Quote:
|
Hmm, maybe I can answer my own question. It's a fictional example, but, I guess Robin Hood (who steals because he believes it's justified since he's stealing from the rich and giving to the poor) might count as a lightworker despite doing something as unethical as stealing, because he thinks it's for the greater good.
|
I don't think that Robin Hood is acting very enlightened. I don't think that he is polarized.
Quote:
|
Thinking on this, I can come up with a comparison with Steve's new book. Steve's book hit the top 100 books on amazon.com for a little bit. Steve encouraged the book to rank higher by blogging about it, sending a newsletter about it, and he was excited about how high it ranked. In a way, you can see this as competition, he wanted his book to be ranked higher then others.
|
If you read the posts in this forum from Steve about his book he has a few personal problems with seeing himself as an successful author, that get reflected in that blog post.
In addition Steve wants to get as many books as possible into the bookshops. Having hit the amazon top 100 allows the Hayhouse people to get more books into bookshops.
Quote:
|
I haven't played go before, but it's true, you don't have to play games to win, you can simply pay for the fun of it. I realize people do that.
|
Playing for beauty is not more fun centered than playing for winning.
Both create meaning and challenge.
If you play for beauty or excellence the challenges isn't only in the end of the game but in every single move.
On example of the difference of those play styles are moves that are intended to provoke the opponent to make mistakes. You don't do those things when you play for beauty or excellence but you sometimes do them when you play to win.
Quote:
|
Don't let yourself be boxed in.
|
That basically means: Don't polarize.
You don't have to polarize, it's a choice that somebody can make that has some advantages (more clarity and integrity) and disadvantages (it's hard).