Cool Head Warm Heart

It was quite an experience today to attend Michael Losier’s seminar today to see him in person, live in action, 9am to 5pm. Thanks to CIMA Malaysia for organising the seminar.

It was in Nikko Hotel, Kuala Lumpur with about 200 - 300 participants, I guess. I bought his book “Law of Attraction”. He signed the book. Asking my name, he wrote, “CT, Dream BIG. Micheal 18 Mar 08″. The only problem is, I forgot to bring my camera (Ouch!). Still, what a great day today, meeting an international renown author and he asked for my name. Off course, the food is good, the weather is great with rain in the evening, the atmosphere of the seminar is comfortable. (All said with gratitude and gratefulness)

I suppose Mr Losier sensed the difference between US audience and Malaysia audience. Malaysia audience is, always is, a shy and quiet bunch. Nobody rushed for microphone to speak in public. Everyone seems more comfortable in writing notes to him for the questions during Q&A sesion. But we are all attentive as he noticed.

There are many concepts and techniques, surprisingly, about the Law of Attraction and the deliberate use of the Law. I am writing these down before I forget.

Concepts to remember:
1. At every moment, I am sending +ve and -ve vibes and at every moment law of attraction is responding to my vibes by giving me more of the same. So if I want more +ve vibes, I should deliberately choose to send more +ve vibes. Law of attraction will MATCH.
2. Words change Thoughts change Vibes change Results
3. Eliminate “Don’t” “Not” “No” from vocabulary.
4. On relationship. Vibes range from 0 - 100. Resistance of 2 persons was due to difference in vibes level.

Techniques to remember: 3-step Formula for Deliberate Attraction
Step 1: Identify my desire (Tool is Clarify through Contrast)
Step 2: Give my desire attention (Tool is My Vibes Bubble’s include list and desire statement scripts)
Step 3: Allow it…remove doubts (Many tools to eliminate doubts, i.e. finding proofs (to break limiting beliefs), celebrate closeness of MATCH, record evidence, Lots can happen, etc. Law of Attraction Page 91 onward)

Reminder to myself, first 2 exercises of the 3-step formula:
1. Focus on getting rich.
2. Focus on getting satisfying vocation/lifestyles (not vacation).

Well, I will try to publish the exercises here.

Other tips: Michael covered this two topics today:
1. Does Goal Setting Help or Hinder Law of Attraction?
2. Does Using the Word ‘Want” Contradict Law of Attraction?

This post will expand whenever I have new things to add…

Technorati Tags:
Michael Losier, Attraction, Desire Statement, The Secret, Vibration, Vibe, Deliberate Attraction, Match

Perak ruler handled the appointment of Perak Menteri Besar extremely well despite the unexpected twists of event.

Right before decision for a new Menteri Besar, the Regent of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, met all three parties’ representatives to ensure the coalition is readied to lead a stable state government. He got three parties written statements in agreeing with all three nominees submitted to him for decision. In fact, all three parties made a joint statement agreeing the three names submitted to the royal.

Revealing this at a joint press conference, Ngeh said the names were submitted to Raja Nazrin Shah at Istana Kinta here at 2pm yesterday.

“All parties within the coalition have jointly agreed on the submission of the three names for his decision.”

“We would like to impress upon the people that all three parties have unanimously agreed to fully endorse whichever candidate is chosen,” he said at the Perak DAP headquarters.

Also present were state PKR chief Zulkifly Ibrahim, Mohammad Nizar and other DAP assemblymen.
– the Star

Most importantly Regent of Perak chose the candidate based on ability to lead the state government; he chose the most qualified and most caliber candidate among the three.

After the Lim Kit Siang incident and the possibility of defection of coalition’s assemblymen to BN (that may distablize the government-to-be), Regent of Perak requested a letter of undertaking from all 31 opposition assemblymen indicating their support for the formation of the new DAP-PKR-PAS coalition government.

Regent of Perak has conducted the issue appropriately. He made all right moves.

Off course, we have an idiot called Lim Kit Siang and his knee jerk reaction on the selection. He was probably busying with his son appointment of Chief Minister in Penang feeling so proud as a father and just happened to be oblivious of the development in appointment of Perak MB. He cried foul for the selection of MB.

First, DAP did not win sufficient seats to either form a government by itself or with just PKR. DAP have to accept PAS in the coalition and have to accept PAS influence in the coalition. To say that democracy was not respected in the selection of MB is therefore untrue. DAP DID NOT WIN the mandate from the Rakyat in deciding MB. Rakyat only gave DAP 18 seats to be the majority among the coalition, but not more for DAP to decide outright who the MB should be.

Second, with such majority among the coalition parties, DAP (PKR 7 seats, PAS 6 seats and DAP 18 seats) could have pressured coalition to submit only two names, i.e. state DAP chief Ngeh Koo Ham & state PKR treasurer Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi. But no. The coalition agreed to submit three names which included state PAS secretary Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin. If Lim Kiat Sian was unhappy, he should unhappy about himself of not doing what he should do at that point of time. The moment the names were given to Sultan for decision, it should be entirely and absolutely Sultan’s decision. The ruler had given time and options for the democracy process to work.

Third, the Sultan choice was obviously based on meritocracy. I am impressed wtih Nazir’s background. Isn’t this what DAP fighting for? Decision based on meritocracy instead of favourism or racism?

Among the coalition parties, we can see the weak link is DAP. PAS had served Kelantan for many years, they know how to act appropriately as a government. PKR leaders were from government. But for DAP…it is like a poor boy who strike lottery becoming instant rich, the challenge is to learn to act respectfully rich. Lim Kiat Siang forgot, for Perak State at least, DAP is not opposition. Together with others they are about to be government. It is not for him to shout, boycott and complain but sit down to work things out.

DAP under Lim Kit Siang is just so unpredictable. If one day the Barisan Rakyat broke down, most likely it comes from DAP’s infighting, inexperience and naiveness. (Hello, the role now is to manage and inspire the government officers to work hard and not complain and call for press conference making remarks, ok?)

Take One: On Scientific Thinking

How many white swans do you have to count to prove and conclude that there is no black swan?

Before the discovery of Australia in seventeen century, it was considered scientific fact that all swans were white. After all, millions had been seen and they were all white. When the black swan was eventually discovered in Australia, besides proving NOT all swans are white, it gave an insight on deductive logic: we couldn’t prove that there was no black swan, as David Hume argued, by counting (even millions) white swans.

Therefore we cannot prove there is no God, or no Bodhisattva, or even no Santa Claus. How many Christmases without a real Santa Claus are required to prove there is no Santa? By not seeing him around doesn’t mean he does not exist. It just takes one next Christmas with that snow sleigh flying cross the winter moon to prove you (well, us) wrong.

We cannot prove their non-existence. And off course, I am agreeable with you that we can neither prove their existence.

My good friend told me that she had never tried to convinced her child to believe in Santa Claus. “Why create illusion?” I agreed. The conversation developed into religions. She said she was “science person”. I paused. And disagreed.

Believing that Santa does not exist is BELIEF. There is nothing “science” about it. In a way I do believe Santa is our imagination, but I reckon this is, too, a belief. We simply cannot prove non existance of black swan by counting white swan. There is no fact to proof that Santa does not exist.

Take Two: On Belief

Before I continue, things that its existence can be proven, like gravity, we “know” it exist. We don’t need to believe its existence. Things that we cannot prove by science, we choose to “believe”.

(To know is simple. They are all proven by science. To believe the “can’t-be-proven-yet”, takes efforts.)

So when I choose to believe in their existence, I am not based on scientific or empirical conclusion. When you choose to believe their non-existence, neither are you in a scientific thinking. Both are beliefs which cannot be scientifically verified or proven.

Intellectually, we are the same level. We both choose a side to BELIEVE something that cannot be proven by science, i.e. spiritual existence and/or non-existence.

A true scientific mind or a critical mind would reckon that “there is a possibility that they exist and there is a possibility that they do not exist”. And just stop there. True application of science and its methodology lead to open mindedness instead of suffocating imagination and killing the world of possibility.

I told my friend to tell her daughter that may be Santa does exist… and this is a scientific mindset.

Take Three: On Openmindedness

Then why we choose to believe what cannot be proven? The answer is why it has to be proven? Openmindedness includes more than mere scientific mind as discribed above.

It can also include a intellectual position that…standing on facts, choosing a belief yet awaring that such belief is not supoorted by empirical evidence and accept the possibility of being wrong.

A gullible mind is usually a unscientific, narrow and fixed mind that ignore possibilities despite new empirical evidences. I disagree with Richard Chappell that “Rationality must remain as a filter” because rationality itself is reason/ logic (therefore a way of belief) and not empirical facts. By practising “Rationality as filter” we are selecting facts to believe. And if we are strong in believe in our such “filtered view based on rationality”, we can be dangerously blinded from seeing new empirical evidence. Gullibility is exactly such insistance of rationality filtered knowledge despite new facts proving otherwise. For instance, before 4th century it would be considered real gullible to believe that the earth is round. The fact was that “sky is up and earth is down”, with “Rationality must remain as a filter” we would insisted that the earth is indeed flat and would sent Galileo Galilei into house arrest.