LOL, well, first of all, the emphasis on the will as a creative force is a common mistake but here it is amplified by giving it credit for setting the mind in motion which is simply backward to the actual function of the will, but I digress.
Am I to take it you don't think poor people deserve the credit for the fruit of their mental labor, e.g. poverty? I don't get where what I wrote is overly complicated. Maybe you're an intellectual? I understand that intellectuals just expect things to be complicated and get confused when they turn out to be quite simple. To be clear, I am only suggesting you may be an intellectual, I don't know, I'm just guessing based on the intellectual's propensity for cocking up very simple things.
Poor people are almost always poor as a result of doing to little thinking, especially in terms of linking consequences to actions. It is intellectual laziness and "living in the moment" (which is the laziest thing one can do) that causes most poverty (just to be clear: I am excluding unforseen accidents and incidents -- I am talking about just stupid decisions)
Or perhaps you view action as superior to thought?
More Mentat? Doing is always superior to thinking. But doing should be BASED on thinking first.
I do know most people act first and then think later and usually the thinking is in the form of "why did this happen to me?" But much like the Red Queen cried before she pricked herself, it is much better to focus on what one wants first, which is to say, think about it, and then the actions needed to manifest that thought present themselves. The Red Queen cries, and then the action that led to the tears suggests itself in the form of a pin prick.
Such thoughts do not just manifest themselves. They are the result of hard and frequently uncomfortable thinking about how actions create consequences.
Anyway, wealth and poverty don't just happen. Many people claim to want money but then rail against and hate the rich, therefore they receive poverty. It is not possible to mount two horses. Well, and remain in one piece, at any rate.
Sometimes they do. People are born into poverty all the time. Likewise people are born into wealth. Discarding choosing parents properly, the hate of the rich is directly associated with the modern Socialists (rich themselves and thus able to entertain and encourage self-hate). Non-inherited poverty is a direct result of bad decisions. And in the USA you can make decisions -- AND ACT UPON THEM -- to leave poverty. How do I know? I DID IT.
The rich are rich because they predominantly think about being rich and the poor are poor because they predominantly think about being poor. Doctors are doctors because they predominantly think about treating people in a medical fashion, or perhaps just telling nurses what to do but either way. Fashion designers are fashion designers because they predominantly think about fashion. And then they all take the actions suggested by their thinking. But the thinking is always first.
That is a non sequitur. The rich are rich because they take actions to ensure and increase their wealth (what is your definition of "rich" by?). They evaluate risks and take them. Sometimes they fail and become "poor." But our system rewards risks more often than not. Poor people don't think about risk, they usually just think about creature comforts.
The fact that people think about their vocations or avocations doesn't factor into the rich/poor thing, except to the degree that those (a)vocations provide wealth,
Intellectuals are intellectuals because they predominantly think about making very simple things seem vastly complicated. And then they do it.
Intellectuals value ideas over people. They think rather than do. They are generally useless.
I would say well thought out action is superior to thought alone. Doing is actually a form of thought so yes, it has more power than just thinking a thought but simply acting for the sake of acting is the same as impotent power. Often times we end up taking action we would not have needed to take if we took the time to think through what we were trying to accomplish. What we actually wanted.
People who start out poor and choose to become rich first have to think that it might be possible.
People who are poor their whole life think they can't be rich or it never occurs to them to think about how they might become rich. They only reinforce their own poverty.
The world is actually a projection of what we think. This is why two people can go to the same event and one will have a fun experience and the other will find it as depressing as anything else in their life.
I am not as overly analytical as you are, obviously, but I was pretty clear that the action needs to be taken. First think about what you want and then act upon the inspiration that comes to you.
A fashion designer can't just visualize her clothing being displayed on the runway and expect that to happen, she has to design the fashions. But she has to be able to see the fashions before she can design them. And thus, the action is the flower of the thought.
A doctor can't just prescribe a drug if he hasn't thought of a diagnoses. Well, I guess in the modern HMO system he doesn't really need to because the CEO tells him everything he can do and not do, but in more classical times this was the case.
When it is done in a backward manner of acting first, people tend to be miserable and feel powerless because they think the world is something that is happening to them instead of something they are actively creating through their thought (or lack of it) and action (or lack of it). It may be mentat to you but there is no getting around it. The world does not create itself.
