Steve did not invent the terms 'lightworker' and 'darkworker'

[Athena]

They are a universal set of phrases. Everything from good guy/bad guy, angel/demon, hero/anti-hero, shows the same archetypal dichotomy. The terms 'lightworker' and 'darkworker' appear all over spiritual literature as well.

It is a simple illustration. A lightworker derives his energy from source or light energy. A darkworker derives his energy primarily from self or earthly materials. One is fundamentally more powerful and lasting than the other.


I hope that everyone sees that what Steve is describing is not a made-up set of terms; rather, they are describing a universal set of archetypes. Hopefully, he is showing which style of living is the more effective way to live.

[Savage]

I first heard the lightworker term from Doreen Virtue. I don't recall hearing the darkworker term elsewhere though. I might have picked it up from someone else (possibly from Erin), or I might have made it up to juxtapose with the term lightworker. Honestly I don't remember.

The point wasn't to invent new terms though; in some circles lightworker was already in common usage.

[CroMagna]

Originally Posted by Athena

They are a universal set of phrases. Everything from good guy/bad guy, angel/demon, hero/anti-hero, shows the same archetypal dichotomy. The terms 'lightworker' and 'darkworker' appear all over spiritual literature as well.

It is a simple illustration. A lightworker derives his energy from source or light energy. A darkworker derives his energy primarily from self or earthly materials. One is fundamentally more powerful and lasting than the other.


I hope that everyone sees that what Steve is describing is not a made-up set of terms; rather, they are describing a universal set of archetypes. Hopefully, he is showing which style of living is the more effective way to live.

But you cited examples of made up things: spiritual literature, fairy tales, angel/demon, hero/anti-hero, all of these are made up. That was a logical fallacy. I don't think polarity is that simplistic.

You're either selfish or selfless ultimately. It's a difficult decision. Hence most people never do it. If you do choose one, then you have a better sense of clarity and focus. But it will not replace self-discipline. That's what I've gathered from Steve's writing. I don't think one is better than the other. I think a darkworker is morally superior to an NPC. NPCs are highly frustrating and frustrated in their "efforts". I imagine a darkworker just keeping to himself and reading something, and I imagine an NPC getting on someone's nerves. Some lightworkers are "immoral" too. The Nation of Islam is a lightworker organization.

I think it is made up but I think it has great logic.

[Savage]

Instead of thinking in terms of selflessness or selfishness, I think it's more of a question of how you identify the word self.

A darkworker sees himself as a separate and distinct individual. That separateness is key. The good of the individual is all that matters.

A lightworker sees himself as part of the larger whole of humanity (and by extension all existence). That sense of oneness is key. The lightworker works for the good of the whole because he identifies more with that level than with the level of the individual. A lightworker is still an individual, but he recognizes that the level of all humanity is a more interesting place to focus than the level of an individual.

So both lightworkers and darkworkers are being selfish, but they each have a different way of definiing self. For a darkworker, self is the individual ego. For a lightworker, self is (essentially) the larger body of humanity.

[Brutha]

They are a universal set of phrases. Everything from good guy/bad guy, angel/demon, hero/anti-hero, shows the same archetypal dichotomy. The terms 'lightworker' and 'darkworker' appear all over spiritual literature as well.

The term darkworker didn't appear in google reach in the way Steve used it. There were a handful of google hits (single digits) that had the word but they didn't used it the way Steve does.
At the moment there are 3100 hits. Most inspired by Steves writing.

Everything from good guy/bad guy, angel/demon, hero/anti-hero, shows the same archetypal dichotomy.

Good/bad guy are labels with different meaning.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Athena

A lightworker derives his energy from source or light energy.

Ah ... Green plants must be lightworkers. They rely on photosynthesis.

A darkworker derives his energy primarily from self or earthly materials.

Earthworms. They swallow soil constantly. They must be darkworkers.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I first heard the lightworker term from Doreen Virtue. I don't recall hearing the darkworker term elsewhere though. I might have picked it up from someone else (possibly from Erin), or I might have made it up to juxtapose with the term lightworker. Honestly I don't remember.

The point wasn't to invent new terms though; in some circles lightworker was already in common usage.

I actually picked up a Doreen Virtue book the other day at a thrift store and read a little while standing there, I remember seeing the term light-worker and it reminded me of these discussions.

[Revolution]

I understand the "definition of self" thing. But surely it is merely a question of AWARENESS. The less aware identify only with their ego/body/immediate surroundings. But as one grows spiritually they see more and more the connectedness of all things. They realise - among other things - that what goes around comes around.

Franky, judging by Steve's response it sounds like he may very well have made the term "Dark Worker" up. (And even if he hadn't - somebody did - somebody must have.)

I too have heard the term "Light Worker" used in broader circles - and I must say its a rather nice term - I see it as someone who brings light to the planet.

On the other hand I find the term "dark worker" to be completely useless. It is a very negative term and it has negative connotations. For anyone who understands the LOA I couldn't imagine why they would want to call themselves a "dark worker". The word "dark" in all likelihood would be "linked" within the human inventory (mind) with a whole bunch of other words. Words like evil, mean, sinister etc are probably brought up in most people's minds when they hear the word "dark".

As for the "polaization" issue - I have no doubt at all that Steve made this up also. I frankly question how making gains at the expense of others could have any spiritual reward. I see the flaws in both systems - the people who are "people pleasers" at the expense of themselves and also the selfish me, me, me types. Furthermore, there are alot of young minds here who have taken the whole thing too literally and some ludicrous debates have ensued. I'ts almost gotten to the point of a small scale war on this forum between LWs and DWs which in reality is an artificial war because there is no such thing as either!!!!!

Do what works for you. Some of us are more given to extraversion while others need more "space". And even someone who claims to be a darkworker isn't really - because what about all the books they have read. All the wonderfull information they have gained from others. But have they given back? That is the question.

A Joke: Q: How many darkworkers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. They prefer to work in the dark.

Ha hahhahahahhhhhhhahahaahahaa ha ha get it?

Peace.

[Parthon]

Originally Posted by Revolution

A Joke: Q: How many darkworkers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None. They prefer to work in the dark.

I can't believe this made me laugh.

Perhaps doing away with the *worker labels would be a good idea. They may be helpful to polarise, but that's really only to focus your power and make better decisions. Living in alignment with universal principles would be key.

Hmmm, I just had the thought of trying out being a "funworker" for a while and see how it goes. It seems to resonate with me.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

So both lightworkers and darkworkers are being selfish, but they each have a different way of definiing self. For a darkworker, self is the individual ego. For a lightworker, self is (essentially) the larger body of humanity.

I would add that a darkworker sees him/herself as the embodiment of humanity. Like the way Hitler identified himself as the embodiment of the volk, the people. Instead of seeking oneness, he is The One, the Messiah, the Savior. That, in fact, is the definition of anti-christ. A person who denies the authority of Christ and places himself on the throne.

I've been meaning to ask you Steve, why educate darkworkers? I mean, as a lightworker, isn't that kind of like shooting yourself in the foot?

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Parthon

I can't believe this made me laugh.

Perhaps doing away with the *worker labels would be a good idea. They may be helpful to polarise, but that's really only to focus your power and make better decisions. Living in alignment with universal principles would be key.

Hmmm, I just had the thought of trying out being a "funworker" for a while and see how it goes. It seems to resonate with me.

Nice idea. Wouldn't it be cool if everyone in the world had fun all of the time - even in their jobs. That would be a cool world.

[Parthon]

Yeah, that would be awesome. Joy and fun in all endeavours!

I'm wondering what other kinds of *workers there could be. Loveworkers, peaceworkers, powerworkers. Hmmm, they are pretty hard to come up with.

Who else has some ideas for new *workers?

[Brutha]

I would add that a darkworker sees him/herself as the embodiment of humanity. Like the way Hitler identified himself as the embodiment of the volk, the people.

If you use the term as Steve made them up, it means something different. Darkworking is about focusing on the self.

That is also where the concept gets interesting because it doesn't mean the same as good guy/bad guy.

On the other hand I find the term "dark worker" to be completely useless. It is a very negative term and it has negative connotations.

Those connotations exist in your mind because you have judeo-christian ideals in your mind.
The Hindus have no problem with worshiping Shiva the destroyer.

[mercuryrising]

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you use the term as Steve made them up, it means something different. Darkworking is about focusing on the self.

I'm trying to 'even the score' a bit. If you are one with everything and I am just me, your source of power is much greater than mine. However, if I am the source of everything, I am the source of your power. The power is the same, it's a matter of how you look at it.

That is also where the concept gets interesting because it doesn't mean the same as good guy/bad guy.

I agree. People have said that if Hitler died in 1939, he would have been considered the greatest statesman to ever live. I could have used a different example-- someone we consider a 'good guy'. Those labels in society change like the weather. If you were to ask Americans in the 80's if Michael Jackson is a good guy, they would emphatically agree with you. Now, Americans see him as a bizarre man with an obsession for young boys.

I see darkworking as the centralizing of power around the self and lightworking as the dispersal of power to the whole. It is similar to the difference between having a mainframe computer system and a network. The first relies on all information coming from a single huge computer. The second has information spread throughout many computers.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Ah ... Green plants must be lightworkers. They rely on photosynthesis.

Hahahahaha

[Athena]

None of these archetypes listed are 'made up'. They're part of human characteristics, and observations of a natural patterning of energy and behavior.

I added this note primarily to the people who wrote in discussion of lightworker/darkworker, that they're just 'Steve's terms' and thus not necessary to understand fully.

See that this is a more universal descriptor, not limited to this author.

a few sites have the term from 2002 to 2005 with the same descriptor.
The book Lifting the Veil from 2005 also describes the same.


Anyways, the point is that these are universals, not one person's made up terms or limited to a few journal entries, and thus important to understand fully.

[Brutha]

a few sites have the term from 2002 to 2005 with the same descriptor.
The book Lifting the Veil from 2005 also describes the same.

That book uses "Dark Worker" but doesn't use darkworker.

Anyways, the point is that these are universals, not one person's made up terms or limited to a few journal entries, and thus important to understand fully.

There no need to understand anything.
On the other hand you shouldn't expect to understand discussions in this forum that use the term darkworker if you don't understand the term the way Steve defined it.
Words are tools. They help use to build lenses to see the world.

On the other hand things get interesting when you are open for seeing differences between different lenses of seeing the world.

[ProjectX]

Originally Posted by Athena

It is a simple illustration. A lightworker derives his energy from source or light energy. A darkworker derives his energy primarily from self or earthly materials. One is fundamentally more powerful and lasting than the other.

I don't quite understand this energy thing. Can't a darkworker feel inspired by looking at the success of others or feeling the energy of the sun on his skin?

Originally Posted by Parthon

Yeah, that would be awesome. Joy and fun in all endeavours!

I'm wondering what other kinds of *workers there could be. Loveworkers, peaceworkers, powerworkers. Hmmm, they are pretty hard to come up with.

Who else has some ideas for new *workers?

I like the term powerworker.

[Athena]

Yes, as long as one sees through the person, to the energy that is being channeled through them. For instance, when you look at someone else's success, are you looking at their material aspects, money, power, trappings, etc, (materials) or at their work and motivation and inspiration (light energy)?

If your inspiration is sparked by other's success stories, that's a good start, but should be a secondary source of energy, not your primary. Your path is lit by your own inner motivation and top-down inspiration, and others' success are on the sidelines of your path, and are only secondary to your own, and not your primary source of motivation.

Also when you're in touch with your own inner motivation and inspiration, you know that that's the most pure source of energy, as it comes from the top down (from source or spirit), rather than horizontally (only earth level).

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Instead of thinking in terms of selflessness or selfishness, I think it's more of a question of how you identify the word self.

A darkworker sees himself as a separate and distinct individual. That separateness is key. The good of the individual is all that matters.

A lightworker sees himself as part of the larger whole of humanity (and by extension all existence). That sense of oneness is key. The lightworker works for the good of the whole because he identifies more with that level than with the level of the individual. A lightworker is still an individual, but he recognizes that the level of all humanity is a more interesting place to focus than the level of an individual.

So both lightworkers and darkworkers are being selfish, but they each have a different way of definiing self. For a darkworker, self is the individual ego. For a lightworker, self is (essentially) the larger body of humanity.

This is *the* best description of polarity (i.e. lightworking and darkworking) I've seen from Steve.

I actually understand the concept (I know others do, too, but in general, it seems there are more who don't understand to those who do), and Steve’s above explanation resonates completely with my experience of polarity.

I'll add, though, that (at least as I understand it) polarity is not some universal force. Steve kind of made it sound like that with his initial explanations, but he's since refined his explanation of the concept (although people who read earlier articles without reading the later articles will still be confused; Steve's content is more about the overall evolution of his message, which you can follow on his blog, rather than "snapshots" of it, i.e., specific articles).

Polarity is more like a tool that fits within the intelligence (truth, love, and power) model. You can use polarity to significantly increase your alignment with truth, love, and power, but the core nature of it is that it's a choice: something decided consciously, or not at all.

Some people have different models they use (not all of them are as conceptually sound as polarity) to achieve similar results. Steve mentioned that polarity was his way of achieving consistent motivation (although he never really explained the methods and ideas behind that; his book now shows the secret framework--albeit one that was in progress--that's been behind most of Steve's successful efforts over the last few years).

Most people don’t decide to use the tool of polarity, and would be viewed by Steve as unpolarised. Polarity, as Steve says, is a conscious choice—a tool you deliberately decide to use to enhance your effectiveness.

I identify myself as a lightworker, but not really someone who’s polarised. Or at least, I find maintaining polarisation to be difficult because my situation tends to drag me down from high-awareness living and make me focus on the survival of my physical body, not contribution to everything and everyone. For me, lightworking is natural. Polarity is the choice that acknowledges what you could do if you fully utilised your potential to do good, and the commitment to ensuring that good is done, regardless of the difficulties you experience.

Essentially, lightworkers are the custodians of the planet. They are the not-so-silent guardians; the watchful protectors who challenge people to live consciously. We might like to say people have a choice in this, and to a degree, they do, but frankly, we know the current choices people are making are destroying the planet and our collective potential. People may have a choice--free will--but if that choice ends up killing all of us, we'll be the ones who feel silly for remaining idle, letting it happen. A real lightworker acknowledges the seriousness of the situation but tries to exert a positive impact on the planet nonetheless, opting to target those that will make positive changes, regardless of what the collective masses do. If you can't influence the collective masses, influence everyone around them until positive change is the default. For a lightworker, the drive to do that comes from intelligence--the truth, love, power kind--since the opposite result is highly unintelligent and a huge dishonour to our potential and life itself.

I certainly won’t sit buy and watch, but things don’t get better by making people your enemy; things get better by helping people. Those who are the hardest to love are the ones who need it most. Those who are making non-ideal choices are crying out in pain. It’s up to those who are able to endure and handle that pain more readily than others to help those who are suffering. Why? Because they can. Your power to influence gives you responsibility. Your potential is always there; whether or not you’ve acknowledged or utilised it will not rob you of responsibility since, if you can develop the ability to have a positive impact, you've had the ability to have a positive impact all along. That isn’t intended to be disempowering—your can only do your best—but it is intended to wake people up out of fear and apathy, since that’s usually what stops you from using your “light.” Fear only serves to weaken a lightworker.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Ah ... Green plants must be lightworkers. They rely on photosynthesis.

Earthworms. They swallow soil constantly. They must be darkworkers.

Technically the sun would be a lightworker, since the green plants are participating in in-flow as much as the earthworms.

But I'd dump the whole in-flow, out-flow analogy when you try to understand polarity.

A lightworker could spend most of their time in-flowing, yet still have enormous out-flow (although it's less likely).

I find it easier to understand the idea of polarity with what self you identify with, since while in-flow and out-flow might prove to be pretty accurate, it too easily makes people think that lightworkers are only about in-flow, and vice versa. That's simply inaccurate.

Ultimately, a lightworker chooses to do what's best for the self--. This will result in much out-flow, I'm sure, but at any given time a lightworker might be in-taking lots of energy.

Really, if you must use the idea of energy flow, think of where the energy flows to. Does it flow to a specific person (darkworker), or everyone, either by reaching everyone, or with the intention of creating positive change and resources for everyone (lightworker)?

For me, the answer is resoundingly the latter. I do things for me, but those things are for everyone else, too. I see no divide between the two. It may seem like things that directly benefit me don't benefit other people, but that's a very time-bound, fragmented way to look at life and reality. I choose to look at reality through the lens of timelessness and holism, where everything exist and expands in the moment, and everything is "together, separately," within that moment.

I cannot think of a more intelligent, more experientially and intuitively sound way to live. Every other model ultimately ends up being ineffective, self-disacknowledging (i.e. compartmentalised), and unnatural and unintuitive.

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I've been meaning to ask you Steve, why educate darkworkers? I mean, as a lightworker, isn't that kind of like shooting yourself in the foot?

It doesn't make sense to a lightworker to disacknowledge or fully disconnect from someone. The lightworker views that person as a part of the larger body.

You want to acknowledge and honour that already existing connection as best you can, choosing to aid the darkworker where you can aid them, which manifests as you helping them be effective, since that is what they care about.

The great thing about growth is that, in the process, most people will raise their awareness. Since most people don't consciously choose to polarise with the darkworker path--they just kind of fall into it and aren't really conscious darkworkers--they shift back to a more inclusive, more natural state of being pretty easily. Defective by design.

Conscious darkworkers are a whole other issue, but they're not really a problem. They'll still do things for themself, but in a way that acknowledges that it's not intelligent to trash the body while they're at it. It's at that point that ultimately the darkworker and lightworker kind of fuse into beings of the same purpose and power, just with different ways of approaching it. Thus, you identify less with your original polarity choice, even if it might still be a powerful motivating tool for you.

Really, polarity is a tool used to help you raise awareness and ultimately align more with life. It's the unconscious darkworkers (and even unconscious lightworkers)--the people who may be committed to a certain polarity, but don't have a high degree of awareness--we need to focus on. Those are the people who really need help so they can start helping the body instead of hurting it, but ultimately, it's probably better to help those people indirectly rather than directly (although some choose to help them directly, which is fine).

[CroMagna]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Instead of thinking in terms of selflessness or selfishness, I think it's more of a question of how you identify the word self.

A darkworker sees himself as a separate and distinct individual. That separateness is key. The good of the individual is all that matters.

A lightworker sees himself as part of the larger whole of humanity (and by extension all existence). That sense of oneness is key. The lightworker works for the good of the whole because he identifies more with that level than with the level of the individual. A lightworker is still an individual, but he recognizes that the level of all humanity is a more interesting place to focus than the level of an individual.

So both lightworkers and darkworkers are being selfish, but they each have a different way of definiing self. For a darkworker, self is the individual ego. For a lightworker, self is (essentially) the larger body of humanity.

Thanks for that amazing insight.

[ProjectX]

A highly conscious darkworker would understand that for a strong individual to rise and succeed, a strong society needs to exist.

[Brutha]

A highly conscious darkworker would understand that for a strong individual to rise and succeed, a strong society needs to exist.

The Prince from Machiavelli is a book that is in a sense about building a strong society. On th other hand it isn't about lightworking.

[changes]

hi im new to the forum and just browsing around seen this lightworker darkworker mentioned several times were on this forum is the best place to read about this subject. With huge respect and thanks x

[Parthon]

These are the blog posts that Steve did on polarisation, and lightworker/darkworkers, I think they are a great start, then I'd say do a search and read through some of the more recent conversations on it.

Polarity
Polarization
Polarity and Your Career
Are You a Lightworker or a Darkworker?
Polarity and Health
Polarized Problem-Solving
Darkworkers, Lightworkers, and Levels of Consciousness
For Love of Evil

[changes]

thankyou Parthon