I understand a lot of people are having the problem with Steve's equalization of dark and light, but let's not forget the bottom line truth of the article. If you look around, overwhelmingly successful people, have motivations strengthened and energized by either a very positive or a very "negative" selfish desire. By attuning these desires, to their extremes, intentions become enormously more powerful, and it is here where many people are lacking in intention-manifestation. They have an intention but there is very little emotional energy.
So in this perspective, it wasn't just written to fill up space, it's a very good observation and Steve is simply trying to describe it and accept it as best as possible.
Steve has thought through this very well. Some might argue, in the idea of polarizing intentions, they can choose very strong negative ones, and very strong positive ones to use this concept effectively. And I believe it is one solution. But the reason Steve talks about choosing one side completely is that ,though it's possible choosing both on an intention basis, it would require a lot of energy and may not be as effective when compared to choosing one polarity. Because if all you did was selfish things, you would constantly develop these tendencies and habits and dramatically and easily be able to force energy into the them. Because all your motives, and the emotion behind them are focused. By doing this the more selfish you are, the more focused upon the "dark" polarity, the better your intentions will manifest and the more power you will be able to compound. If this person, starts taking love polarized intentions, it will drain this snowball effect, possibly stopping it all together.
Is this not an amazing truth.
Think politics here, the greatest politicians were either completely polarized behind some sort of selfless desire or dedication...or... they simply were as polarized as possible with fear, building power and influence to achieve their ultimate goal.
My conflicting position here was that if these two equally polarized people ever conflicted it would obviously be the love one that would conquer, and my reason behind this is as humans we are inclined to love over fear, so love would always conquer.
And I was also thinking to become fully polarized as possible in "dark" wouldn't be good because, obviously you would become a machine. A walmart with no emotions or care for anyone else besides constant conquest and control. However, the same can be said for the love polarity, to be completely polarized in love is to be without any selfish desires, you would be a "god". So on both extremes you wouldn't be human, thus it's not a possibility. Both sides however, at this point, would be completely blissful.
So I dunno, it's an awesome concept and one that holds a lot of truth. I think that yes a balance isn't favorable, and complete polarization is humanly impossible so a surplus is what we should strive for. But to say you must be fully polarized is an impossibility. And I think impaul99 is right here, Steve is over analyzing his choice to be fully love polarized and in doing so is choosing fear, BECAUSE TO BE COMPLETELY POLARIZED IS NOT POSSIBLE. So he is hurting his surplus, by trying to perfect it. We have both selfless and selfish tendencies, thinking back to politicians, even the great one's of great selfless desires, had selfish positions. It was the only way they climbed the political ladder. So you have to accept your desires both "dark" and "light", choose a favorable side that really empowers you and pushes you. And keep a surplus there, again accepting your positions of the opposite polarity.
Last edited by CdnNix; 03-08-2007 at 10:38 AM.