Inadequacies in both 'Lightworker vs. Darkworker' & 'Left vs. Right Wing'

[Johnny Soporno]

Most people assign the "Self-interest" to the realm of the 'Darkworker', or 'Right Wing' philosophies. This is entirely due to the inappropriateness of delineating multi-dimensional qualities across a axis, essentially forming a dichotomy.

One CAN be 'perfectly selfish' while both helping other people AND helping themselves.

That's the beauty of what has been termed "Enlightened Self-Interest" (or sometimes 'Rational Selfishness') and it requires a slight-yet-critical reframing away from the binary 'Lightworker / Darkworker' delineation.

I ABSOLUTELY DENY the entire concept of "Altruism" as one based in self-deception. Furthermore, is runs contrary to the concepts of "worthiness" and "appreciation" which are primary and pivotal tenants of my philosophy.

No one does ANYTHING 'altruistically' - regardless of their belief in the selflessness of their gesture. They merely do things which satisfy their own egos under the guise of 'altruism'.

Mother Teresa in Calcutta was satisfying her existential craving for communing with her god, guarantying her eventual sanctity, and her legacy. These things ARE REWARDS IN THEMSELVES, and compensated her for her 'sacrifice'.

As Robert Heinlein wrote about Altruism:

“Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.

If tempted by something that feels ‘altruistic,’ examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!" (emphasis mine)

Whether your motives are love, pity, guilt-relief, desire for approval/gratitude/public esteem, or pride/self-esteem - they are still MOTIVES and deny the concept of genuine altruism.

As Ayn Rand wrote about Altruism:

“The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others.
These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible." (emphasis mine)

Heinlein also wrote:

Do not confuse “duty” with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different.

Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfil obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.

Whatever I do, I do with my eyes wide open, fully appreciating my motives, and in compliance with my duty.

I am often described as a most generous person, and I derive satisfaction from that (which is payment enough!) as well as from the confidence that every person I offer to assist is worthy of my attention, and has freely ACCEPTED my offer, appreciates the help, and does not feel belittled nor victimized by it.

I am COMPLETELY SELFISH in everything I do, and everything I am, and AS A CONSEQUENCE, I consistently do the very best I can for everyone I elect to involve in my world. See above

Reassess your premises, and you will understand that you can BOTH be active and promoting a greater-good while at the same time being truly self-serving, and living richly, accumulating wealth and generating value!


Much in the same way as political philosophies can't truly be divided along just one axis, (despite people's continuously making this reasoning error, and consequently concluding in paradox) a persons nature and motives cannot be so black & white.

"Left Wing" is generally used to describe someone with a socialistic propensity,
while "Right Wing" is generally used to describe someone with a capitalistic/individualistic sentiment.

At the same time, "Left Wing" is usually used to describe a tolerant leniency, a moral flexibility, and non-confrontationality while "Right Wing" is usually assigned to conservatism, militarism, and religious fundamentalism.

Since there are PLENTY of capitalist atheist pacifists, and no end to profiteering, self-aggrandizing Marxists, it is obvious that there is no genuinely demonstrable polarity.

For politics, I prefer a two-dimensional model - X and Y divisions, resulting in this sort of thing:

___TOP____

|
|
|
|

LEFT -------------+----------- RIGHT

|
|
|
|

__BOTTOM__

In the above model, the X axis [Left <--> Right] describes individual economic liberties [Socialism <--> Capitalism]
And the Y axis (Top <--> Bottom) describes individual civil liberties [Anarchy <--> Totalitarianism]

Where any individual OR political party wishes to DESCRIBE itself can be much better represented in this two-dimensional model, but still - how close they will be to actually EXISTING in that limited model is a matter of interpretation.

Darkworker / Lightworker is as limiting as Left Wing / Right Wing, and therefore I recommend everyones' liberating themselves from believing that they must polarize into one 'camp' or the other, and merely work within themselves to establish a consistent, rational model for their own life!


My personal Mission Statement:

"I exist to enjoy the rewards of my best efforts!"

...throughout my life, the rewards are vast and constant, and eminently enjoyable!

Johnny Soporno
Lifestyle Guru

[cylon]

I hate labeling myself. I am a registered republican and vote that way, but that doesn't mean that I wholeheartedly embrace every single idea or opinion that has been ascribed to the "right wing". Yet, all you have to do is mention a candidate you voted for, and it's so easy for someone else to start painting you with this brush that is coated with their own preconceptions of "what you must believe".

So, I guess it is better for me personally to just rise above the whole concept of categorizing myself like that. No way in hell everyone neatly fits into box a, or box b. As humans we are just too complex for that.

I flirted with polarizing a little, but found that I was interested in both types, light and dark. I didn't like the idea of being a darkworker and basically hurting other people who got in my way, and I didn't like the idea of being a lightworker and sacrificing all of my own personal happiness to the greater good.

[Brutha]

At the same time, "Left Wing" is usually used to describe a tolerant leniency, a moral flexibility, and non-confrontationality while "Right Wing" is usually assigned to conservatism, militarism, and religious fundamentalism.

Since there are PLENTY of capitalist atheist pacifists, and no end to profiteering, self-aggrandizing Marxists, it is obvious that there is no genuinely demonstrable polarity.

Marxists aren't morally flexible believe that force is necessary to produce chance. They also have an notion of history that practically behaves like a God.

In the US you have the problem that someone who follows the political philosophy (as defined in the 19th century and outside the US) of liberalism is called a conservative.
Propaganda worked in no average person in the US understands what a political philosophy entails.
American language got destroyed in a Orwellian way, that makes it hard to talk about poltical ideas. The words don't have a polarized meaning but have lost a clear meaning.

Much of the actions of the Democratic party or the Republicans aren't motivated by political philosophy but by realpolitiks (yes, realpolitik is really spelled with k at the end).
Just because the Republican party started to believe in waging war doesn't mean that the idea of waging war is conservative.

Mother Teresa in Calcutta was satisfying her existential craving for communing with her god, guarantying her eventual sanctity, and her legacy. These things ARE REWARDS IN THEMSELVES, and compensated her for her 'sacrifice'.

Just because someone gets a reward doesn't mean that the reward was the course for their action.

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Marxists aren't morally flexible believe that force is necessary to produce chance.

"This not a sentence, because it no verb!"

This thread is not intended to discuss politics - it is to advise people not to 'throw out the baby with the bathwater' by failing to appreciate individuals, and distinctions which are easily lost beneath sweeping generalizations, such as labels.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Just because someone gets a reward doesn't mean that the reward was the cause for their action.

That can certainly be true. A construction worker whose job entails lifting 200lb H-beams all day, every day, would no-doubt become powerfully muscled as an unintended by-product of his activities. However, if he were to become a body-builder, or power-lifter, then the resultant muscles would be the reward for his hard labour, beyond his salary as a construction worker.

Mother Teresa forswore individual identity, material possessions, and sex in all forms - including masturbation - and dedicated herself to the austerity of her Order.

She spent most of her life helping out the impoverished and disaffected in her country, entirely for the personal satisfactions she garnered - the sensations of existential bliss and divine concordance in which revealed - which provided her with sufficient rewards to justify her efforts. The sainthood, fame, etc were 'side-effects' of her actions, and most-likely didn't add significantly to her sense of completion and joy.

Had she not wished to do what she was doing, she could not have been able to experience the internally-generated rewards which justified her actions - and therefore she would have been miserable to a degree I hesitate to contemplate.

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

[YourHumbleNarrator]

I like your take on things because you see that people, internally whole people, are a complex web of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. We are defined by our motives but our motives cannot be easily discerned by our actions. A problem facing many people who take polarity seriously is that it lends itself to cartoonish depictions of its ideal. That does not reflect an accurate understanding of it but it's easy to make that mistake based on what Steve has said. (Among other sources)

From what I have observed, it seems toothless service toward others results from excessive self-focus. People like that are really self-conscious and that bleeds into every aspect of their lives. You can't be self-conscious without being obsessed with yourself. It's the opposite of narcissism yet it's fundamentally the same.

Speaking of opposites, it should be noted that if altruism is a lie, so is total disconnection. We all live within a giant web of cause and effect. None of us exists inside of a bubble. You can't shut out the world anymore than a banana can grow without a tree. I think altruism exists in the sense that you can dedicate yourself to serving others while still acknowledging your right to exist. The latter is secondary, but it's an important modification. Of course you can also dedicate yourself to... yourself, while keeping others in your peripheral vision. If you want to attain sustainable personal power it is a choice of focus, not which part of yourself you want to lobotomize. Both light and dark take on a myriad of forms and to declare that either is inherently egotistical or destructive is ignorance.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

Had she not wished to do what she was doing, she could not have been able to experience the internally-generated rewards which justified her actions - and therefore she would have been miserable to a degree I hesitate to contemplate.

Yet that misery would have been a reward in itself, no? If she thought this was the means to live a pious life then it was her pay-off, even if it made her miserable.

It's kind of like the guys who always strike out. Maybe they're miserable because they didn't get to take a chick home, but at least now they don't have to worry about pleasing her, not to mention any other concerns that might be on their minds. Sick as they may feel, they're getting just what they want. And motivation to sustain the pattern! After all, if they're gonna keep striking out, that's all the more reason not to try.

[Manomanman]

Before I begin, is this the real Johnny Soporno? If so, I Love your Worthy Playboy videos!

I just got back from Steve Pavlina's conscious growth workshop, and I can tell you without a doubt that I'm one of the few true Darkworkers I know of. When I told people that I was at Steve's workshop to gain power, I received several looks of horror.

I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying in this forum post. I argue in my blog that Darkworking is horribly misunderstood. JesseLovesYou.com » The Emperor in Star Wars Is NOT Evil!
JesseLovesYou.com » The Mind of A Darkworker

The idea that Darkworking is STS and Lightworking is STO is a misconception, as you've pointed out.

Dark/Lightworking is simply a question of how we "frame" the purpose behind our quest for power. Darkworkers often seem narcissistic and cruel because we concentrate power within ourselves. We cast aside those who no longer serve our purpose, who fail to add to our increasingly complex reality. And we're often more open about the fact that we desire power. In fact, it's MUCH harder for us to hide the fact that we're seeking power, and we often must use Machiavellian communication (i.e. "lies") to obfuscate our purpose.

Within your Worthy Player paradigm, a Darkworker would probably value progress (finding the next HB10) over sentimentality (strengthening the emotional bond with the current harem).

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Manomanman

We cast aside those who no longer serve our purpose, who fail to add to our increasingly complex reality.

And the truth of it is that everyone does. If a relationship stopped serving Steve, he would not sustain it. A lightworker who feels he is wasting his time with someone is not going to maintain his ties to them. Perhaps he would say it is because this person is beyond help, at least at that time, but no matter the motivation the end result is the same-that thread is cut.

It's perfectly valid to frame the same thing in different contexts. That is not dishonest in itself. It becomes dishonest when one must pick and choose which relationships to pursue (and in what way) and yet still insists that everything is one. That is an ideal, perhaps an ultimate truth, but here? I am I and you are you. Neither of us will communicate with the other unless there is value in doing so.

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

And the truth of it is that everyone does. If a relationship stopped serving Steve, he would not sustain it.

Steve is an unpolarized person. I'm talking about a person who is dedicated to the art of casting people aside - that's a Darkworker.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Manomanman

Steve is an unpolarized person. I'm talking about a person who is dedicated to the art of casting people aside - that's a Darkworker.

Doesn't matter what he is, just what he says and what he does.

Dedicated to casting people aside? An odd thing to be dedicated to. Sure, if it's necessary to reach your goals or you've got to get rid of some dead weight, but casting people aside for the hell of it is a waste, no? I know, I know, I'm splitting hairs-imprecise language irks me, is all. S'why I don't go to many parties. ('Least not the kind college kids throw.)

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

I know, I know, I'm splitting hairs-imprecise language irks me, is all.

You're not alone .

Let's kill all the bastards who rape language! And cast THEM aside!

[Brutha]

This thread is not intended to discuss politics

Polarization is about getting benefits from clarity.

You make a argument that because the political ideas in your head are cloudy and aren't clear that there's no such thing a clear and polarized political idea.

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

Dedicated to casting people aside? An odd thing to be dedicated to.

I hate to bring up the whole "Hitler" thing, but I think I gotta do it. When you think about all of the dictators in the history of the world...now you'll get what I mean when I say "dedicated to casting people aside".

This DOES NOT imply that you have to kill them - killing is just a means to an end. You can always do things like: 1) enslave them, 2) sterilize them, 3) brainwash them (which is what we do today JesseLovesYou.com » What Is A Wage Slave? Cultural Misunderstanding of Slavery)

I think Johnny's idea works well in an unlimited-resource environment. FOR HIM, there is an unlimited supply of women out there. There are literally millions of potential women who will gladly be liberated from the tyranny of their guilt.

If every guy "woke up" to Johnny's knowledge, the polarity issue would come into play. Polarity only matters when there's something over which competition must occur. At that point, you decide what you have to do with the masses of leftover people.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Manomanman

...
If every guy "woke up" to Johnny's knowledge, the polarity issue would come into play.

Why? Moreover, if every man and woman had Johnny's knowledge, the world would be a better place.

Polarity only matters when there's something over which competition must occur. At that point, you decide what you have to do with the masses of leftover people.

What masses of leftover people?

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Polarization is about getting benefits from clarity.

Genuine polarization is ONLY POSSIBLE where two absolutes are diametrically opposing one-another.

It is possible to be polarized between "Atheism" and "Theism", or between "Neopotism" and "Meritocracy", but where the definitions are less-concrete, it is not possible.

It must represent a difference in KIND, rather than a difference in DEGREE.

For example, there is no definite/discrete separation between "Warm" and "Cold", since both are relative terms, like "Fast" and "Slow", and "East" and "West".

Where many people err in this is when they mistakenly overlook the multidimensional nature of inabsolute terms, such as attempting to polarize between "Reason" and "Emotion" (since they cannot be quantified verbally, emotions are not "logical", but they are certainly reasonable!), or between "Arrogance" and "Humility".

I possess the arrogant humility which comes from my absolute confidence that I can not know everything.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You make an argument that because the political ideas in your head are cloudy and aren't clear that there's no such thing a clear and polarized political idea.

Not at all! You have somehow mistaken my message for one with a political slant, where none was offered?

To be sure, my own politics are completely clear and solid in my mind, despite that to a jejune person, they might seem internally inconsistent:

I am a 'Top-Right' quadrant positioned "Pragmatic Anarchist" ("Recovering Objectivist") where it comes to my ACTIVE politics (ie, my interest in affecting the lives of strangers) and have a strong affinity for the wisdom of John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and R. Buckminster Fuller, with regards to self-governance, self-respect, and personal responsibility.

I have a libertarian attitude towards non-intervention into the affairs of individuals or nations, where they do not inhibit or impede others' ability to accommodate themselves.

Where I abandon Libertarian ideals is where the questions of 'state-controlled police & military' enter in. I have no confidence in ANY 'government' which demands exclusivity for the use of force, or threat of retaliatory force. To my reckoning, this invariably leads to gross corruptions.

I prefer a form of non-coercive 'invitational communism' [a form of anarcho-syndicalistic tribalism, only possible on a limited scale, without any 'Fabian' expectations or desire for eventual domination of others] in which members are welcomed and accepted, and thereby free to do precisely as they will, until/unless they violate the principals of the tribe - at which point they are invited to cease such violations, or leave.

Can you see how it would be irrational to attempt to codify my political philosophy into 'Left Wing' or 'Right Wing' stigmatization?

Johnny Soporno
Lifestyle Guru

[Cran]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

It is possible to be polarized between "Atheism" and "Theism", or between "Neopotism" and "Meritocracy", but where the definitions are less-concrete, it is not possible.

Sorry, could anybody tell me the meaning of Neopotism, or is this just a typo and it was meant to be Nepotism? As my English is far from being as good as a native speaker's, I have a hard time to distinguish typo from new word in some cases.

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Why? Moreover, if every man and woman had Johnny's knowledge, the world would be a better place.

Because there would actually be competition for available mating. Watch Johnny's Worthy Player presentation.

Women can only have so many babies in their lifetime.

The whole REASON we're stuck in the current "AFC mess" is that Alpha males had to figure out a way to emasculate the Betas and enslave the women so they could own them as property.

If we returned to a state of cultural deprogramming, men would have to go back to competing for the available women. In our current situation, a Worthy Player can have a steady stream of as many women as he wants. He can have 1000's of lovers the way Johnny does.

In Cavemanworld, Johnny would have been kicking asses (i.e. competing) to get his hands on the women that in modern times he just has to talk to

If what I'm saying doesn't make sense, watch the Worthy Player videos. Johnny knows his **** through and through. He is not exaggerating when he calls himself a guru.

[Brutha]

ACTIVE politics (ie, my interest in affecting the lives of strangers) and have a strong affinity for the wisdom of John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and R. Buckminster Fuller, with regards to self-governance, self-respect, and personal responsibility.

Are you speaking about the Adam Smith that thought his book about morals was more important than The Wealth of Nations that lived in the 18th century or are you speaking about the public image of Adam Smith that's popular today?
The terms self-governance, self-respect, and personal responsibility don't appear in Adam Smith works about morals.

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by Cran

Sorry, could anybody tell me the meaning of Neopotism, or is this just a typo and it was meant to be Nepotism?

My mistake

Nepotism was the word I intended.

JS

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Manomanman

Because there would actually be competition for available mating. Watch Johnny's Worthy Player presentation.

...
If what I'm saying doesn't make sense, watch the Worthy Player videos. Johnny knows his **** through and through. He is not exaggerating when he calls himself a guru.

It makes sense and I saw a few (not all) of those vids (and they're great!).

My point is that men would need to compete at a higher level. Women too, because the average attraction of men would go up (more men becoming more attractive) so women would improve their attraction as well. Win / win, I'd say.

[Steve Pavlina]

Actually the OP pretty much defined the difference between lightworkers and darkworkers.

Lightworkers integrate selfishness and selflessness, such that both motives work congruently. Self-sacrifice isn't part of the equation because it's self-defeating in the long run. But helping others intelligently benefits the helper as well. By focusing on service to others, a lightworker finds it easy to achieve happiness and meet all his/her needs with ease. A lightworker learns that to be truly effective, s/he must achieve personal happiness and fulfillment as well.

Darkworkers perceive a conflict (dichotomy) between selfishness and selflessness, and they choose selfishness as the primary aim. A darkworker eventually learns that in order to be maximally happy, s/he must learn to serve others as well.

As I've said before, both polarities ultimately lead to the same place. Choosing a polarized path (vs. staying in the middle) can be an intense growth accelerator. The lessons come harder and faster.

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Are you speaking about the Adam Smith that thought his book about morals was more important than The Wealth of Nations that lived in the 18th century or are you speaking about the public image of Adam Smith that's popular today?

The former. I agree with his own assessment, that The Theory of Moral Sentiments was a more significant and enlightening book. By no means do I mean to disparage The Wealth of Nations, mind you - I've read through both thoroughly, and find little to argue against in either.

Originally Posted by Brutha

The terms self-governance, self-respect, and personal responsibility don't appear in Adam Smith works about morals.

Those precise terms might not, but the messages are clearly within it:

Originally Posted by Adam Smith

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it.

In this first passage (literally, the opening paragraph of the book) Smith identifies the empathetic & sympathetic nature of humans, and the unspoken desire for the sense of empowerment which comes from observing (and contributing to) the welfare of others. In essence, he is extolling the fundamental nature of 'enlightened self-interest'.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith

The ancient systems, which place virtue in propriety, seem chiefly to recommend the great, the awful, and the respectable virtues, the virtues of self-government and self-command; fortitude, magnanimity, independency upon fortune, the contempt of all outward accidents, of pain, poverty, exile, and death. It is in these great exertions that the noblest propriety of conduct is displayed.

Originally Posted by Adam Smith

Self-command is not only itself a great virtue, but
from it all the other virtues seem to derive their principal lustre. The command of fear, the command of anger, are always great and noble powers. When they are directed by justice and benevolence, they are not only great virtues, but increase the splendour of those other virtues.

These quotes all come from The Theory of Moral Sentiments and address self-governance, personal responsibility, and self-respect at their core.

I strongly encourage anyone who has not taken time to read Adam Smith to grab copies of his works online - they are freely in the Public Domain, and have profound wisdom liberally scattered throughout!

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Actually the OP pretty much defined the difference between lightworkers and darkworkers.

Lightworkers integrate selfishness and selflessness, such that both motives work congruently. Self-sacrifice isn't part of the equation because it's self-defeating in the long run. But helping others intelligently benefits the helper as well. By focusing on service to others, a lightworker finds it easy to achieve happiness and meet all his/her needs with ease. A lightworker learns that to be truly effective, s/he must achieve personal happiness and fulfillment as well.

Darkworkers perceive a conflict (dichotomy) between selfishness and selflessness, and they choose selfishness as the primary aim. A darkworker eventually learns that in order to be maximally happy, s/he must learn to serve others as well.

As I've said before, both polarities ultimately lead to the same place. Choosing a polarized path (vs. staying in the middle) can be an intense growth accelerator. The lessons come harder and faster.

Steve, we need a new and thorough blog post about Light vs. Darkworking. If you look at the Character/Contribution forum, you'll see insane levels of confusion over this topic. The archives on this are scattered and unclear.

Light vs. Darkworking keeps coming up over and over and over again, and we need a framework within which to carry out this discussion. I'm talking a thorough Encyclopedic definition where you lay it all out there in your clearest possible language.

I think acceleration (polarizing) is a direction that a LOT of your readers are going in. Your readership has evolved over the years and a lot of them are looking for the next big "leap". Does anybody else see what I'm talking about?

-Jesse

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

...
As I've said before, both polarities ultimately lead to the same place. Choosing a polarized path (vs. staying in the middle) can be an intense growth accelerator. The lessons come harder and faster.

Thanks for clarifying this, especially the darkworker path. I've been wondering about that one, why people would choose that path.

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by Manomanman

I hate to bring up the whole "Hitler" thing, but I think I gotta do it.

{Sigh} Goodwin's Law rears its ugly head once more

Originally Posted by Manomanman

I think Johnny's idea works well in an unlimited-resource environment. FOR HIM, there is an unlimited supply of women out there. There are literally millions of potential women who will gladly be liberated from the tyranny of their guilt.

Personally, I believe there is no limit to the number of women who would be best-served by their being introduced-to, acknowledging, accepting, and taking to heart the epiphany of emancipation I've been sharing - and no end to the number of men who stand to gain fantastically through their own recognition of the insanely oppressive, undeserved guilt & shame under which society stigmatizes all women.

Originally Posted by Manomanman

If every guy "woke up" to Johnny's knowledge, the polarity issue would come into play. Polarity only matters when there's something over which competition must occur. At that point, you decide what you have to do with the masses of leftover people.

I disagree in this particular case, Jesse.

If every man on Earth could overcome their culturally ingrained biases against women, and instead offer them non-judgemental acceptance, and every woman on Earth were freed from the irrational-yet-endemic belief that if she does what she wants to do, she has no self-respect, and the associated guilt she harbours for surreptitiously DOING what she wants, then free and open communication would be the norm - and there would no longer BE the tragic barriers to comfortable inter-gender associations.

However, I do agree that 'advantages' must not be made available universally, otherwise there can BE no advantage.

"I demand an above-average standard of living for everybody!"

Johnny Soporno
Sexual Revolutionary

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

If every man on Earth could overcome their culturally ingrained biases against women, and instead offer them non-judgemental acceptance, and every woman on Earth were freed from the irrational-yet-endemic belief that if she does what she wants to do, she has no self-respect, and the associated guilt she harbours for surreptitiously DOING what she wants, then free and open communication would be the norm - and there would no longer BE the tragic barriers to comfortable inter-gender associations.

However, I do agree that 'advantages' must not be made available universally, otherwise there can BE no advantage.

"I demand an above-average standard of living for everybody!"

I'm still new to the Worthy Player paradigm (just saw the videos last week), but I'd like to lean on it a bit and see what it can stand up to.

I highly doubt that free and open communication will ever "be the norm". But let's assume that it does become the norm. (There is some reason to believe that it might have been the norm 30,000+ years ago).

Most people would probably lounge around boinking all day, eating all manner of mind-altering plant substances, drinking wine, and making merry while playing games and listening to music.

This would eventually lead to a return to a simpler way of life, one filled with less hustle, fewer urban centers, a more agricultural way of life. Society would completely "break down"! Physical and material advantages would mean the difference between life and death, reproduction and sterility. "The powers that be" would STRONGLY oppose a return to feudalism. The only way we would get to the eat/drink/boink/open communication Utopia would be technological advancement.

I don't believe we will ever escape our current industrial nightmare until we have intelligent machines doing the manual labor. We have to enslave somebody to keep the global industrial machine pumping out cellphones and toys and garbage. Until robots are doing the work, we'll enslave people to do it.

So until then, I feel like we're left with a empty philosophical conundrum - we're "trapped" in a world where most people are enslaved culturally. Somehow, a few of us escape the mass indoctrination and emotionally emancipate ourselves. We become freelancing consultants, rock stars, internet entrepreneurs, etc. We have guilt-free sex with 1000's of partners. We can lead a truly fulfilling life based solely on our intellectual capacity.

I've stuggled with how I feel about "those who don't want to help themselves" as you describe them. A Lightworker might try to "help them help themselves". I say **** 'em. And do your part to enslave them. If they're willing to throw their time (=money) away, far be it from me to stop them.

That's what being a Darkworker means to me - taking advantage of the confused masses, giving them what they want rather than what they need.

If you truly are altruistic, then how do you approach the people who don't want to be helped? What is your attitude toward them?

[YourHumbleNarrator]

Originally Posted by Manomanman

This DOES NOT imply that you have to kill them [/url])

Oh, I never thought that it did. Killing is messy business. I was merely thinking that it's unproductive to actively cast people aside, however you mean to do it, unless it serves a purpose. There's no disagreement there from what I can tell.

I think Johnny's idea works well in an unlimited-resource environment. FOR HIM, there is an unlimited supply of women out there. There are literally millions of potential women who will gladly be liberated from the tyranny of their guilt.

Indeed, though resources are hardly limited in any significant way. Not in this age. We have the technology to meet the needs of everyone. S'why it's interesting to consider that we don't.

If every guy "woke up" to Johnny's knowledge, the polarity issue would come into play. Polarity only matters when there's something over which competition must occur.

Indeed, indeed. Separate the chaff from the wheat and all that. That would be a far more interesting world, all told.

[fulatmir]

Great info! Really informative. It is helpful for me.

[Johnny Soporno]

Originally Posted by Manomanman

I'm still new to the Worthy Player paradigm (just saw the videos last week), but I'd like to lean on it a bit and see what it can stand up to.

I highly doubt that free and open communication will ever "be the norm".

Well, frankly, so do I! There way too many people who are comfortable in their self-defeating misery, those who substitute suspicion for intelligence, and select 'Freedom FROM Choice' as their political ideal.

Originally Posted by Manomanman

But let's assume that it does become the norm. (There is some reason to believe that it might have been the norm 30,000+ years ago).

My take on pre-Agricultural Revolution (pre-historic) societies is that they were general small 'packs' or 'tribes', usually centred around a single dominant male, and his collection of committed females (in a polygynous arrangement) and their collected offspring, primarily females and males without 'alpha' temperament and ambition - those born WITH an 'alpha' ambition being forced to go 'lone wolf' and leave the pack, seeking fertile females from unfamiliar packs.

I doubt there was 'free communication' in any meaningful sense, since persistent language was still a long ways off But I expect males and females had sex without particular concern for the outcome! (TRULY living 'in the now' )

Originally Posted by Manomanman

"The powers that be" would STRONGLY oppose a return to feudalism. The only way we would get to the eat/drink/boink/open communication Utopia would be technological advancement.

Perhaps.... The only thing which keeps people 'in line', so to speak, is fear - and that fear is promulgated through the endless re-assurance that there is a severe and chronic 'scarcity' of vital resources.

"Painful to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave!" - Blade Runner, 1982

Originally Posted by Manomanman

I don't believe we will ever escape our current industrial nightmare until we have intelligent machines doing the manual labor. We have to enslave somebody to keep the global industrial machine pumping out cellphones and toys and garbage. Until robots are doing the work, we'll enslave people to do it.

The term robot is derived from the Czech/Russian word for slave, in case you were unaware.

Originally Posted by Manomanman

So until then, I feel like we're left with a empty philosophical conundrum - we're "trapped" in a world where most people are enslaved culturally. Somehow, a few of us escape the mass indoctrination and emotionally emancipate ourselves. We become freelancing consultants, rock stars, internet entrepreneurs, etc. We have guilt-free sex with 1000's of partners. We can lead a truly fulfilling life based solely on our intellectual capacity.

Yes, we can!

Originally Posted by Manomanman

I've stuggled with how I feel about "those who don't want to help themselves" as you describe them. A Lightworker might try to "help them help themselves". I say **** 'em. And do your part to enslave them. If they're willing to throw their time (=money) away, far be it from me to stop them.

We're in agreement here. I never inflict my help on anyone - it must be requested explicitly, by one whom I believe will appreciate it, and apply it.

Originally Posted by Manomanman

That's what being a Darkworker means to me - taking advantage of the confused masses, giving them what they want rather than what they need.

Your call I don't worry about labels, since I am unconcerned with how others view me, outside of the very few who have demonstrated that they are qualified (by my standards) to have a valuable opinion.

Originally Posted by Manomanman

If you truly are altruistic, then how do you approach the people who don't want to be helped? What is your attitude toward them?

Perhaps you missed the part in the OP where I outright denied the existence of "altruism"?

Johnny Soporno
Worthy Playboy

[Manomanman]

Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno

I don't worry about labels, since I am unconcerned with how others view me, outside of the very few who have demonstrated that they are qualified (by my standards) to have a valuable opinion.

A true Lightworker would be concerned with how others viewed him - but mainly in the sense that he would want them to understand him on a more conscious level. In other words, a Lightworker would interest himself in trying to enlighten the perspective of others above and beyond the call of duty.

Within your paradigm, however, you would rebutt that the Lightworker is only doing it for self-interest.

I would counter by arguing that motive is irrelevant - we can never assess anybody's else true motivation (their true subjective intent or even their feeling). What I'm focused on is objective, observable behavior.

Objectively, the Lightworker is more willing to sacrifice his time and resources to enlighten others who are unwilling to enlighten themselves. Perhaps he is addicted to helping others grow consciously and will sacrifice power and physical pleasure for it (i.e. how Steve Pavlina under-monetizes his blog). The Darkworker doesn't go as far, and prefers to only help those who are prepared to immediately liberate themselves, in order to obtain power and/or pleasure from the interaction.

This distinction ends up becoming somewhat meaningless, because then we get stuck trying to draw lines trying to define "selflessness", and we end up playing semantic games rather than coming to any pragmatic conclusions.

I like the parsimony of your paradigm: altruism and selfishness are synonymous. You have the Jesse seal of approval.