contradictions. I have been interested to see what a lot of people would say about my concerns who are followers of the Secret, and (don't shun) Youtube was one of the places I went.
I have seen the message boards on Oprah's website, and the responses on Youtube are quite similar from the "pro Secret philosophy" vantage point, and the "anti Secret" contributors echo many things said in this thread, which I happen to agree with in most respects, to say the least. The video on Youtube has almost 447,000 views. I am sure I have at least fifty to one hundred of those by watching responses or responding to the video's submitter and followers of the philosophy. My brains hurt by Rhonda Byrne's voice, and what I also found is that most people who answered me gave totally different explanations of the philosophy than what the video submitter (an "expert") contributed, let alone not agreeing with the video itself. Here is one example. I hope you find it helpful and that it sparks a dialog, one that will go beyond these questions to something very informative and clear for people to understand. I want the Secret exposed as the scam it is.
This a discussion from this past week. We are talking about how the universe is impartial and how the Secret views good and evil. I thought the questions raised were interesting, and the answer given is very common in nature to other answers I receive.
I asked why they thought the Secret only works for "good" people.
Thanks for your message. It's interesting what you said. Well, I just was trying to talk from my experience. It worked for me and I was well intentioned. As far as I understand, the secret does not say that good and evil are subjective. It says that there are no "big" or "small" things to achieve for the universe (we are the ones that put prices and adjectives such as "impossible", "unlikely" or "possible"). If something is selfish, it doesn't mean that is evil. Having money is not a bad thing, as long as you don't fool or harm people in order to get it. It says that you can only attract things to you. Only to you, so it is not possible to send bad things to harm others. Therefore, it wouldn't work for bad people.
Why does the universe only respond to positive people? I know the video says positive thoughts (AND FEELINGS) are more powerful than negative ones, but that doesn't erase the negativity that does exist. A Secret Agent (the video submitter) on the Youtube message board said the Secret's philosophy views good and evil as subjective, human "constructs". Under that description the fact cannot be avoided that just as much as you want to attract positive things, those positive things maybe evil to someone else. Saying that the Secret assumes most people are well intentioned does not satisfy this logical problem. The genie in the film could just as well grant horrible things as good. The Secret doesn't want to openly preach about good or evil because religion does that, and they claim to be scientific, not religious. But I don't know how many times I have been told my eyes aren't opened to the Secret, like I am blind to a religious premise. If it is scientific, explain how it works by the scientific method, proven, do not appeal to good and evil, since the philosophy's own views are that those terms are subjective. Some answer good is "easier" to positive power, but remember, the Secret wants to be impartial to that, so they won't admit they cross more religious and ethical boundaries than simply being an "impartial" science based philosophy.
Page 66 of the Youtube message board, by the submitter of the video:
aSecretAgent (1 month ago)
[i:e647e80e4a]The Universe does not operate based on right and wrong, good and evil. These are subjective human constructs. What's evil to you may not be to someone else. The energy field that is the universe responds only to those things that you give your thought and feeling to. Whether you want or 'deserve' those things or not.[/i:e647e80e4a]
Of course they acknowledge good and evil exists, but on a secondary "note" to the law of attraction, and subjective. Has anyone informed you that is not the teaching of the Secret, meaning good and evil are NOT objective to the Secret? And it appears this person does think negativity can be attracted, another term for....evil? Unhappiness? Unfulfilled? Abuse? Yes. It does work for "bad" people, or the philosophy would have to make a definition of good and evil (don't hold your breath for them to do it). As far as "deserving", you attract [b:e647e80e4a]"Everything"[/b:e647e80e4a], a broad and cumbersome term, but the teachers use it like it has all its ends tied. Let's put another twist on this and say that you are also responsible for [i:e647e80e4a]unconscious[/i:e647e80e4a] thoughts and feelings (from Beckwith's own lips). NOW, go and expect 100% reliable and scientific results, see if they come quicker when you use gratitude, that's right, USE, like a tool, a means to an end. No wonder they need so many teachers, try that juggling act of the human psyche and spirit and paste "irreligious science" on it. Personally, I don't think anyone "deserves" the confusion or mental conditioning.
How does one explain victimization according to the Secret (a topic analyzed by this thread repeatedly, bare with me)? I know many people who follow the Secret don't want to victim bash, and are good people, but the philosophy itself lends to holding EVERYTHING in one's own accountability. The Secret promotes this, actually, by the flawed premise that if you control your negativity, you also control your positivity, plus EVERYTHING. How does the adult positive thinker who happens on misfortune attract it? Is that just impossible according to the secret? (The Joe Vitale story on this thread may answer this question in some people's view, but not mine, unless insanity is an ingredient to positive thinking). And the innocent? How does one explain the innocent child being a victim to a horrible crime? The Secret does not teach about a grace period where the law of attraction doesn't apply that coincides with the law of attraction itself.
Page 66 of the Youtube message board:
aSecretAgent (1 month ago)
[i:e647e80e4a]The extent to which this is true in every situation, and how the wishes and desires of others interacts with your own desire is debatable. Clearly, some cards are dealt at birth. The extent to which those things can be improved upon depends on the individual, their belief, the intensity of their desire and the consistency which they apply 'the Secret' regardless of opposing influences. [/i:e647e80e4a]
How are the law of attraction's scientific processes "debatable" (sorry, a stand alone question in the victimization topic)? How are cards dealt at birth if the law of attraction is constant and impartial? When does it come into your life, what age, what power of thinking vibration, can you scientifically prove your answer?
And can you go into more detail how complex rational or irrational emotions and feelings correspond to a precise, scientific universe, more specific than "emitting + and - energy waves", and tie it in with spiritual feelings or emotions? And the human subconscious thoughts and feelings, you are holding people accountable for all this, please explain.
Merciless, not an inkling of mercy if the universe is impartial. NOW, I have heard that the universe must AGREE with your request, but doesn't that make the universe partial and biased, more like a type of God? Also, some explanations claim people don't deserve misfortune even though they attract it. But why is that the exception when everything positive you [i:e647e80e4a]do[/i:e647e80e4a] attract? Doesn't it work both ways? If deserving and attracting are that much at odds, how is the philosophy reliable? AND, I have heard claims that some events are random, but then how can you know of your results of applying the secret if things can be random? The philosophy says the universe is precise and unbiased, all that spaceship talk by Bob Proctor (ugh), not accommodating and hit and miss (The Secret stumbles in plain view).
The Secret says. "[i:e647e80e4a]Yes, you may be a victim of something in the past. But it is in the past and it cannot be changed, so do not dwell on the misfortunes of the past. Look to any past misfortune in the most positive possible way so that you may learn from it. Do not let past injustices lead to helplessness, hopelessness, victim hood, despair, negativity, depression, anger, guilt, shame, or revenge. These things perpetuate the cycle of misery and violence. Think positive optimistic thoughts because you cannot change the past; you can only change the future. Positive thoughts lead to positive emotions, which lead to positive actions eventually leading to positive experiences. This formula not only creates positive results for you, but it will infect everyone you meet. You are not to blame for everything bad that happens, but dwelling on negative past experiences leads to depression, anger, and violence. So change the way you think, feel, and act and change your future.[/i:e647e80e4a]"
A doctored way of victim bashing and not addressing the law of attraction as a culprit of it. Positive thoughts cannot always remove trauma that can get in the way of positive thinking in the first place. I will not go into mental health malpractice, suffice to say I think the philosophy is guilty of it, or at least causing people to be susceptible to critical thinking impairment, at most crimes against humanity.
The Youtube video submitter on victim bashing, page 65 of the video comments box:
[i:e647e80e4a]It's an area that few of the 'Teachers' agree on, and it leads to the contentious 'blame the victim' mentality which most people (myself included) object to. Some 'Teachers' take the hard line that 'yes all victims attract their trauma to them'. And while they do NOT mean that victims 'deserve' it, it's not something we at the Secret embrace.[/i:e647e80e4a]
The Teachers don't agree on it?!.....Again, deserving and attracting, has the equivocation and semantics game done you in yet? Then I don't deserve certain "positive" things as well? This attempt to fudge or downplay the fallacies in the philosophy by language are slick and deceiving. This same person said the methods and advertising of the Secret "appear" to be materialistic so they can get their foot in the door. Appear? IT IS materialistic, no matter how much you want to make sequels on more intrinsic matters, or how the Secret talks about relationships and healing near the middle and end. It's a tactic, not a testament.
One more question. You said you can't "send bad things to hurt others", implying perhaps that you couldn't send positive things to help others? In the David Schirmer section of the film, he got checks in the mail by thinking positive. How did he receive those letters if he didn't create in another's reality, assuming a blue genie didn't give them to him? And from what I hear, and by what David himself said, how he did get those checks wasn't all that "positive" in nature, but I guess that is subjecti....
Page 65 of the Youtube video:
a Secret Agent: "[i:e647e80e4a]Ok the standard line is that 'you can't create in someone else's reality'. If we're talking about a form of mind control over someone else, this would be impossible without the other person being a vibrational match to what you are seeking (just as it's impossible to hypnotise a subject who is not "suggestive"). THEORETICALLY, if you wanted this, focused on it, remained on the emotional frequency of this desire, you would eventually attract a 'subject' who is on the same frequency.[/i:e647e80e4a]
How can you not create in someone else's reality if you CAN by being a vibrational match? Applied to the law of attraction, follow if you will where victim bashing could lead from this line of thought, or guilt feelings, or taking responsibility of something you are not, EVEN if the "teachers" don't want it to come across that way. "Apparently you were on the same vibration, you deserve it." Also, magic thinking versus critical thinking (discussed in the forum already). The film uses other people to achieve one's desire all the time, the grandpa didn't get his "reality created into" by the grandson for that bike?
Please look deeper into the fallacies, don't just call me a negative person. And I am [b:e647e80e4a]not[/b:e647e80e4a] sorry we don't agree. I despise the crook Rhonda Byrne.
It is a lengthy response, but I had time to reflect, and it doesn't come close to raising more questions about other fallacies. And does it not leave any room to add more, better, clarified information on the scam, the Secret? Please respond.
I won't be surprised if the comments on Youtube are taken down by the video submitter, hopefully the video too (wishful thinking). If not, then address the fallacies. I am amazed at how many relevant topics to the Secrets' philosophy can be discussed which aren't even present in Secrets' explanation of the law of attraction. Even if you think you can give reasonable answers to these questions, the movie doesn't, and it is totally irresponsible to humanity for it. Oprah, you have made a mess by being the major catalyst, please fix it.
I have been called "negative" so many times for asking questions about these responses (another phenomenon discussed in this forum). I just want scientific answers that don't tell me my eyes are blinded. Blinded to the scientific method? NO, no no, prove it without the spiritualism you claim isn't religious. The quantum mechanics PhD that has been mentioned before in this forum isn't enough, people. And the explanation of science and the Secret on Oprah's website is not enough either. Here it is, see if it is in depth enough, see if it doesn't sound like a children's book:
LGATs use these "Secret" manipulations quite often, and some use the DVD and book of The Secret as religiously as one can get. I used Youtube to contact the presidential candidates of the United States to take legal action against LGAT's in the form of mental therapy and health malpractice legislation and reformation. I won't make any jokes about "thinking positive" about it, so I'll just fudge the language and say I'm optimistic.