Opposites Attract a...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Opposites Attract and the Law Of Attraction


amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 16 years ago

Most of us are familiar that the law of attraction (LOA) deems that 'like attracts like'. However, it can be seen
(both in physics and in relationships) that opposites attract! So how is this squared in LOA? Can it be? If both
like attracts like and opposites attract are equally true (and one not being an exception rather than the rule),
then how can LOA be seen as a law?

26 Replies
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 12 years ago

It isn't a law in any scientific sense of the word (or in any legal sense!).
It is a philosophical concept, invented by (I think) Blavatsky.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 16 years ago

The law of attraction is said to have originated in the New Thought movement.

Whilst it does ring true i.e. that what we focus on, grows (you get more of) it is not the only factor operating at any one time I feel. As such, the overall outcome may not always be due to LOA.

Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 12 years ago

We give power to those things that we focus on. Not necessarily the same thing.

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

The law of attraction is said to have originated in the New Thought movement.

Whilst it does ring true i.e. that what we focus on, grows (you get more of) it is not the only factor operating at any one time I feel. As such, the overall outcome may not always be due to LOA.

Indeed, the 'system' that the LOA is based upon was, as far as I'm aware, first put down in writing as a system by Charles F Haanel and called The Master Key System

However, "Law of Attraction" is a new agey name for it, and really you cannot compare it to the concept of Attraction in the conventional sense, though many consider LOA as something to use for "attracting money" or "attracting relationships" etc.; it's more as Crowan says, you are just giving power to the things you focus on.

The fact that there are some things in science that attract (magnetism, or chemicals etc.) is nothing to do with it, as there are equally just as many things that 'repel'. The attraction of opposites in relationships is very subjective so is a poor comparison I feel.

As for saying that the LOA is "like attracts like", that's certainly not the case (regardless of the misleading information you can find e.g. on Wikipedia) in the grander scale of things. You can be a positive person who attracts negativity if that's what you put your focus on, but that doesn't mean that you are a negative person. The "like attracts like" aspect is a poor way of saying that, what you focus on is what you get. In terms of LOA, it certainly can't be "opposites attract" because by the same logic, if you don't focus on something you are not going to bring it into your life (or you will miss the opportunities that would bring it into your life as your focus is elsewhere).

In general though, Law of Attraction is a bad name for the principles behind it. It implies some universal law (obviously not legal or scientific law), but it doesn't apply to everything, only to the way we use our minds and focus.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

p.s. I realise that "Law of Attraction" as a name was used before the New Age movement, but the way it's currently used (it's resurgence) is due to the New Age movement; that's what I meant above. πŸ˜‰

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 16 years ago

EnergyIz - the link you gave re. the master key shows that Mr. Haanael mostly got his ideas from the New Thought movement,
i.e. not vice versa.

My understanding of 'like attracts like' and 'what you focus on you get more of' I have found to ring true and can be easily seen/demonstrated. If you are promoting positivity then that is what is apparent/highlighted. I have turned my life around for the better by having a positive mindset so can vouch for the inherent, beneficial effect of LOA (although I didn't know that it embraced this law until fairly recently). It is easy to see with someone always complaining, that the reaction they get from others is much of the same.

Opposites attract is a law of physics. I was trying to understand and reconcile this with law of attraction.

I do agree with you, however, that to call LOA a law is misleading and it most certainly does not apply to everything....new agers blindly apply it and may be hindered unnecessarily by such a belief.

Reply
Crowan
Posts: 3429
(@crowan)
Famed Member
Joined: 12 years ago

I would not agree that

'what you focus on you get more of'

although, certainly, what you focus on you give power to.

I do agree with you, however, that to call LOA a law is misleading and it most certainly does not apply to everything....new agers blindly apply it and may be hindered unnecessarily by such a belief.

To come back to science for a while - there is huge confusion, not only about what 'law' means but also 'theory'.

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

Opposites attract is a law of physics. I was trying to understand and reconcile this with law of attraction.

Well "opposites attract" is specifically in physics for electrical and magnetic forces.

and the great Richard P Feynman...

... which also alludes to the fact that gravity is different in that it only attracts, and doesn't repel; thus opposites attracting is not universal, but just one law within a specific category.

In other categories, such as in chemistry we can clearly see things where like attracts like and opposites repel. e.g. water will happily mix with water, but water and oil will repel.

My point is that you cannot compare or reconcile a psychological 'law of attraction' with a specific law within physics which is completely unrelated.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 16 years ago

My point is that you cannot compare or reconcile a psychological 'law of attraction' with a specific law within physics which is completely unrelated.

Yes I have come to realise that now. Perhaps I should have said so when this occurred to me but it was quite recent.

Reply
scommstech
Posts: 527
(@scommstech)
Honorable Member
Joined: 13 years ago

I find it quite a complex subject, "attraction" and what causes it. If a tuning fork is struck and is next to a similar fork the second fork will try to vibrate at the same frequency. This seems to be the basic for some "thought" healing techniques. That is to think of the healthy physical condition and that can cause a move towards that healthy condition. The tuning fork however is working with physical phenomena, like sound wave energy whereas the healing practice is mixing non physical with physical. Magnets seem to behave totally differently. It is the opposites that attract. There may be a perfectly logical reason for this, and it may even support an aspect of a theory concerning spiritual creation.

Reply
Energylz
Posts: 16599
Moderator
(@energylz)
Member
Joined: 18 years ago

I find it quite a complex subject, "attraction" and what causes it. If a tuning fork is struck and is next to a similar fork the second fork will try to vibrate at the same frequency.

Unless they are in a vacuum and then the second fork will do nothing. That particular example relies on a medium existing between the two for the frequencies to travel.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 16 years ago

I would question whether human attraction can be aligned to that which is the case for inanimate objects.

Reply
scommstech
Posts: 527
(@scommstech)
Honorable Member
Joined: 13 years ago

Unless they are in a vacuum and then the second fork will do nothing. That particular example relies on a medium existing between the two for the frequencies to travel.

Is it a coincidence that we also cannot function in a vacuum. ??

Reply
scommstech
Posts: 527
(@scommstech)
Honorable Member
Joined: 13 years ago

I would question whether human attraction can be aligned to that which is the case for inanimate objects.

There may be a relationship that allows interaction with inanimate objects. (Getting a bit religious), Jesus is quoted as saying that thought can move mountains, and he was described as being able to walk on water. As humans we may have a magnetic capability because we do have electric currents circulating in our bodies, (currents are capable of producing electrostatic/electromagnetic fields) then either electrostatic or magnetism's attraction and repulsive qualities could be involved, so then yes I would say that it is possible.

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 16 years ago

There may be a relationship that allows interaction with inanimate objects. (Getting a bit religious), Jesus is quoted as saying that thought can move mountains, and he was described as being able to walk on water. As humans we may have a magnetic capability because we do have electric currents circulating in our bodies, (currents are capable of producing electrostatic/electromagnetic fields) then either electrostatic or magnetism's attraction and repulsive qualities could be involved, so then yes I would say that it is possible.

I am not saying that there cannot be an interaction between humans and an inanimate object, just that I question - in your example of tuning forks (featuring how one inanimate object interacts with another inanimate object) that this can accurately say anything about how a human interacts with this.

Reply
scommstech
Posts: 527
(@scommstech)
Honorable Member
Joined: 13 years ago

I am not saying that there cannot be an interaction between humans and an inanimate object, just that I question - in your example of tuning forks (featuring how one inanimate object interacts with another inanimate object) that this can accurately say anything about how a human interacts with this.

The tuning fork is only an analogy. Their interaction depends on air pressure from one fork to another.
The relationship between humans is to my understanding different. The closest that I can figure it out is more like an electrical interaction. Almost everything vibrates so there must be varying energy's present. Molecular and atomic structure to my understanding uses a type of electrostatic attraction. Enough of then form what we understand as gravity. But if there is vibration then a varying energy field has to have been created. I can see no reason why this "field" cannot interact with our own human energy fields. Very similar to magnetic attraction, or repulsion. I can't claim to be 100% right but if you start translating all of the "miracle" phenomena into a magnetic based possibility then most seem to fit in.
Many of Jesus' physical miracles could be explained. Walking on water would be Jesus' focusing his magnetic energy and using it to repel the water's energy thereby stopping him from sinking. (like two north or south poles of a magnet repelling each other).Even humans flying, like so called witches etc would be possible. There are U Tube videos showing Chinese and Buddhist martial arts people repelling their assailant just by a simple gesture of the hands. I personally do not believe in miracles. I think that there is a logical explanation for everything, but to find them we must be prepared to think outside of the box.

Reply
Paul Crick
Posts: 4956
(@paul-crick_1611052763)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago

That is all well and good, we do as you say have electro magnetic energy in our bodies which can be monitored, but when we consider the situation of someone being monitored in a comma with nothing showing as brain activity, but the person is still able to perceive what is going on around them within their aspects of consciousness, then to my understanding this has more to do with us all being one within the oneness of consciousness than our physicality. πŸ™‚

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 16 years ago

Scommstech - I think the law of attraction may be more about relationships and what we attract in life and this is the area that most interests me about it.

Reply
scommstech
Posts: 527
(@scommstech)
Honorable Member
Joined: 13 years ago

That is all well and good, we do as you say have electro magnetic energy in our bodies which can be monitored, but when we consider the situation of someone being monitored in a comma with nothing showing as brain activity, but the person is still able to perceive what is going on around them within their aspects of consciousness, then to my understanding this has more to do with us all being one within the oneness of consciousness than our physicality. πŸ™‚

Yes I agree, but the statement of being "one with the oneness" to me has to be explainable, it has to have a principle of operation. The medical industry is as of yet just scratching the surface as regards understanding consciousness. Amy says that her interest is in relationships and attraction. Again I feel that there are scientific principles involves that we as yet just perceive as our emotions.

Reply
Paul Crick
Posts: 4956
(@paul-crick_1611052763)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago

Yes I agree, but the statement of being "one with the oneness" to me has to be explainable, it has to have a principle of operation. The medical industry is as of yet just scratching the surface as regards understanding consciousness. Amy says that her interest is in relationships and attraction. Again I feel that there are scientific principles involves that we as yet just perceive as our emotions.

The principle of operation is very simple, we are all working to experience, we are working to create experience within our own life experience whilst at the same time being open to help other people to fulfil their own underlying desires to experience, obviously other people are working to create experience within their own life experience whist being open to help us fulfil our underlying desires to experience.

It is not really a principle of attraction, it is more a principle of experience which all starts within our aspects of consciousness and then manifests within our physicality to be experienced, this is why I say that everything begins and end with a thought.

There was an experiment done a few years ago, when a couple of hundred people where invited to attend an experiment, they all went to a big hall, they where instructed not to communicate with anyone else in the hall, once assembled, the instructions where quite simple, please walk around the room in a random manner, when you see someone you think you identify with follow them.

When everyone had formed themselves into separate groups, each group was asked to identify what had brought them together, the results was that every group had a singular connection, be it a fear or a type of life experience in common, so everyone who perceived themselves to be a victim went into one group and everyone who had low self esteem went into another group etc, they all identified other people with a similar life experience to themselves without any physical verbal communication, they actually used the oneness they all inhabit within the oneness of consciousness to identify each other.

This oneness is not just human beings, it incorporates all living things that have consciousness, consciousness is the driving force of our life experience, to fulfil a life experience that is in alignment with our underlying thought patterns and beliefs anything with consciousness that is open to help can help us experience whatever our underlying thought patterns and beliefs are focused upon, once we understand how consciousness works, we understand that there is no such thing as a coincidence. πŸ™‚

Reply
amy green
Posts: 2258
Topic starter
(@amy-green)
Noble Member
Joined: 16 years ago


There was an experiment done a few years ago, when a couple of hundred people where invited to attend an experiment, they all went to a big hall, they where instructed not to communicate with anyone else in the hall, once assembled, the instructions where quite simple, please walk around the room in a random manner, when you see someone you think you identify with follow them.

When everyone had formed themselves into separate groups, each group was asked to identify what had brought them together, the results was that every group had a singular connection, be it a fear or a type of life experience in common, so everyone who perceived themselves to be a victim went into one group and everyone who had low self esteem went into another group etc, they all identified other people with a similar life experience to themselves without any physical verbal communication, they actually used the oneness they all inhabit within the oneness of consciousness to identify each other.


In this experiment, it would be interesting to note the "type of life experience that they had in common" i.e. was it unusual or not? I ask because such experiences as having low self esteem (and, to some extent, perceiving self as a victim) are very common so the laws of probabilities come into play. It also reminded me of horoscopes, i.e. that there is usually something there that can be related to....a question of what we choose to highlight maybe rather than what is the dominant factor?

That said, I do believe we are drawn to people (future friends) for reasons other than looks and personality, i.e. that they may be either on similar paths and/or there is the possibility for support/growth at that time in our lives.

Reply
scommstech
Posts: 527
(@scommstech)
Honorable Member
Joined: 13 years ago

The principle of operation is very simple, we are all working to experience, we are working to create experience within our own life experience whilst at the same time being open to help other people to fulfil their own underlying desires to experience, obviously other people are working to create experience within their own life experience whist being open to help us fulfil our underlying desires to experience.

It is not really a principle of attraction, it is more a principle of experience which all starts within our aspects of consciousness and then manifests within our physicality to be experienced, this is why I say that everything begins and end with a thought.

There was an experiment done a few years ago, when a couple of hundred people where invited to attend an experiment, they all went to a big hall, they where instructed not to communicate with anyone else in the hall, once assembled, the instructions where quite simple, please walk around the room in a random manner, when you see someone you think you identify with follow them.

When everyone had formed themselves into separate groups, each group was asked to identify what had brought them together, the results was that every group had a singular connection, be it a fear or a type of life experience in common, so everyone who perceived themselves to be a victim went into one group and everyone who had low self esteem went into another group etc, they all identified other people with a similar life experience to themselves without any physical verbal communication, they actually used the oneness they all inhabit within the oneness of consciousness to identify each other.

This oneness is not just human beings, it incorporates all living things that have consciousness, consciousness is the driving force of our life experience, to fulfil a life experience that is in alignment with our underlying thought patterns and beliefs anything with consciousness that is open to help can help us experience whatever our underlying thought patterns and beliefs are focused upon, once we understand how consciousness works, we understand that there is no such thing as a coincidence. πŸ™‚

It may be possible that the attraction was not to each other but to something else.
Consider 10 balls. Half of one density and half of another. If the balls are placed on a solid base they will all be at the same level.
If the balls are dropped into a liquid (water) 5 will float at one level and 5 will float at a different level. It is the relationship to the water that decided what level they float at not the relationship to each other.
Maybe our relationships are to a standard (divine) and not to each other.

Reply
Paul Crick
Posts: 4956
(@paul-crick_1611052763)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago

In this experiment, it would be interesting to note the "type of life experience that they had in common" i.e. was it unusual or not? I ask because such experiences as having low self esteem (and, to some extent, perceiving self as a victim) are very common so the laws of probabilities come into play. It also reminded me of horoscopes, i.e. that there is usually something there that can be related to....a question of what we choose to highlight maybe rather than what is the dominant factor?

That said, I do believe we are drawn to people (future friends) for reasons other than looks and personality, i.e. that they may be either on similar paths and/or there is the possibility for support/growth at that time in our lives.

Hi Amy, from what I remember it was specific to the point that if people who had or where currently suffering from abuse, then the ones with sexual abuse got together into one group, the ones with physical abuse formed another group and the ones with mental abuse formed a different group etc, it appear to me to be the experience which they connected with respective of what the person looked like, sex or age etc. πŸ™‚

Reply
Paul Crick
Posts: 4956
(@paul-crick_1611052763)
Famed Member
Joined: 19 years ago

It may be possible that the attraction was not to each other but to something else.
Consider 10 balls. Half of one density and half of another. If the balls are placed on a solid base they will all be at the same level.
If the balls are dropped into a liquid (water) 5 will float at one level and 5 will float at a different level. It is the relationship to the water that decided what level they float at not the relationship to each other.
Maybe our relationships are to a standard (divine) and not to each other.

Hi Scommstech
These people did not have any relationships to each other, they where complete strange who had never seen each other before, if it was our oneness that they connected with, they would have formed one group, the fact that they could identify with each others life experiences shows how much emphasis people place upon their life judgements rather than their oneness with each other. πŸ™‚

Reply
scommstech
Posts: 527
(@scommstech)
Honorable Member
Joined: 13 years ago

Hi Scommstech
These people did not have any relationships to each other, they where complete strange who had never seen each other before, if it was our oneness that they connected with, they would have formed one group, the fact that they could identify with each others life experiences shows how much emphasis people place upon their life judgements rather than their oneness with each other. πŸ™‚

Absolutely

Reply
TimHoff
Posts: 1
(@timhoff)
New Member
Joined: 5 years ago

Hi, I am thankful to you for sharing this awesome article with this helpful knowledge.

Reply
Share: