If you constantly think negative thoughts or negative outcomes, are you ultimately just wishing bad luck on yourself?
In other words, are you just inviting trouble?
share
No. That is nonsense.
😎
MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > If you constantly think negative thought...
I know someone like that and yes, her life is a mess and she is a disaster magnet. Everything is negative with her.
shareThe "Law of Attraction" is untrue and also has roots in Satanism.
shareI have not read it, so I cannot comment.
shareIts basically the same principle of what you mentioned. Negative thoughts,words will manifest negative outcomes while positive thoughts/words will manifest positive outcomes in your life.
The focus is more about "speaking things into existence or into your reality" rather than avoiding negative thoughts although that is part of it.
The Law of Attraction doesn't have roots in Satanism. It has roots in Theosophy and the 19th Century New Thought Movement, which itself has its roots in Eastern philosophy. Similar ideas can be found in the Vedic traditions. There are schools of Mahayana Buddhism in particular that have ideas quite similar to The Law of Attraction, although usually with a more complex basis in karmic law and dharma - which seems to be lacking in the New Age, Western version.
You're right that - in whatever form - it's untrue though.
Helena Blavatsky was one of the early proponents of new thought and is considered the "mother of the new age movement", she apparently coined the term "LOA" while also being known as a Luciferian occultist. She was also publisher of "Lucifer" magazine. Anton Levey who founded the Church of Satan was also quoted as saying that most New Age philosophy is "playing the Devil´s game without using his infernal name".
You are correct that it may have even older roots in Eastern philosophy but the fact that it has been co-opted and brought to the west by the mother of the New Age movement who was also a Satanist is eye-opening.
She wasn't a Satanist though, was she? She was a Luciferian. It's not the same thing. The New Thought Movement folk were principally interested in the pre-Christian (Egyptian) figure of Lucifer. 'The Bearer of Light'. The Morning Star. Venus.
Blavatsky had a hodge-podge of beliefs from throughout history and around the world. It was an attempt at religious syncretism. It was bollocks, and it remains bollocks in its New Age forms down to this day. It's the worst kind of spiritual tourism - but it wasn't Satanic.
'Anton Levey who founded the Church of Satan was also quoted as saying that most New Age philosophy is "playing the Devil´s game without using his infernal name".'
And psssst, Anton LaVey was not a Satanist in any meaningful sense either. He was a materialist. He didn't believe in the supernatural. The 'Church' he founded is atheistic. He was a guy who'd read a bit of Frederick Neitzche and some Ayn Rand and developed some proto-fascistic ideas into a sort of stupid frat-boy joke. 'Tee hee hee, let's tell 'em all we worship Satan. Aren't we clever little contrarians?'
But all this is probably by the bye. We're both agreed that the Law of Attraction doesn't work. And I think we're both agreed that Helena Blavatsky and Anton LaVey were quite foolish individuals.
Blavatsky definitely was a Satanist. In her book, "the secret doctrine", she glorifies and praises Satan over 100 times calling him, "the one true God and the saviour of humanity". She also equates Lucifer, "the harbinger of light" as being Satan (the serpent of Genesis) in this book. Another quote from her book, says "Lucifer is divine and terrestrial light, the "Holy Ghost", and Satan at one and the same time".
RE: Lavey. I mean the guy founded the Church of Satan and called himself one. I don´t know what kind of strict criteria you use for one to qualify as a Satanist, but he has done enough in my book. By the way being non-theistic and being a Satanist, aren´t mutually exclusive.
His beliefs differ from Blavatsky´s, in that, she worshipped Satan as a personal being while Lavey worshipped what he represented. Both are forms of Satanism though.
The 'Church' he founded is atheistic. He was a guy who'd read a bit of Frederick Neitzche
Nietzsche had NOTHING to do with whatever these other people do. Because his MADMAN was telling people that they needed to become GODS themselves (meaning they need to GROW UP and take responsibility for what they do themselves instead of having a FATHER telling them what to do).
http://engage.universityresources.org/sites/default/files/courses_files/watkin/Nietzsche_-_Parable_of_the_Madman.pdf
>>Must we ourselves not become gods
CAMUS said the same kind of thing when he points out how instead of expecting to be REWARDED or PUNISHED in another life for doing the right thing (or for NOT doing it), we should simply DO IT because it's the RIGHT thing to do (without wanting a REWARD or expecting PUNISHMENT if we don't).
That's what NIETZSCHE means about becoming GODS ourselves. Taking responsibility for what we do instead of needing GUIDANCE all of the time from a FATHER FIGURE.
This is also made evident in "THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA" where he says as APE is to MAN, so shall MAN be to the OVERMAN.
1. APE
2. MAN
3. OVERMAN
Then people PERVERTED that idea and turned it into some kind of SUPERMAN philosophy when basically this is pretty much the SAME thing as what FREUD said:
1. ID
2. EGO
3. SUPEREGO
And it's also MADE CLEAR that one doesn't become an OVERMAN in the scene where MAN walks a TIGHTROPE to try to get OVER to the OTHER SIDE of it to become the OVER MAN. But before he can get there out comes the little APE who LEAPS OVER TOP of the MAN and beats him OVER to the OTHER SIDE.
In other words, we CAN NEVER OVERCOME ourselves to become some kind of a SUPERMAN creature, but can only MORPH back and FORTH from one state to the other due to the NATURE of what it means to be HUMAN.
So if these others read NIETZSCHE and CONCLUDE that he shares their VIEWS, then they're also very much MISTAKEN.
Also NOTE how the OLD TESTY FATHER FIGURE (EYE for an EYE/TOOTH for a tooth philosophy) falls into the same position as the APE and the ID:
1. FATHER
2. SON
3. HOLY SPIRIT
Whereas the SON (Turn the other CHEEK philosophy) falls into the same category as MAN and the EGO.
So you've also got this kind of a situation instead of one where one ever OVER COMES oneself to become some kind of an OVERMAN creature:
1. THESIS
2. ANTI THESIS
3. SYNTHESIS
And the SYNTHESIS STATE is also a TWILIGHT STATE where one doesn't remain for very long before one MORPHS right back into one of the other 2 STATES of BEING again (the same way as the DAY and NIGHT also MORPH back into those STATES again after they achieve an in between TWILIGHT STATE).
And that's also what the ANCIENT GREEKS realized when they worshiped the SUN GOD and the MOON GOD:
APOLLO (The SUN GOD): GOD OF ORDER, HARMONY, BALANCE
DIONYSIS (The MOON GOD): GOD of DISORDER, DISHARMONY, CHAOS and UNBALANCE
But too much ORDER also leads to STAGNATION, and the NEED for DISORDER or for CHANGE.
In other words, "STAYING SENSIBLE" or "POSITIVE" ALL of the TIME becomes just as TEDIOUS as WORKING all of the TIME without ever taking a VACATION or having any kind of PLAY TIME or BREAK TIME.
share
'His beliefs differ from Blavatsky´s, in that, she worshipped Satan as a personal being while Lavey worshipped what he represented. Both are forms of Satanism though.'
They're not. I've already explained why not. I'll repeat it only fleetingly: Blavatsky was a syncreticist and LaVey was an atheist. The 'Satan' she talked about was a syncretic entity drawn from her own reading and, in a sense, her own invention. She might as well have been worshipping a tea cup and calling it Beelzebub for all her Lucifer had to do with the evil Satan of Christian mythology.
I don't think I'm imposing strict criteria in suggesting one has to believe in the worship of Satan to be a Satanist.
'By the way being non-theistic and being a Satanist, aren´t mutually exclusive.'
Of course they are. Unless you're a fundamentalist Christian who ultimately believes that all religions - and non-religions - other than your own special brand are ultimately the devil's work, it helps to take a more secular and academic view of people's belief systems.
But evidently we aren't going to agree on basic definitions, so the conversation becomes futile.
I agree that Blavatsky melded different forms of beliefs and practices into her own belief system but being a (syncreticist) does not exclude her from being a Satanist especially when she A: created a magazine called Lucifer, B: believed that Lucifer and Satan were the same being and C: praised Satan over a 100 times in her book.
- "By the way being non-theistic and being a Satanist, aren´t mutually exclusive."
- "Of course they are. "
Actually they are not. And having overlapping beliefs with other religions does not exclude you from being one either, as you seem to think. Satanism can include both theistic and atheistic Satanists. Your very narrow definition of Satanism seems to suggest that Satanists are strictly "devil worshippers" which is not the case at all.
"She might as well have been worshipping a tea cup and calling it Beelzebub for all her Lucifer had to do with the evil Satan of Christian mythology."
I literally just told you that Blavatsky equated Lucifer with the serpent in Genesis. Seems like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
Seems like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
Not at all. In fact, last time I said this:
But evidently we aren't going to agree on basic definitions, so the conversation becomes futile.
which most people would take as a signal that the conversation had been exhausted. I wasn't anticipating a further response - so if anyone is guilty of wanting to argue for the sake of arguing, it isn't me.
We aren't going to agree. We'll leave it at that. share
I am curious to hear your definition of what a Satanist is since you appear to reject mainstream definitions and apparently have a "secular and more academic" view of belief systems. So please if you could enlighten, this "less academic, religious person", I would be grateful.
shareI don't reject mainstream definitions and it's highly disingenuous of you to claim that. But I've already taken this two replies further than it should have gone.
Again: We aren't going to agree. And this time we really will leave it at that. Or at least I will.
"Highly disingenuous of me". lol. There are two mainstream definitions of Satanism both theistic and non but you reject at least one of these so I dont think Im being "disingenuous" at all but it seems clear you want to run away with your tail between your legs, which is fine by me.
Have a good day.
I think it works both ways. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
shareSensible.
shareI don't know if constantly thinking negative thoughts or negative outcomes is just inviting trouble, but I do think it's inviting failure. Consider a very good athlete who would like to be in the Olympics but frequently thinks, "I can't do it." He'll train less hard than others, will sometimes skip his morning run if the weather is bad, and so won't reach his full potential and won't make it.
share>>a very good athlete who would like to be in the Olympics but frequently thinks, "I can't do it." He'll train less hard than others
Here's an ARTICLE that explains WHY it's just the OPPOSITE where an OLYMPIC CHAMP WINS by thinking NEGATIVE instead of POSTITIVE thoughts (which can lead to having too much OVER CONFIDENCE and not trying hard enough):
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/323577
WHY THINKING NEGATIVELY ISN'T ALWAYS a BAD THING
we're often urged to "look on the bright side," but this advice isn't helpful for most people.
In fact, it's self-defeating.
When people think negatively, they're likely to convert their anxiety into action. Negative people are well-aware that they could fail, so they may take more time preparing for possible worst-case scenarios.
This research was enough to get people intentionally thinking more negatively.
if you tell a defensive pessimist to visualize failure before they throw darts at a board, they're more likely to perform positively. On the other hand, if you ask strategic optimists to do the same, they'll perform worse
Not all mindsets are created equally. There's a downside to positive thinking. One serious enough that it might convince you to ditch optimism altogether
In other words, those who TRAIN MORE are the ones with NEGATIVE THOUGHTS who fear they're going to FAIL.
share
thought of this thread while listening to the very good new episode of the always excellent econtalk podcast, which is an interview with johan hari about his new book on depression.
https://www.econtalk.org/johann-hari-on-lost-connections/
in particular this section stood out to me. maybe it won't mean anything to anyone else, but it kinda meant something to me.
And, the local doctors, the Cambodians, were like, 'Well, what are chemical antidepressants?' They'd never heard of them. 'What are antidepressants?' they said. And so, he explained. And, they said to him, 'Oh, we don't need them. We've already got antidepressants.' And, he was like, 'Well, what do you mean?' He thought they were going to talk about some kind of herbal remedy.
Russ Roberts: Leaves. Some tree leaf they chew on. Yeah.
Johann Hari: Exactly. Instead, they told him a story. There was a farmer in their community who worked in the rice fields. And, one day, he stood on a landmine and he got his leg blown off. So, they gave him an artificial limb. They're good at that in Cambodia. And, after a while, he went back to work in the rice fields.
But, apparently, it's extraordinarily painful to work underwater when you've got an artificial limb. And, I'm guessing it was fairly traumatic to go and work in the field where the guy got blown up. He started to cry a lot. After a while, he just was crying so much he couldn't get out of bed. He had what we would call classic depression. This is when the Cambodian doctor said to Dr. Summerfield, 'Well, that's when we gave him an antidepressant.' And, he said, 'What was it?'
They explained that they went and sat with him. They listened to him. They realized that his pain made sense. Only had to spent five minutes with the guy to see why he was so upset. One of the doctors figured, 'If we bought this guy a cow, he could become a dairy farmer. He wouldn't be in this position that was screwing him up so much.' So, they bought him a cow.
Within a couple of weeks, his crying stopped. Within a month, his depression was gone. It never came back. They said to Dr. Summerfield, 'So, you see doctor, that cow, that was an antidepressant. That's what you mean, right?' Now, if you've been raised to think about depression the way we have, that sounds like a joke. 'I went to my doctor, because I was depressed. She gave me a cow.' Sounds ludicrous. But, what those Cambodian doctors knew intuitively from this individual and unscientific anecdote, is what the leading medical body in the world, the World Health Organization [WHO], has been trying to say for years: If you're depressed, if you're anxious, your pain makes sense. And, the most effective strategy is to deal with the underlying causes of that pain.
the most effective strategy is to deal with the underlying causes of that pain.
But there are also cases where nothing can be done about the CAUSE of the PAIN, except for maybe give someone PAIN PILLS (which can also lead to even more problems or more trouble for them than they had before they took pills to try to relieve their pain).
My niece, for instance, has MD, and has a SHUNT in her body, so that she can get injected with medication that doesn't solve the problem, but only temporarily relives the symptoms of it.
And buying her a COW or something else to keep her occupied also isn't going to do anything to change her situation. So what she does is PRETEND to be HAPPY around other people, which makes her that much more MISERABLE, and then she also cries in her room by herself, rather than being HONEST with others (except for me) about how miserable she's really feeling.
🐮
share
I think this is more a case of the typical misunderstanding of depression vs depression. "underlying causes" are not often as clearly circumscribed, and sometimes not identifiable at all. Some might be crying before they lost the limb, and for reasons they may not know. Something might be baked in. How do you deal with that? Some wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning, but it sticks for reasons we don't yet understand. I don't say this in support of drugs over things like CBT or changing circumstances -- but I think the picture is often more confounding than that example.
shareI think the picture is often more confounding than that example.
I agree.
All too often we're way too WILLING to assume that something is so, without ever being willing to EXPLORE the matter in much MORE DEPTH and DETAIL, in order to see whether or not our ASSUMPTION regarding some matter might be a MISTAKE.
🎃
share
i don't think the author was saying it's always as easy as 'talk to the guy, fix his problem.'
and i definitely don't think that.
if you haven't, i'd encourage you to listen and/or read the entire interview (it's all in the link above). it's really interesting.
I will, but it's hard not to think that after reading the last paragraph of what you posted.
"But, what those Cambodian doctors knew intuitively from this individual and unscientific anecdote, is what the leading medical body in the world, the World Health Organization [WHO], has been trying to say for years: If you're depressed, if you're anxious, your pain makes sense. And, the most effective strategy is to deal with the underlying causes of that pain."
I don't see this example as a eureka parable from a different culture. I live in the US, and of course this person would be asked about this event, and his prosthetic leg, his physical pain, as well as any other stressful event or life change from the usual suspects (death, loss of job, divorce, etc). They wouldn't bypass that and just drug him up. "What's been going on with you?" is always the first question. A low dose of an antidepressant/anxiety med, as well as CBT exercises, might be prescribed as well, to help you get through in the meantime, but a strategy to change circumstances would be plotted as well (most are not as easy shifting to a cow job). All I'm saying is that this seems to conflate the "can't get out of bed" thing with a clear reason that makes perfect sense -- but this guy doesn't have a depressive "disorder." The person who can't get out of bed like he used to, but without the life change or stressful event, might. He might have a dark cloud over him still, after interrogation finds no common sense reason. The pain doesn't always make sense. That's when doses increase, and different drugs, or therapies (like ECT), are tried. Unfortunately, for too many, this is the case.
Anecdote - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote
>>The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy.
*******************************
The KEY sentence here is this one:
what those Cambodian doctors knew intuitively from this individual and unscientific anecdote
Because unless the story can be REPEATED again and works in other cases, it IS definitely an UNSCIENTIFIC ANECDOTE rather than a SCIENTIFIC experiment.
And if you can't REPEAT the process again, and it doesn't work for others, then it's also NOT going to be USEFUL as a way to treat others.
As for the other SENTENCE that says:
"the most effective strategy is to deal with the underlying causes of that pain."
That's the TRICKY PART, is trying to figure out what the SOURCE of the PAIN could be.
And unless you have other doctors who are also as "CULTURALLY INTUITIVE" as the doctor who treats this man, what works in this case probably also won't work in other cases.
What, for example, if a FEMALE had lost her leg??? Would getting her a COW be as helpful? Or what if it had been a child??? Would the doctor have been able to solve the mystery as well as he seems to have done for the MALE???
🧐
share
The cow thing makes for a cute one-liner for the book and interviews promoting it. But it doesn't seem like a mystery at all. If mines and dismemberment are not uncommon, I would think that this community, as well as their doctors, would've encountered this many times. Like depression, there can be genetic variables in pain tolerance.
From looking at the link, it seems like the content is a just a repackaging of the usual anti-drug stance. I'm not condemning or defending either side. And in my experience, the approach is always a combo of: talk therapy looking for reasons, some CBT like exercises, and drugs. If you have a clear and obvious reason, you might be done with all three once you remove the cause, but I'd argue that you didn't have a depressive disorder to begin with. And as you say, the cause is the tricky part. Just find the reason and change it! Sounds great, but those who have a shadow they can't escape, with no discernible cause, that might be driven by some genetic dip switch that got flipped, or some brain malfunction, may say it's not that simple or straightforward to identify and fix -- if it can be fixed at all. More drugs, and any other techniques, are tried in desperation to relieve the weight in some way.
Yes exactly. Way too many of us go around assuming that we can FIX things in a simplistic manner (such as the saying about pulling oneself up by the BOOTSTRAPS), which OVERLOOKS how the situation at hand can be a LOT more COMPLEX than that.
And all of the ATTENTION that the man was getting from others may have also helped to contribute to the way that he stops crying and to his getting out of bed.
Because that may also have helped to cheer him up.
And if he had a SEASONAL DISORDER (people often get what's called SEASONAL AFFECTED DISORDER in the WINTER TIME when there's LESS SUNLIGHT), then that could also explain the reason why he recovers and was fine after a certain amount of time.
🌞
The Cambodians have got to be the most upbeat people I've ever met, considering how little they have.
shareI cannot recall any other fairly straight-forward post getting so misunderstood and totally derailed...I think congratulations are in order!
👏👏👏👏👏👏
I never imagined this topic would be linked with satanism 🤪 Still, no-ones accused me of being racist yet.
shareOf course not, we all know you are a Republitard heavily involved in supporting the Patriarchy!
You probably pee standing up, you are simply awful!
You forgot homophobic.
shareYou ALWAYS leave out the color-blind in your posts so I've had to report you multiple times
shareAre these not also NEGATIVE rather than POSITIVE THOUGHTS that have been EXPRESSED???
Are you wishing BAD LUCK on yourself by expressing them???
🤨
Gallows humour.
shareGallows humor???
grim and ironic humor in a desperate or hopeless situation.
OK then.
So shall we accuse you of being racist, sexist, and homophobic as a way to make you HAPPY???
But wouldn't that also mean we ourselves would be expressing NEGATIVE THOUGHTS in our efforts to PLEASE YOU, thus also bringing BAD LUCK to ourselves in the process of doing so???
share
I tend to believe if that you expect the worst, that's what you'll get. You set yourself up mentally to fail, have a bad outcome, or what have you. I believe you're only as happy as you make up your mind to be. I suspect the opposite is also true. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst because plenty of things happen that we have no control over.
>>I tend to believe if that you expect the worst, that's what you'll get. You set yourself up mentally to fail, have a bad outcome
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's exactly what the article says DOESN'T HAPPEN.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/323577
WHY THINKING NEGATIVELY ISN'T ALWAYS a BAD THING
Because those who expect to do BADLY end up doing something to prevent the WORSE thing from happening to them.
Whereas someone who feels CONFIDENT that they'll do well doesn't PREPARE as much as the other person does, and then the person who does the MOST PREPARATION will do better (or WIN if they compete for something like an OLYMPIC MEDAL).
In other words, STUIDES that have been done indicate those who expect the WORSE tend to do BETTER than those who do not.
And that's why having NEGATIVE FEELINGS can result in a POSITIVE OUTCOME, whereas having POSITIVE feelings can result in a NEGATIVE OUTCOME.
WEIRD HUH ???
If you constantly think negative thoughts or negative outcomes, are you ultimately just wishing bad luck on yourself?
As a former STATE CHAMPION one can also assure you that I NEVER faced a competition with POSITIVE thoughts or with the feeling that enough PREPARATION had been done.
The thoughts were definitely also NEGATIVE (full of anxiety and dread about not doing well) prior to WINNING a MEDAL.
🧐
share