Printable View
The following is a direct quotation from the book "the Master Key System" by Charles F. Haanel. From what I have read so far the book is about the law of attraction and the power of thought.
4. This is true because we must "be" before we can "do" and we can "do" only to the extent that we "are," and what we "are" depends upon what we "think."
Ant this a fucking riddle? To get some sort of starting point id like to mention that I am. It says we "must be". Well if I already am here, then does that enable me to do? Now the question becomes, what is the difference betwen "be" and "are". Perhaps the term "be" is immutable and "are" is a result of the things i have thought and experienced. In other words, I will not succesfully climb mount everest unless i have spent ample amount of time thinking about this. It is one thing to pretend to be a mountain climber, but it is another to "be" a mountain climber. What are your thoughts?
This thread is stupid. The "Law of Attraction" is stupid. This belongs in senseless banter.
Charles F. Haanel is a lying schmuck. We were shooting heroin and buggering little girls the other night and the fucker stole my lighter. I wouldn't believe a thing he says.
ahahahahah
Yeah, true...or maybe that line was just bullshit rambling. Not good rambling either, rather poor rambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by whitedreams
well looks like I am 0 for 2. I guess i need to work on my rambeling skills. IT was worth a shot
Both "be" and "are" are different forms of the verb, "to be."Quote:
Originally Posted by whitedreams
I take it you've never taken a foreign language. Or passed an English class.
this ain't a fucking riddle, indeed
i dont understand why you guys are reacting so hostile towards me. I hate to base my self worth on wether or not you guys approve of this thread but it certaintly is leaving a dent in the old self esteem. Perhaps it would be best if someone deleted this thread all together.
You're in a philosophy board asking what the symbolic difference between the verbs "be" and "are" is. I'm sorry anyway. :I
I think it has more to do with how much what you are depends on what you think. Which is to say probably a lot, but that line is pretty vague and doesn't seem to come to any real conclusion so I don't know how much philosophical insight we can really take from just that.
i am sorry yal, i think i really over thought this thing. Ii can see how this is completly out of context i was reflecting on this book and like mark said its mostly about "what you are depends on what you think". I got a little excited and just wanted to talk about it with someone. in the future i will do my best to be more mindful of what i am posting. I do not wish to be a nusicance. Sorry to anyone i have upset please let me know if i can make it up to ya. and sorry for geting all but hurt earlier i was haven a rough morning and guess just was all sensitive nd shit.
You don't have to apologize. You didn't do anything wrong.
♥Mark is just trying to mess with your head whitedreams.
Often, yes, but this time I meant it.
I hardly ever think, I just am. I supose I always have been, too.
Take it away, Maynard:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puscifer - The Weaver
If what we "do" is determined by what we "are" and what we "are" is determined by our thinking, then there is no need for "are". Because then what we do is directly determined by what we think. That is bs...Thinking is a utility of the brain which allows us to reflect and analyze.
So we can be what we are by doing what we think...ok...This is just a way to avoid taking responsibility for actions. Its a just a revolving door, an axiom. If a=b and b=c then a=c.
We think we are being, when we are just doing.
I am who I am...