Secrets, secrets are no fun...

...unless they're shared with everyone! Which is, apparently, just what is happening. "The Secret" is on all sorts of Best Seller lists and is marketed as both a self-help and spiritual book. But it has come under fire from psychologists and others because the slightly kooky and well-meaning message could have severely damaging effects, which I may or may not talk about in a later post.

First, let's talk about the glaringly obvious point illustrated by the hyperlinked CNN article above, which has L. Ron Hubbard-esque qualities surrounding it. Hubbard was the founder of the Church of Scientology and the original author of Dianetics, the first framework of said Church. But Hubbard was quoted on numerous occasions as saying, "If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion. " or some variant*. Does it seem odd that he is quoted saying these things c. 1948 or 1949, and then coincidentally starts up Scientology in 1953? When one of the main practices in the CoS is to charge ridiculous amounts of money for classes teaching secrets of the religion, or the ultimate truth? Hmm...

Now, as I was saying, "The Secret" smells of the same chicanery. Actually, it stinks of it. The CNN article above talks about the creator of "The Secret", Rhonda Byrne , "She said she was struggling personally and professionally several years ago when she was given a nearly 100-year-old book called "The Science of Getting Rich," by Wallace D. Wattles. In it, readers are guaranteed to become wealthy if they learn and follow "certain laws which govern the process of acquiring riches." The emphasis was added by me to stress what comes in the next paragraph:

"Inspired to do further research, Byrne said, she resolved to create a film to spread the word about what she felt she had learned about the "law of attraction." "

A film which she just so happens to be marketing as a revolutionary wealth-generating system and, apparently, becoming insanely rich off of. It is a wonder that the ancient book she read wasn't titled, "How to Scam a Nation Into Making You Rich", as that seems to be what she learned. Hell, maybe her "secret" of positive reinforcement and visualization actually does work. After all, the ancient text was about how to get rich, and she obviously did. There is a very logical way to prove that Byrne's act of creating The Secret is neither rational nor moral, if it indeed functions as she proposes.

German philosopher Immanuel Kant coined the term "Categorical Imperative". In his words, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."** In my words, "An act is immoral if you wouldn't want everyone and his cousin to do the exact same thing." Categorical Imperatives are true no matter the situation or the particular details surrounding it. So...why does it matter? Kant created the Categorical Imperative to show a universal set of ethics. You see, Kant believed that we are morally obligated to only make decisions that are acceptable for everyone else to make. This approach has two prongs: one is that it means we are all equal in that no one person has moral rights that another does not, and the second is that we are forced to admit that in certain circumstances, the universality of an action would create a contradiction, thus proving that it is morally wrong and should not be done. It would seem Kant believed that immoral actions weren't a sin, just irrational.

Example, anyone? Let's use The Secret. Byrne claims that her motivation behind publishing The Secret is to help everyone get rich. Being rich means having great wealth, and as we all know via inflation and economics, wealth is relative. As such, using the Categorical Imperative, if everyone were rich, no one would be rich, and thus the entire argument collapses upon itself in a contradiction of conceivability. It stands to reason through this simple excercise in logic that not only is it impossible for everyone to be rich like Byrne claims, Byrne must also be deceiving us as to the effectiveness of The Secret, since she cannot honestly will everyone in the world to be rich, lest no one be rich, thereby voiding her actions. It don't work the way she say it do.

Byrne is conscious of this, or could be made conscious of it very easily through the above excercise. In saying that The Secret works for everyone she is lying.The Secret does work. But only for her. The basis of HER path to wealth is through scamming people. And, once again, if EVERYONE scammed people, no one would trust anyone else and thus no one could be scammed, resulting in another contradiction and another immoral action.

I don't really blame people like Byrne, or Hubbard. True, they should absolutely positively be held responsible for the things that they do, and purposefully ripping off hundreds of thousands of people is a serious deal. But COME ON! A book claims that you can acquire wealth and anything else you want just by thinking about how much you want it? Use that brain a little bit before you whip out the charge card! You're responsible for your own shit, and you always will be. Just because slick salesmen or flashy products exist doesn't mean you aren't responsible for the things you do. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Or a free diamond necklace, or hunky lifeguard, or...

People are fooled because they want to be. Everyone who buys into Scientology, The Secret, and similar snake oils knows in their heart of hearts that what is promised can't possibly be true. And yet people line up by the buttload to shovel out their hard-earned cash to buy this crap. Tell you what: instead of spending your money on the next tier of Scientology classes or the latest Secret DVD, why not, oh I dunno...put it in the bank? Sock drawer? Work towards acquiring what you want instead of sitting around thinking about how much you want it.


*-- Bare Faced Messiah p.148. Reference given to LA Times, 27 Aug 78. Supposed to have happened in spring 1949.

**Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed.. Hackett, p30. ISBN 0-87220-166-x.

Ugly Duck Prom Queen

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.