Ok, sorry i'm sure this topic has been covered somewhere. I only discovered this site 2 months ago so I guess I'm a little behind schedule.
Just read Steve's articles on polarization. I generally agree with most of Steve's ideas, but this one totally confuses me.
This post is gonna be pretty lengthy, b/c I'm seriously in disbelief. How is being a 'darkworker' (fear-polarized) even remotely desirable??
I mean, who wants to be like the emperor from Star Wars??? Surely Hitler also fits this 'darkworker' mold, so why would anybody choose to walk that path rather than someone like Buddha's? Incidentally, I've heard Darth Vader referred to as 'Space Hitler'.
I understand how being fear-polarized is related to personal growth, since you are becoming more powerful through manipulation of others and such.
But why would you consciously want to live this way when given the alternative?
As Steve said in his second article on polarization, a fear-based person will inevitably face competition and have enemies. Why on earth would you willingly choose to have enemies? The option for love seems obviously the better life. I can accept that both options may be equal in terms of their effectiveness to achieve personal growth. But I don't agree that both paths taken to reach this achievement of personal growth are equal in terms of merit, which Steve seems to be implying by not condemning fear-polarity.
Isn't the method in which you achieve something also important? To me, choosing to be a darkworker is like saying that all that matters is the end result, not how you got there. In my mind, being a darkworker is like cheating or stealing - you are being dishonest to others by manipulating them, and what you are doing is ultimately not for the greater good. What kind of a world would we live in if everyone was entirely self-centred? I would think a pretty terrible one.
This whole idea that both options are equal in terms of merit seems totally bogus to me. A life ruled by self-interest and a desire for power over others seems totally corrupt, and ultimately, i think it would be an unfulfilling way to live.
Furthermore, this outlook is totally ego-driven. How would you not become paranoid if your life was rooted in fear?
I would also believe that living in fear would lead one to be close-minded, defensive, likely fanatical, and ultimately very ignorant. Just like Hitler.
Another point relates to Steve's podcast on overcoming fear. I can understand how fear-based people try to conquer their fears, whereas love-based people strive to transcend them.
This makes sense to me.
But is it really possible to transcend all your fears without first conquering a few?
It seems logical that conquering some of your fears is a stepping stone in the process of transcending fear altogether - not two distinct and unrelated approaches as Steve implies in his polarization articles.
One last note is why can you not be giving (love-polarized) and still have some degree of personal selfish desire (fear-polarized).
How are these two qualities necessarily contradictory?
In other words, why would having both love-based desires and fear-based desires be ineffective in manifesting intentions???
If you buy into subjective reality, then you are everyone and everything, but your physical body is certainly still included. So having personal, ego-based desires is not automatically incongruent with the desire to benefit others.
A good example is the intention for a romantic relationship.
On the one hand, you have the desire for a relationship that will benefit you (fear-polarized), but you could (and hopefully would) also want to benefit your partner (love-polarized).
Thus, good relationships must
be mutually beneficial (that is, both love-polarized and fear-polarized), otherwise why would the one person even bother investing their time and energy into something that doesn't give them any value?
Please feel free to shed some light on these questions for me. Usually I find Steve's articles rather enlightening, but these two on polarity just make me cringe in confusion and I feel worse off now than before I read them.