Principle of Attunement

Since I haven't had any more inclination (thank God!) to write about the whole "model of reality" thing (after making it clear I wasn't going to be a willing participant), this morning I tried something new in terms of "automatic writing".  

Well, it's not really "new" for me because this is another thing I realize I've done my whole life; thought about a subject I wanted to have clarified in my mind, and then start talking to myself out loud as if I'm explaining it to myself.  Virtually all the information I have acquired over the years has been verified or at least repeated from other sources - some established before my acquisition of the information, some after, but always from sources I had not even heard of up to that point.

When my wife started reading materials from Abraham-Hicks, she would often tell me that they A-H was saying the same thing, advocating the use of the same principles that Irene and I were already using and that I had already written about in my first two books.  Out on the porch I was thinking about an email discussion I was having about forming a Zoom group based on A-H principles.  The following is what followed in my out loud conversation.

How does the "Law of Attraction" work?

Theoretical models - even scientific ones - don't "explain" how things work; they describe the patterns of behavior of things. Their worth is defined in terms of how useful they are. For instance, gravitational theory at one time used the model of mass "attracting" other objects with mass. That later changed to a model that characterizes gravitational phenomena as mass making a depression in the space-time continuum, like a ball on a rubber sheet.  Neither of these models explain how mass attracts other mass or how mass warps space-time.  Theories describe behaviors and are considered good theories if they work in a practical sense - like being able to put a satellite into orbit.

The best we can do is describe the phenomena of attraction and let individuals experiment with it to see how well it works for them.  However, just as there can be problems or inefficiencies with a how a certain model is characterized (and so needing a new model), there is a problem with the term "Law of Attraction."

The term "attraction" itself can psychologically place the thing one desires somewhere away from them, as if the thing is "somewhere else" and one must drag it to you through time, space, and intervening circumstances. It can set up a perspective where you trying to change the world around you to drag that thing to you.

Perhaps "Principle of Attunement" is a better term. A-H uses the term "attunement" often and said that what we want already exists the moment we think of it, and they stress the importance of getting in tune with that thing by making the idea of it as wonderful and satisfying as actually having it would be. Instead of looking at affirmation manifestation as a feat of changing the world around us by attracting things that exist "out there" and bringing them to us, it might be more efficient (for some, at least) to think of what is going on as tuning into broadcast frequency channels.

Like a radio or an old-fashioned TV tuner, the TV (or our mind) isn't "creating" anything new, it's just tuning in to different channel frequencies that already exist right there in the same space as any other channel frequency. One uses their imagination to tune in to any particular channel by finding thoughts and images that generate in them the emotional and physiological sensations they are seeking to experience. Those words, thoughts and images, when they produce those sensations,  are the actual things that exist in those non-visible frequency channels - that's why you are physically and emotionally reacting to and experiencing them.

The idea of creating something new, or attracting a thing to you, can imply more difficulty than a model of simply tuning in to something already there by using your imagination. It may be a more efficient term/model to utilize.