The Law of Attraction?

I really liked the “Being” something. Will look at this in my mind and try it. I think I just might be the rock. Let you know what comes out of it for me.

Thanks again for such a nice blog.

Can you tell that I’m working backward?

Manifesting… another way people title the Law of Attraction.

I definitely have a lot of ponderation in these hills, ‘cause no matter our efforts, the Divine Plan just Is! There seems to be a balance to consider, scales that TIP! And for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction… Hmm, Karma too. All possible.

So when I was teaching, and from watching my children be taught, here seems to be the crisis in education. Brilliance is rewarded with heated pace, quickly buiding the skyscraper upward. But neurology loves a platform… likes a nice wide foundation. So preschoolers are taught the letters before their brains can bare it, and the building goes up, but it’s poised on a brick foundation with gaps.

Do we have spiritual neurology? Does the fourndation need breadth and depth to stabilize the unfolding? My guess? Heck ya!

I will go more in-depth in a PM, I think, but… I think the mindset works differently for children, especially young ones. Psychologically speaking, there have been many studies showing younger children being unable to understand such abstract concepts as love, understanding, or spirituality, and can only sort of know what attention is. Maybe, if they are lucky, sort of know what love is as well. But, they don’t nec. understand the concepts to an applicable level. This is neurologically based. Perhaps a bit of conditioning as well. But in either case, I submit that children go through your process automatically. As children all our attention is devoted to one thing at a time. We are in the process of trying to take in all the information we can, because we have to to survive. What would happen if we did not know that a burner or fire was hot, and could hurt us if we got too close? This is done before there is any ability to speak. It’s what’s happening when the baby puts everything into his/her mouth. But since their attention was never divided (I am combining your theory with a lot of childhood development theories, or trying to, anyway) the concreteness of one stage and the next isn’t really there. For them, it seems to be all one in the same. As infants, they are taking everything in, and are much more intuitive and take more in than people often give them credit for. They know instinctively when their mother is upset, no matter how much she tries to hide it. But people will still say that babies are very selfish, and they are still in a way correct: babies are very needy, and are not at all conditioned like some adults are to not ask for help, so they demand it. A lot. But it is always for their basic needs, so is that really selfish?
When they have begun to talk, they start to change. Depending on what they have been getting taught, they will either stay in this unified state, or they will now split in every direction. It is very clear who has done what. The one that is split in every direction will have no attention on any particular thing. They will be the most likely to just stay in front of the TV, not actively listening but just sort of being there, with a relative lack of curiosity. IT’s a scary situation that has been increasing dramatically. The lack of curiosity breeds a lack of imagination, a lack of deeper thought… and a lack of anything resembling spiritual wholeness, really. The cycle is hard to break.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, there is the child who is curious about everything. They are the ones that drive people mad asking “Why?”, to no end, like a game… and in a way it is, one that I still play :-) but, anyway, this outward reaching goes beyond trying to figure out why the sky is blue, or we color hearts red, or croutons are so hard when you make them from soft bread. The questions many don’t like to think about come from the honesty of this age. Every really big question has been asked by a 3 or 4 yr old, somewhere. The philosophers get the credit because they attempt to answer ti for themselves, and even if they don’t adults will listen to other adults, and will not nec. listen to children as much, so the same question from a child’s mouth may not seem as profound. But think about it. This is the age when they ask a parent why they are angry, with utter and complete concern, the kind that breaks your heart to see. Adults feel like they need to protect children from the “bad” emotions. Children are only allowed to be happy for the most part, only allowed sadness a small part of the time. But if the reason for the sadness is heartfelt, is it really that good to try and limit?
But that is another discussion. The point there is that children when they are first speaking do show that they have complete attention and love, at the very least to their parents, except in certain cases where they have already been taught not to do so. This is another important point. I believe such a thing needs to be taught. It can be easily taught, but it must be taught. I don’t believe that a child can conceive of putting their attention on more than one thing, not naturally, nor do I believe they can conceive any way of dealing with other people other than honestly, and with true honesty, how can you not communicate love?
At the same time, the children are still considered selfish. Sometimes I wonder whether they are talking about the same children when this occurs, but I’ve seen it. They care completely, and then are in their own little world, wanting what they want, and at this point it is a hard thing for them to understand the difference between “want” and “need”, compounded by the relative fear to teach about death, and its intimate connection with need. So, they say they absolutely “need” that racecar, and for them that is a completely correct statement, but adults who understand the words differently call it selfishness. Now this is different than… well, I have already written a novella here, so I will expound on that in a PM.