This is the best Campbell interview thus far from my point view.
When looking at love versus fear, isn't there also at least a small positive aspect to fear: Suppose a person has shut down all intuitive knowing and is very far "off track", couldn't an event that shatters his world view and thus causes him a short-term experience of fear break open the emotional shell and in the long run get him back in touch with his emotions and inner guidance ? How feasable do you see such an approach on a collective level, sort of a collective wake-up call from our apathetic snooze resulting in increased global awareness ?
I also have several doubts regarding the fear issue. Both Law of Attraction and Tom seem to agree, from my perspective, in that fear tends to attract into your life that which you fear. However, while I acknowledge that fear is most often a useless emotion to experience, how about those situations in which fearing something led you to be extra careful and such care led you to avoid experiencing the very thing you feared? By LOA (and MBT?) if you think about what you fear, even though it allows you to take precautionary steps in order to prevent it, you are more likely to experience it than by thinking in positive, not focusing on it. I am not very good at putting this into words, so let's look at an example.
X has risks associated with it. You have two choices:
1) You fear such risks associated with X, so your fear leads you to keep away from X, in order to avoid those risks.
2) You focus on the positive outcomes that X might have. You think in positive, avoiding negative emotions and take a risk with X (without focusing on negative outcomes).
Depending on your model of reality, which action is more likely to bring about which is feared is absolutely different:
- By LOA (and MBT?) you are more likely to manifest that which is feared in option 1, even though you might think that remaining away from X makes you safer from X's negative outcomes. Option 2, if chosen from a state of low entropy, avoiding negative emotions and worry, would be less likely to manifest that which you fear.
- By mainstream thinking/physics you are by far more likely to experience that which is feared if you choose 2, no matter how much positive thinking you summon. If you choose 1, no matter how negative you are, you will be far more likely to experience that which is feared.
LOA model is counterintuitive as far as this is concerned and can lead to disastrous consequences bordering recklessness if it's not a sound model (or if you don't apply it correctly). The mainstream model is more intuitive from my point view (i.e. if you avoid a risk you are less likely to experience the negative outcomes associated with that risk, even if you avoid it out of pure worry, anxiety and fear; if you engage in the risk you will be more likely to suffer negative consequences, no matter how positive you are, than if you had never engaged in it because of fear).
Let me highlight that I am not speaking of things you fear in NPMR, but of things you fear in PMR.
If the mainstream model is wrong as far as this is concerned and LOA mode is closer to how things really work (it could be, regardless of how counterintuitive it is) risk analysis (as viewed at the individual level) takes on a completely different shape and should be completely reassessed. I see no easy way to know which one is true or, if neither, to what extent one is wrong and the other is right, etc. Odd things happen: individuals live a reckless life and nothing bad ever happens to them, while others are extracareful and such care doesn't prevent them from experiencing the negative outcomes they seeked to avoid: just random chance or "mental space" influencing how the physical world manifests? Very difficult to tell, huh?