[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I love how Steve writes these posts. Why? Because:

He is self-employed, making money from who? People who have jobs. I would be willing to bet that 99% of the readers on here are people who work for a living, not people like Steve who run their own blog or make money passively. So by telling people to just get up and quit their jobs he does what?

a. Demonstrates to people how they don't have the kahoona's to quit their jobs, saying that they are weaker than him. A statement like "If you don’t have the strength to say, “I quit” to something you clearly don’t want, then consider building that strength sometime before you die. " can clearly make people feel weak. What does this accomplish? Subconsciously establishes Steve's authority. Maybe one day, before we die, we can be as strong as Steve.

b. Creates contraversy, sparking a lot of discussion like this one in the forums.

c. Anyone who does decide to quit and ends up succeeding will come back and thank Steve for pushing them to take action.

d. Anyone who quits and realizes that everything is now screwed up because it wasn't the job that was the problem, but the person himself, will now be a prime candidate for FREE PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT, which they will find where? Here of course. [...]

In either case, Steve wins.

Edit: In retrospect, I think this post is pretty poorly written. If you'd like to read a better version of it, see this post. You can still read this one if you want, but it's somewhat long, wordy, and not very clear. It's not so bad that it warrants deletion, and you may still get some value from it, but it doesn't express what I wanted to say very well.

Steve does seem to go about his mission with an almost sinister level of effectiveness, doesn't he? The question is, does Steve just really believe in what he's doing, or is he all scamming the bejesus out of us?

I've questioned this before, and I've even spotted some inconsistencies in Steve's website and his actions which have made me question his motives (although this was a while ago, and back then I'd consider myself a rookie at understanding Steve). Some of the most interesting stuff you'll read about Steve come from comments he's made about his specific intentions, as well as things he's shared about his specific methods. To give you an example from a recent interview series Steve did (an interview that Steve didn't tell anyone from his website about! ), here's quote:

In my writing [...] I focus almost exclusively on the upper left quadrant (“I”). That’s intentional, and it shouldn’t be hard to see why. Some integral enthusiasts have jumped to the erroneous conclusion that my thinking must be stuck in that quadrant, but they overlook the rather obvious fact that the theme of my web site is personal development, not biology, sociology, or politics. While I consider all four quadrants in my work as a matter of course, I normally project everything to the first quadrant and write from that point of view. This is something I do very deliberately. Why? Because it’s extremely effective. Even though I address a very large audience, I strive to connect with my visitors on a very personal level, and I’ve gotten fairly good at that. To abandon that style just so I could pay homage to the other three quadrants would be inconsistent with the site’s intended purpose… and extremely foolish to boot.

Source: Zaadz | B-SCAN with Steve Pavlina (Part 2)

Ultimately, I believe that Steve is trying to do his best, but I believe what's important is to understand that Steve's "best" may not necessarily be "best" for you. He's working from his context and beliefs about reality, and I think it's important to keep this in mind when you interact with Steve or anyone for that matter. To quote Steve (oh, the irony ):

So if you don’t know your purpose in life, what kind of life will you end up living? I’ll sum it up with one word: owned (or if you’re a tremendous nerd, pwned). Your life is owned by others — their needs, their goals, their purposes. Why? Because if you don’t know your purpose, others will put you to good use achieving theirs.

I think so long as you work on what is intelligent and important for yourself (which may also involve what's important for others) you are somewhat "inoculated" against the pull other people and their purpose/goals/needs exert on you. You may not be completely immune to the reinforcement, but you are much more resilient and usually you'll have enough awareness to be able to make a choice. Really, this all comes down to the topics of “right and wrong”, the nature of the universe, etc, but I’ve found that’s a bottomless pit of complexity that seems to be a result of fear/egoic conditioning rather then a genuine desire to understand the nature of reality (at least in my experience).

What I like about Steve is that, regardless of what his motives are, he is honest (or, if not that, the best manipulator I've ever seen). He openly discusses his motives and actions, and while even that could be an elaborate ruse, I think you've got to draw the line somewhere and get on with your life, otherwise you're just playing into your own fears and limiting your effectiveness.

I think that, deep down, Steve is doing what he does because he genuinely wants to help people, but I don't think he's ridden himself of the "colder", more direct and brutally effective methods he learned when he was leaning towards the side of a darkworker (or a "self worker", as you would say, Paul). How do I know this? I see myself in Steve. It's uncanny how much, in essence, my life experience mirrors that of Steve's. I too was heavily leaning towards the "darkworker" side, and I know all too well how tempting it is to use what I learned from that period of time, simply because it’s damn effective.

Unfortunately that effectiveness comes at a cost, and in my case, I’m still not internally congruent enough to make use of all of my effectiveness without questioning my motives or being doubtful about the consequences of my actions. I’m learning that a lot of what I learned is largely incompatible with honouring my true self and a state of awareness, but I do get the feeling that eventually I’ll end up taking very similar actions to those I would have taken in my past, but for very different reasons, and a very different source (pun intended ) of “power”, or in this case, inspiration.

Interestingly, if you look at Steve's work over time (dating all the way back to what he did on his Dexterity website), you'll see his approaches change and come up to speed with his new identity. I think one of the reasons Steve is damn effective because he's been forged in the fire of self improvement - self improvement. While he may have since shifted his focus away from his self and to improvement in general, that initial "training" gives you a steely resolve that most others don't share, but that resolve can be used both constructively and destructively.

For example, compare Steve to Erin. You'll see that they both use a vastly different approach. Time will tell which is more effective, but effectiveness is very hard to judge, so while Steve may seem more effective objectively, perhaps Erin will have a larger impact down the line. It's hard to say.

Does the end justify the means? You may be quick to jump to conclusions, but it's also very hard to say. Eg. If you had to choose between killing one person to save 100,000 people -- even if that person was completely innocent and had a loving family and 2 young kids -- or letting that one person live and 100,000 other die, what would you do? What is right? It's very hard to say, and there is no clear back and white answer.

It’s the notion of “a knife, as an object, is neutral – how it is used is what matters”. A knife can be used as a helpful tool to make food for the hungry or rescue people who are trapped. It can also be used to kill and inflict harm, but how can you know that the harm being inflicted isn’t also being used for a greater purpose, equally as noble as using a knife to make food for the poor? What of the vegetables that get chopped up by the knife as a result of feeding the poor?

Really, it's all a matter of perspective, and I honestly don’t have all the answers. In closing, I’ll leave you with a favourite quote of mine. When asked who his favourite hero/villain was, Charles Connaughton replied:

Fictional characters were fun to idolize when I was in grade school, but real world heroes and villains are much more interesting. They are also the same people - those who stand up for what they believe to be right despite widespread disagreement. Whether they are a hero or a villain is entirely subjective. I feel that individuals who are both celebrated and reviled simultaneously are, at the very least, the most interesting people in the world.

Yep, I can see Steve now, clasping his hands together, Mr. Burns-style, nodding his head in a sinister manner as he chants, "yes, yes, excellent".