[tracyrtwyman]

I agree with those who say this article was not helpful - but it was an interesting glimpse into the psyche of the author. I really enjoy Steve's writing and find it useful most of the time. The lows on this blog have been the 30 day raw food trial, any/all political commentary (no matter how artfully buried in the text), and this lightworker/darkworker/polarization BS. I've read several articles by Steve about this stuff now and remain unconvinced that there is any validity to it.

Who's working for the good of humanity? Who's working to the detriment of humanity? The answer is everyone, all the time, is doing something that will bring results, and those results will be interpreted as good by some people, bad by others. Who decides what is good for humanity anyway, or that what is good for humanity is necessarily "good" in a universal sense? Lots of people think they know what's best for humanity. It usually involves trying to control what other people do.

Working for selfish motives makes sense because at least you can define to yourself what you think is best for yourself. But when you arrogate yourself to the point where you think it's your duty to fix the world for everyone else, and convince yourself that you're being unselfish by opposing the selfishness of others, you are simply deluding yourself. The reason why 1/3 of my income is stolen from me before I even get my paycheck, and thrown into a black hole where I'll never see it again, is because other people think they know what's best for me and everyone else.

I'm not saying people shouldn't get involved in trying to change the world. I'm just saying that you should at least be able to admit that you're trying to create the kind of world you want to live in, and selfishness is as much a factor here as it is in anything else you do.

Adam Smith explained how this concept works in business:

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

What Steve says about the power of "polarizing" - how your abilities increase dramatically once you decide what "side" you are on, is true. But really what's going on here is that most people are so confused about what they want in life, what they care about, and what they stand for that they are completely ineffectual. Those of us who decide clearly what we want and what groups/movements we want to align ourselves with will always be more effective than those who remain undecided and confused. All of the powers in the universe that share your alignment will come to your aid. But I think it's absolute crap to say that you have to decide between "light" and "darkness."

Obviously Steve considers himself a "lightworker" or else he would never have written about this. It would be interesting to see which people he has labeled as "darkworkers."