[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by impaul99

SELFWorker: An individual who's primary focus and intention is to work on improving HIMSELF first, and who's reasoning is that by helping HIMSELF he will be able to make a positive change in the world.

WORLDWorker: An individual who's primary focus and intention is to work on improving the WORLD first, and who's reasoning is that by helping THE WORLD he will be able to make a positive change in his own life.

Both SELFWorkers and WORLDWorkers can act out of FEAR and LOVE. If they act out of FEAR they go down the consciousness scale, if they act out of LOVE they go up the consciousness scale.

SELFWorker syndrome = failure to realize that helping the world helps oneself, and therefore being drawn towards fear-filled things like greed, hoarding, etc.

WORLDWorker syndrom = failure to realize that helping oneself helps the world, and therefore being drawn towards fear-filled things like martyrism, powerlessness due to no focus on self-improvement, judging the world without looking at oneself.

Nice - finally something I can understand about this polarization idea. Why couldn't the original articles come across with this kind of clarity? It also seems to throw out the definition I was holding on to - darkworker:service to self, lightworker:service to others - since you have encapulated self or others in each case very nicely.

Your definition seems to include awareness of the side effect of the other side - like a worldworker is motivated ti help others and also has awarness or expectations this will help him/her self.

I also like how clearly you put the fear and love stuff. I think I have been harping on fear being the dark/selfworkers realm and love being light/worldworkers. But lots of Steve's ideas seemed to say fear was the selfworker's motivation. So we'd be tossing something that Steve felt, perhaps.

Does that make sense to everyone? I'd like to use this thread to hash out the actual DEFINITIONS of the two polarization paths, rather then whether or not it is actually useful to polarize completely etc. I dont' think we can continue any fruitful conversations on here with everyones current definition of polarization being so varied.

Yeah - whether or not it's useful to polarize is something else and can only be discused once we really understand what it is to polarize.

On that note, and with your definitions, I would ask to see some clarity about what motivation is and how it is to be described or classified into self or world feelings. And how polarized motivational feelings are able to not have the feelings of the other side be part of the motivation but still is part of the equation in some way (expecting or knowing the other side will be taken car of too?).