Although I find most of the ideas on this site very helpful, the darkworker/lightworker articles I find delibirately biased and not really helpful at all. The problem is really the language chosen to describe what is nothing more then a psychological position or system of thinking. Take the name darkworker, before you know anything about them the association is drawn to one of evil as the word dark is referential to night, something that many people fear and that human society and language is negatively biased to. The opposite is true for the name lightworkers.
Following on from this it is said lightworkers use love as a fuel and darkworkers use fear. I personally feel that love is innappropriate here, taking a word that already has more meanings then any other and lumbering it with one more. In doing this it seems you are encouraging people to become lightworkers, whereas it could be argued that darkworking is just as an effective option.
Those trivial points aside, I think polarisation is not the most sensible option avaliable at all. It seems to me that while polarising at either end yields good results both systems of thought are intrinsically flawed. For lightworkers a the dominant idea is to help others, while evolution and biology tells us our base insincts involve only one person - ourselves. For darkworkers the dominant idea is helping yourselves, but human society frowns upon this and few people are satisfied by doing only selfish deeds. In subjective reality you could argue that these ideas have been created by ourselves, but on the other hand that means you don't really exist and this entire argument I'm having is basically with myself.
The main point is that both systems are flawed, and therefore it seems most sensible to try and find an alternative that combines the best aspects of both systems. In other articles on the site you claimed that darkworkers and lightworkers end up at the same destination, one where the darkworker finds he must help others to help himself and one where the lightworker finds he must help himself in order to help others. If both paths end up at the same point then the choice you make is irrelevant as long as you make a choice.
However why not skip the choice and go straight to the neutral area at the end of both of the tunnels? Why is this not possible?  |