Disowning James Ray, Defending the LoAJune 19, 2011
Meryl Davids Landau has written an article titled
Well, here are some quick answers: Yes, the James Ray trial, along with every other phenomenon in the known universe means that the LoA does not exist. Or, No, the trial itself has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of any proposition, but even if Ray had not been brought to trial there would still be no LoA.
The question Davids Landau really wanted to ask is
What should I think when I see a grand master of the LoA suddenly clapped in leg irons and led off by the police?
Did mysterious cosmic forces have a hand in it, or did everything happen for the more prosaic reasons that the prosecution outlined?
By my reading, the evidence assembled by the state prosecutors sounded like a pretty complete account of events. If I was looking for evidence of mystical occurrences, the James Ray trial is not somewhere I’d go to look.
Meryl Davids Landau does though, because…..well she’s not interested any mystic experiences anyway.
The LoA isn’t a mystical concept from the realm of subjective experience. It’s not even a theological idea from the realm of revelation. No, in Ms Davids Landau’s world, the LoA is science, which is woo-shorthand for you’re not allowed to question it.
There are three main problems with the Law of Attraction:
1. It’s not true
2. It’s dangerous
3. Its “blame the victim” approach is utterly immoral
I will deal with each of these problems as revealed in Ms Davids Landau’s article. Blaming the victims, she says is a misconception about the LoA. She titles one paragraph:
There’s no blaming the victim involved.
Mysteriously however, the explanation that follows contains nothing at all to explain why victims are not to blame. She says the LoA can “empower” victims, but then actually affirms that the victim is in fact to blame:
It’s not that someone expects to get cancer; it’s that they spend much of their time feeling angry or disempowered about life, which attracts other, similarly low-vibration creations, including diseases.
So the heading should be:
Blaming the victim is involved, but I hope no one else will notice it, if I also decide not to notice it.
Which brings us to the James Ray problem. I’ve already dealt here with the difficulty people have had protecting the LoA, while simultaneously claiming James Ray is innocent and not responsible for the quagmire he turned his own life into.
That’s changed a bit now. The details of the torture Ray subjected his unwitting clients to, and his cowardly attempts at blaming others are now a matter of public record. His reputation is shot, and his behavior is clearly that of a deeply disturbed individual…..So it’s time to throw James under the bus and rescue the LoA from his evil clutches.
This is what Ms Davids Landau sets about doing. The result is the standard mix of assertion-presented-as-fact sophistry, and profound ignorance that is the norm for proponents of the LoA.
The LoA is dangerous
First off, she ignores the role that Ray’s apparent (at least partial) belief in the LoA played in the horrors that he visited upon his clients.
The “reckless” part of what he is charged with is a result of prosecutors noticing the manner with which Ray risked, and four times claimed, the lives of his clients. His obliviousness to the danger to others, just like his obliviousness to the danger to his own business and even his freedom, accords well with the narcisstic LoA belief that a higher force is guiding proceedings to give each person “their own reality”.
His indifference to the suffering of others is also in perfect accord with the LoA, although his twisted psychology no doubt played more of a role.
Ray of course, dumped the LoA as soon as the cuffs were on him, but that’s standard practice for LoA teachers. They drop it as soon as it’s their own ass on the line. Ms Davids Landau references channeler Jerry Hicks who spent his life spouting the kind of irresponsible nonsense about cancer which Davids Landau also uses in her article. No need for that horrid destructive chemotherapy developed by materialistic western medicine, as he advised many a cancer sufferer. Now that he himself has cancer, it’s a different story. He has that special kind of cancer only spiritual people get, and which can only be treated by chemotherapy.
Fear smells different when it’s your own, doesn’t it…..
Those who get rich on a scam drop it as soon as it no longer serves their purposes. Those who sincerely believe it are often not so lucky.
I have watched friends ruin their finances by making over ambitious investments, placing their trust in the nonexistent powers of manifestation. I have seen parents of handicapped children going through years of therapy, trying to locate and “release” the thoughts that caused their child to be born handicapped. This has sunken them in guilt and frustration, and caused them to view their child as being some kind of horrible distortion of what he “should” have been.
The LoA is Not True
Handicap, like other tragedies, happen because of the laws of nature which are neutral in relation to our wishes, our morality, or our pain barriers. They exist whether we want them to or not, and we simply have to deal with them realistically or suffer the consequences.
….Which leads us to the claim that the the LoA is an actual part of the physical universe.
“It’s a law just like gravity is a law”. And here is where the classic assertion-presented-as-fact rhetorical style gets employed. Here, an analogy is employed –“it’s like”– and it must be true if the thing that it’s like is true. This deceitful and stupid technique was used ad nauseum in The Secret. The idiot Joe Vitale argued specifically for it, as is amusingly dealt with here by the blogger Skeptico.
And Davids Landau borrows the technique too.
This law is powerful, so you might as well at least experiment with harnessing it. As Esther Hicks observes, if you didn’t believe in gravity, you still wouldn’t be able to leap up and fly away.
This is a particularly unwise piece of rhetoric. If it were indeed true that some unknown force in our brain attracts particular objects and selectively repels others, it would prove the law of gravity wrong. So if the LoA were indeed true, then the law of gravity is fundamentally flawed, depriving it of the very legitimacy that Ms Davids Landau hopes to hide behind.
A more honest analogy would be that the LoA is analogous to Ms Davids Landau’s understanding of the law of gravity, which is zip with bells on.