[ahimel]

Originally Posted by impaul99

If darkworker = loving self first, and lightworker = loving world first, then where does love/fear come in place?

Why do darkworkers get labeled with being associated with FEAR energy? They simply love themselves FIRST and by learning to love themselves first they learn to love the world. Lightworkers love the world first and by learning to love the world they love themselves.

Why do darkworkers get labeled as acting out of fear? Acting out of self love is not the same as acting out of fear.

It's not the same, but humans being humans, and especially low-consciousness humans, acting out of self-love ends up resulting in fear. Light/worldworkers operate from a position of trust. I will give to others, and my needs will be taken care of (as long as I don't block it, and stay within reasonable limits.) We can quit our jobs with no visible means of support and use the "lilies of the field" budget with perfect comfort. (Matthew 6:25-34).

Dark/selfworkers can't do that. If you're concentrating on taking, the world isn't going to give, since you're obviously covering that end. The world will take. And this leads darkworkers to think of the world as a place that takes from them, where every good thing has to be worked and fought for. Which leads to a more fearful mentality.

Selfworkers don't fear because they are selfworkers - they're selfworkers because they fear. Likewise with the worldworkers.

I think also if we're going to continue with these discussions we should probably change the labels of Lightworker and Darkworker to Worldworker and Selfworker, because too many people are stuck with the label of "Darkworker" as being evil. Steve's comparison of Darkworker = Evil Emperor from starwars didn't help.

I like the terms, because I think they give a clearer idea of what we're talking about, with fewer stereotypes.

I think the Star Wars analogy was very helpful, especially because Episode III, whatever its other faults, is a good portrayal of a fledgling darkworker -- why they end up turning to the darkside. But it probably did help lock people into the dark=evil stereotype, since that theme is so prevalent in Lucas' films.

I think what we really need to find is an example of an enlightened selfworker. Someone who worked on improving himself throughout life without worrying about the world, but through his selfworking really helped the world.

For those who have read it, Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series may be a good example. Richard believes that it is immoral - not inconvenient, but immoral - to do something not in his best self-interest. He cares not one jot about most of the world except inasmuch as it affects him and his wife. But in order to live happily ever after with his wife, he has to fight off an invasion from the evil empire (who believes that people should be forced to help their fellow man.)

Faith of the Fallen is the best example, but the whole series is good for those who are interested in intellectual fantasy.

Worldworking would be more like the Romulan system where if someone is born disabled they just kill them because it's "Better for the world" as the person would just be a "drain on society". Selfworking understands the value of the individual person as infinitely valuable.

I must respectfully disagree. I would argue that selfworkers are more likely to say, "This person is disabled, and therefore useless to me. There is no reason to keep them alive." Worldworkers, since they start from a premise that everyone in the world is worthy of love, would instead argue that disability does not negate one's right to live their life.

Therefore, since I (a fledgling worldworker) think it's a property of selfworkers and you (one more oriented towards selfworking) think it's a property of worldworkers, I think it must be that neither side would engage in it.

Capitalism = selfworking.
Communism = worldworking.

Again, I must respectfully disagree. I am a fledgling worldworker, and fully committed to the capitalist system. Steve is a full-fledged worldworker, and I've noticed no communist tendencies in his writing.

Two distinctions need to be made:
1) As a worldworker, I believe that I should give to others. I have no desire to force you to give to others, which is the communist system.
2) As a capitalist, I retain the right to do with my money as I wish. I wish to build a business where employees can have fun and be engaged, to build nonprofits that bring self-reliance and sustainability into the world, and to surprise people with unexpected gifts that make their day. This is different from the USSR view of capitalism, that assumes that a capitalist will be cutthroat and greedy.

I want to give as much as possible to as many people as possible. Since communism makes people poor and capitalism makes people rich, I support capitalism because (a) it makes me rich, allowing me to give more to others, and (b) it makes others rich, which was the entire goal in the first place.