Prosperity Engine — Update — Misguided Logic of the Skeptics, and How Hollywood Gets Spirituality All Wrong
Skeptics like to point out certain narrow forms of logic to dismiss this kind of work. They tend to use “name calling” and other logical fallacies to ridicule such ideas. Thus, miracles and the Law of Attraction are “woo” philosophy—a pejorative term of flaccid dismissal. These tactics work really well with the weak-minded and the intellectually blind. What their brazen ridicule actually says about them is that they imply for themselves an omniscience that the facts don’t support. They claim to “know” that such things are impossible, but don’t know everything in the universe. See the problem?
Quite often, such skeptics will suggest alternate explanations about an event as if to say that their explanation proves the supernatural explanation is wrong. While they may be right to condemn the Divine Fallacy when believers ignore logic, they are revealing their own lack of logic and critical thinking when they use the Natural Fallacy (opposite of the Divine Fallacy).
The original purpose of skepticism was to keep scientists from jumping to the easiest conclusion before they had all the facts on a topic. And since having “all” the facts means gaining the omniscience of God Himself, scientists need to hold any and all conclusions as “temporary” or “tentative” because of that lack of omniscience. This does not mean that science cannot find useful answers or “relative truths;” it does mean, however, that skeptics should not dismiss so easily things for which they have insufficient evidence, or insufficient creative imagination.
What remains truly sad is that some people with extremely high IQs can prove their own stupidity by remaining blindly certain of their conclusions. They use logical fallacies to bolster their ideas, but don’t see their own perversion of logic. Their alternate ideas for why something may have happened may be true, but they never take the time, or do the work to prove their hypothesis, or to disprove the hypotheses of others. Read that last line again; it’s critical to understanding the weakness of the skeptics’ frequent arguments. They use Appeal to the Stone to “prove” their assertions, using what I’ve called “unsupported dismissiveness.” It’s like they’re saying, “Well, the stone doesn’t disagree with me, so I must be right.”
Clever ideas are not necessarily proof. This should be obvious, but millions of self-described “skeptics” don’t realize their own weaknesses. They are not sufficiently self-skeptical.
But skepticism is itself an imperfect tool for discovery. When you understand why this is so, it becomes painfully obvious that nearly the entire planet is suffering from intellectual blindness. So, this is no trivial problem.
Scientific method declares that the observer (researcher, scientist) needs to give up all bias. But if we look up the definition of “skepticism,” we immediately see the heavily negative bias of “doubt” in both key definitions. Doubt may work to counteract the positive bias of youthful enthusiasm, but it rarely works to counteract the positive bias of a senior scientist whose ego has grown sufficiently large to blind their own self awareness and humility.
The far better paradigm for scientific discovery is the dynamic duo of restraint and humility. But too often ego loves to quash the viewpoints of “lesser minds.” Thus, we get some scientists making regular use of “self-indulgent ridicule”—an Ad Hominem logical fallacy. Ridicule has no place in science, and it reveals in the person who uses it a dark evil in their hearts. Yes, I’ve been there and done that. So, I’m as guilty as the rest of them. But being guilty in the past does not mean we’re stuck there. Yet, ego tends to stick people to an idea so they cannot let go.
We know that the Law of Attraction sometimes works. What interests us is how do we increase the percentage of time that it does work? The self-certain skeptics will never investigate this question, or approach it honestly. They can’t. They’ve crippled themselves with arrogant certainty—a conviction which blinds them to contrary evidence.
And we can improve our chance of improving on the application of things like the Law of Attraction by understanding more deeply how it works.
To handle skeptics and their logical fallacies, we need to become more fully aware of the various kinds of logical fallacies and how they can be used. Once we have this knowledge, our best approach is to point out the logical fallacy and to return the discussion to the topic.
Inaccuracies in the Self-Help Industry
[image error]Quantum reality represented by a fractal graphic. Image: #1280084_1920 Insspirito (CC0) Pixabay.
This is an “industry,” and as such requires a steady flow of funds to keep each business afloat. Therefore, the practitioners of this industry tend to use the latest buzz words to keep people flocking to their doors (or internet portals). Sorry, but I don’t need the money that much. I’m not going to stoop to making my approach all about the latest fashion. I’m after the truth. I will use buzz words to attract attention, but my lesson will be one of finding the proper context, rather than blindly following the “spirit is a frequency” or “spirit is energy” memes.
Is quantum mechanics involved in this work? Of course it is! Anything in the physical universe uses quantum mechanics merely to exist. But are quantum-level processes directly involved in attracting the things we desire? That I don’t know. But “quantum” is not the entire answer. Spirit is non-physical and thus is not “quantum” anything.
Even so, we need to keep in mind that all “truths” are “relative truths,” except those facts that make the object or condition disappear. So, there is some imperfection in everything we say. Yet, we make progress despite the imperfections—and perhaps even because of them.
Prosperity Engine Error Avoidance and Hollywood’s Frequent Goofs
[image error]The late Vincent Schiavelli as the “subway ghost” in the movie, Ghost. Copyright Paramount Pictures.
We can’t use Hollywood movies as our basis for understanding the universe and especially not for understanding spirit and spiritual action (miracles).
A prime example of this can be found in the motion picture, Ghost (1990), with Patrick Swayze (1952–2009), Demi Moore (1962–) and Whoopi Goldberg (1955–). In that movie, a subway ghost, played by Vincent Schiavelli (1948–2005), teaches the newly dead Sam Wheat (Swayze) how to move physical objects. He says that we have to build up all our hate and passion deep down inside and let it explode outward. Here’s the dialogue from that scene:
“It’s all in your mind. The problem with you is you still think you’re real. You think you’re wearing those clothes? You think you’re crouched on that floor? Bullsh*t! You ain’t got a body no more, son. It’s all up here, now,” pointing to his own head, “You want to move something, you gotta move it with your mind. You gotta focus. You hear what I’m saying?”
“How? How do you do you focus?”
“I don’t know how you focus. You just focus.” The subway ghost knocks a bottle cap several meters.
“How’d you do that?”
“You gotta take all your emotions. All your anger. All your love. All your hate. And push it way down here in the pit of your stomach,” pointing to his abdomen, “and let it explode like a reactor.”
While it’s wrong that the elder ghost points to his head and his stomach, because he no longer has a human body, the lesson is even more wrong, because spiritual action does not occur by effort or strong emotions; it occurs by the superior perfection of confidence and humility, the combination of which is called “faith.”
The Hollywood Zeus Idea, Clogging Up the Prosperity Engine
[image error]A Hollywood-like version of Zeus, holding lightning bolts in his right hand. Photo: #4912734 Travelspot (CC0) Pixabay.
Every movie I’ve ever seen which had some form of mind-over-matter ability, got it wrong in one fashion or another.
The idea of Zeus sitting on Olympus consciously throwing lightning bolts is a bit misleading. I have no doubt that we can develop our skill so that it looks that effortless and seamless.
Spiritual action is always effortless, but early on we need to sneak up on the accomplishment. The reason for this counterintuitive requirement involves the nature of creation and persistence.
Creation is easy. We each do it all the time. Quite often, we don’t realize what we are creating, for it occurs in the darkness the subconscious. But the really tricky part involves giving that creation persistence; and this requires the deeper, apparent oblivion of “Not-Know.”
A god levitating, or some mortal suddenly imbued with godlike powers, looks simple in the movies. The god or powerful mortal merely thinks something, waves a hand (or a wand) and the thing suddenly happens.
When people are successful using the Law of Attraction, the active ingredient of effortless “Not-Know” is hidden by the powerful feeling of gratitude, or some other positive emotion which elicits in the true spiritual self a request (prayer) that is always answered in the affirmative and always instantly. Any apparent delay is merely a product of the exact specifics of the request.
Without this deeper understanding, no one is going to be doing the Zeus-lightning bolt trick any time soon, unless it’s through computer-generated imagery.
Lucy and the Evolution of the Physical Self
[image error]Actress Scarlett Johansson, who played the title role in Lucy. Photo: Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 3.0).
In the 2014 film, Lucy, Scarlett Johansson’s character uses some drug to evolve into a superhuman who can break the laws of physical reality to time travel and other nifty tricks. That’s like having someone use a giant lever to move a car, but both the lever and the fulcrum reside inside the car. Oops! That isn’t going to work; a lever and fulcrum need to be outside the object being moved. A physical being cannot bend or break the laws of physical reality.
The movie, Lucy, gets a failing grade for poor logic. Only spirit can bend or break physical law, because spirit resides on the only truly “permanent” platform—the realm of spirit.
Like Christ said, a house built on sand will not last. Depending on physical reality is like building on sand.
Lex Luthor Logical Fallacies
[image error]Actor Jesse Eisenberg, who played Lex Luthor in Batman v Superman. Photo: Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 3.0).
In an earlier article, we already looked at the Hollywood habit of atheism and using poor logic to bolster that viewpoint. In the 2016 film, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Superman’s arch enemy, Lex Luthor, utters a clever jab at God, but his words are full of faulty reasoning.
To recap, Lex Luthor said, “If God is all-powerful, he cannot be all good. And if he is all good, then he cannot be all-powerful.”
To the self-assured atheist, this may seem like a slam dunk—unavoidable logic which proves God cannot exist. But the logic is shallow and fractured. It assumes things about God and His purpose which have never been proven.
What humans declare to be good does not necessarily match what God declares to be good. Atheists will frequently point to the reality of suffering as proof that God doesn’t exist. We see this as a theme in many Hollywood (and other) movies. In the thought-provoking, 2020, Irish-European production, Marionette, the flawed protagonist rails against belief in God, because the Heavenly Father hadn’t stepped in to prevent the death of her late husband.
One of the primary methods of learning is through stress. One of the primary motivations to get people off their butts, in order to learn, is some stressful event.
God only cares about these Homo sapiens bodies to the degree that they help His true children—the ones who look like Him—mature to the point where they can be like Him—fully awake, non-physical, timeless beings with the ability to create. Thus, Noah’s Flood was an act of love, protecting the purpose for his non-physical—non-human!—children.
Dr. Strange and Dormammu
[image error]Actor Benedict Cumberbatch, who played the title role in Dr. Strange. Photo: Prishank Thapa (CC BY 2.0).
In the 2016 film, Dr. Strange, the title character, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, learns of a Dark Dimension, ruled by a horrid, but powerful being named Dormammu. Dr. Strange also learns that the Dark Dimension is timeless, and thus “evil.”
Well, this is flat out backwards. The timeless realm is the half of reality known as the “spiritual.” Time is the “soft” evil that makes persistence possible. And time is created by shirking responsibility for a creation. This is why a problem or conflict persists—no one has yet discovered the truth. The moment the truth of a conflict is discovered, the conflict ceases to exist. And this is why a hidden third party can keep two nations or individuals constantly at war with one another. Time—persistence—is built on the lie of irresponsibility.
We can use this fact to help us make prosperity persist, but that becomes a double-edged sword, in a manner of speaking. If we become attached to the persisting prosperity, we become trapped by it. That weakens us, and our Prosperity Engine sputters to a halt.
Instead, we need to ride the crest of the wave—never becoming the wave.
Prosperity Engine Progress
[image error]An artist’s impression of what a terraformed Mars would look like from space. Image: Daein Ballard (CC-BY-SA 3.0).
I seem to be getting the most traction—both emotionally and spiritually from my new, empowering question (one I mentioned a few days ago):
How would the Rod Martin of galactic exploration, terraforming Mars and worldwide InDyn University campuses act and feel today?
Of course, my goals are likely very different from your own, but let’s look at what works with this question.
Remember the Virgo Supercluster Emperor Identity exercise a few days ago? If you didn’t yet read that article on energy, I recommend you do.
That exercise was inspired by a scene from the television series, Person of Interest, where the rich protagonist, Harold Finch (Michael Emerson), holds a minor position, in one episode, as a programmer in the company he owns. What better way to see how things work in your own company than to work incognito as a low-level employee. It also looks like good exercise for developing our own humility. In that television series, also starring Jim Caviezel as former Green Beret and CIA agent, John Reese, Finch had been thought killed in a false flag terrorist attack by the American government to eliminate all outside knowledge of their secret surveillance program using a superior artificial intelligence, created by Finch, allegedly to prevent another 9/11 from occurring. Ironically, we now know that 9/11 itself was a false flag joint operation by the American Deep State, possibly Israeli Mossad and other players.
Now imagine you achieving your own, long-range goals. And imagine your future, successful self using a time machine to come back to the present. But instead of inhabiting the body of your older self, the future persona invades your current, younger body, taking over full operation of not only the body, but also conscious thought. What is useful about this concept is that the question triggers us to consider that future viewpoint. It triggers in us the possibility that we already know how it is done, and that our future self, coexisting in our current body brought all those exciting memories back with him. However, the details of those memories are not nearly as important as the viewpoint of “done.” After all, insisting on specific actions or paths toward a goal may foul up our success in getting there. But the attitude that it is “done” will help us see the best actions to take along the way, even if foreknowledge foils the effectiveness of some of those formerly successful details.
One of the things I like most about this empowering question is the sense of removing “importance” or “scarcity” from the long-range goals mentioned in the question. The goals are no longer impossibly huge, because they’re done. This is not delusion (because our awareness is still firmly planted in the present reality), but our attention is firmly planted in that future possibility. Thus, this is not delusion, but instead creation. Does this ensure our success? It could, but we could change our mind, along the way, through simple decision or through clumsy incompetence. And my bet would be on selfish incompetence, but both remain possibilities. Yet, success is still a possibility. And that’s why your author is still working on his own Prosperity Engine.
Coming Up Next
In next week’s article, we take a break from the theoretical to look at what a fully operational engine looks like.
And, in an upcoming article, we look at “Toxic Importance,” and how two people can do exactly the same actions, but get remarkably different results. It all hinges on the attitude presented to spirit, for that is what governs the content of the prayer.
