Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith  IMO, the idea of polarisation makes sense - if you choose to focus all your energies on one target, of course you'll be vastly more effective than if you dither back and forth.
However, the idea that there's only two ways to polarise - lightworking or darkworking - seems unnecessarily limiting (see Steve's podcast on finding third alternative options).
It seems to me that 'sending energy out to help others' and 'drawing energy in to help yourself' are only two possible high level goals that you could have. What if my polarisation is towards creating great art? Say I want this not for my own benefit or to benefit others, but for it's own sake.
Alternately, what if my polarisation is towards making the world safe so I and everyone else can live in peace? Doesn't that make lightworking/darkworking congruent?
Steve's posts on living congruently make a lot of sense to me. The idea that it's necessary to polarise in a non-congruent way to be effective seems inelegant to me. |
I don't think that there's another valid polarity. I mean, we either do things, ultimately, for ourselves or for others. If your goal is to pursuit art, then why are you pursuing it? To be recognized as a great artist, to become famous, to bring joy to other people, to make money, and so on. In your case, it probably brings you joy/happiness; so you're doing it for your own pleasure, and you're getting a personal benefit out of it, which means that it's more towards DW motivation because you care only about the pleasure you're getting. You get the point? There's no "for it's own sake" in my opinion. Everything has a higher motivation behind it than "for it's own sake".