I don't think Steve should cover any of those topics at the moment. I get the intuitive sense that the book wouldn't have the elegance or power that PDSP has. It feels like he'd just be writing a book because he can write a book, rather than sharing something extremely profound and impactful. As Steve has already predicted, the response to the topics he mentioned wouldn't be that great since people aren't ready or that interested in them.
(For me, oneness covers subjective reality pretty nicely and polarity seems kind of redundant when you're already lightworking. Truth, love, and power seem more appropriate in moving forward. You could say that I'm already polarised, but nah, I'd say that I've made my decision--and it arose very naturally--but I'm yet to have the conscious resolve that really drives me forward. Again, that seems to be more of a lightworker syndrome thing, which is what truth, love, and power are suited to. )
I have this very undefined, yet very clear sense of something that PDSP didn't really cover, and I think it'd make for an interesting, albeit challenging sequel.
We have the principles. We have exercises to apply them. I feel there's still a lack of simplicity to applying them. It's like we have a map, but no real way to get there.
I think if you compare the principles within PDSP with the exercises, the exercises are kind of lacking. The principles are awesome because you can learn them and then use your natural patterning abilities to see evidence of them in your experience, begin to generalise, and then start to apply them more accurately. That will take time, but it's do-able--mostly a solved problem.
But when you compare the exercises to the elegance of the principles, as least to me, it feels like you're kind pushing things upstream. Is it possible to develop application processes that are as specific, accurate, and effective as something such as StrengthsFinder? I kind of feel that when it comes to application, we're all still not really acknowledging some of the most fundamental concepts of our time, or at least, we're saying, "well, this is how I did it, and this has worked for many people, but in terms of some sort of system that works for everyone, I'm not really sure how to do that." Steve even said that in his book a few times--admitted that there were some things he didn't know--but that's kind of inherently unsatisfying to me, heh.
Maybe this is something for me to solve; maybe it's something for Steve to solve. Maybe that's either/or thinking. Either way, that seems to be at least one missing component when it comes to the realm of personal development for smart people. "Find your own way, because you're a smart person" seems to not really acknowledge the huge potential that could come from something that was just a little bit more effective than the current "figure out a way that works for you" approach. Imagine if you could find a specific means of application for almost every situation that worked every time, no exception.
Perhaps the law of attraction is the answer to this, but even that isn't an exact science. There's this big, "oh, so the LoA is effective; how do we get to the point where it becomes effective?" Growth certainly comes from finding the "how," but I also think that we'd grow just as much, or more, if our efforts where invested in using our potential instead of figuring out ways to use it. Again, the principles can be of great help here, but they only give a direction. Now we need a map, or at least, a way to plot a specific route that will work every time, regardless of who applies it. It doesn't have to be only one map (since one map that works for everyone would be super-hard), just enough "maps" so that every different type of person has something they can successfully apply.
I guess you could say I'm saying, "ok, we've got these awesome principles; why do we still need concepts like polarity? Why isn't there more of an exact science when it comes to bridging the principles with specific methods of implementation?"
I’m not sure Steve solve this in a year.