[smallstar]

Cheers,

Steve, this polarity discussion brings to my mind:

In your earlier posts and podcasts you said that it one of your advantages was to be able to switch your point of view quickly from one point to another: you use Subjective reality thinking in certain things and Objective reality in others just because it works better. The same thing about religions: for each situation, you use what works the best.

While keeping that in mind, it now seems strange that you now recommend making one choice, having effects on your whole future, and being at least partially irreversible. Of course, this comes with the remark that you should not forget that you also have that other side.

At least for me, this does not work. Seeing what I have already accomplished on both light and dark sides, it seems foolish to make a restrictive choice to your thinking patterns. Of course, you should be consistent in any one situation. If you go to a bar in order to get laid (dark), you don't buy girls drinks (light). If you work to create quality (light), you don't constantly think about your upcoming raise (dark). However, you can and should go ask for that raise afterwards. A more important thing is that you apply the right pattern to the right situation, and that you don't apply the weak, or "mixed", pattern.

Steve, as you said earlier, you are not a Buddhist, you just happen to use a Buddhist thought pattern sometimes. I'm going even further, refusing to use the "Lightworker" and "Darkworker" labels altogether. Why restrict your thinking to one model when you can have two? I agree that the "mixed" model is weak. But why should you also sacrifice the other polarity just to avoid the "mixed"? If you can context switch between Christianity and Buddhism, Subjective and Objective, why would switching between Light and Dark be any different?

-SS