Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

wolfgang · 03-05-2007, 10:45 PM

I got this image after reading the blog. That the darkworker is hording and letting some giving happen to keep from being too unbalanced. And the lightworkers are so loose that they have to remember to not drain themselves completly and let stuff in from time to time.

So then it looks more like being a lightworker or darkworker, to me, is about watching out for that extreme case were operating as a horder or draining one'self is the crux. But if it's better to operate one way or the other, why is there a need to watch out for the extreme?

If operating one way or the other is good, as poalized then why is it not better to be extreme with it?

I also would like to hear how this polarity idea fits into the idea of transcending duality and finding the love of oneness as the motivation. So I'm wishing that the idea of being a lightworker or darkworker is not nessecary. That there's another state that is a continual ebb and flow that either you are about to horde too much or about to be drained too much and the way to stay away from being too full or too drained isn't to try to be one way or the other completly all the time.

What's the differnce bewteen a lightworker that is overgiving and thus blocking what's coming in and a lightworker that does allow the incomming? How can one be a lightworker and not also receive or otherwise end up dained? In which case the receiving is deamed a darkworker atrribute, right?

And vice versa. A hording darkworker is never a lightworker but the "balanced" darkworker has to let in some lightworker stuff.

OK, so the answer is that an effectively polarized lightworker's true intention is allways to give. So then the lightworker doesn't care about getting anything and woops - when he/she does it's darkworker stuff and then there's a mixing of the poalrity and the effectiveness trails off. Really? That just implodes on itself, to me.

Fine, the receiving is then to be seen as part of the giving. Huh? If the intention is to always be giving then how is receiving all of a sudden part of the giving?

03-05-2007, 10:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
wolfgang Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,084	I got this image after reading the blog. That the darkworker is hording and letting some giving happen to keep from being too unbalanced. And the lightworkers are so loose that they have to remember to not drain themselves completly and let stuff in from time to time. So then it looks more like being a lightworker or darkworker, to me, is about watching out for that extreme case were operating as a horder or draining one'self is the crux. But if it's better to operate one way or the other, why is there a need to watch out for the extreme? If operating one way or the other is good, as poalized then why is it not better to be extreme with it? I also would like to hear how this polarity idea fits into the idea of transcending duality and finding the love of oneness as the motivation. So I'm wishing that the idea of being a lightworker or darkworker is not nessecary. That there's another state that is a continual ebb and flow that either you are about to horde too much or about to be drained too much and the way to stay away from being too full or too drained isn't to try to be one way or the other completly all the time. What's the differnce bewteen a lightworker that is overgiving and thus blocking what's coming in and a lightworker that does allow the incomming? How can one be a lightworker and not also receive or otherwise end up dained? In which case the receiving is deamed a darkworker atrribute, right? And vice versa. A hording darkworker is never a lightworker but the "balanced" darkworker has to let in some lightworker stuff. OK, so the answer is that an effectively polarized lightworker's true intention is allways to give. So then the lightworker doesn't care about getting anything and woops - when he/she does it's darkworker stuff and then there's a mixing of the poalrity and the effectiveness trails off. Really? That just implodes on itself, to me. Fine, the receiving is then to be seen as part of the giving. Huh? If the intention is to always be giving then how is receiving all of a sudden part of the giving?