___Workers, on the Terms

[Michael Chui]

Making up a statistic, about 80% of the people I've seen posting about lightworkers and darkworkers since Steve introduced the word have lumped the terms in with "good" and "evil", "angels" and "demons", "saints" and "sinners", and so on and so forth.

Generally speaking, while the analogies may indeed hold, the implied moral judgments are wrong. So, I want to make it clear here that I'm making an effort to explain what Steve meant, near as I've personally interpreted. (And I've always considered my default copyright to be Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike.)

So, the first point is simple: It is impossible to determine with certainty the proportion someone is a lightworker or darkworker. It is probably not easy to figure out on which side of the spectrum you yourself are. And if you cannot figure out where you are, how do you honestly expect to figure out where others are?

Second Point: polarization is a scale. Placing an arbitrary threshold at 10%, let's say a lightworker is someone who is 90%+ love and 10%- fear. Most people are more likely 50% love and 50% fear; that is to say, unpolarized. Which means they are neither lightworkers, nor are they darkworkers. This said, fame does not polarize you, thus there is no indication that famous people are any more polarized than your average Joe.

Initially, I thought the terms were problematic, because there are moral connotations to "light" and "dark". I still think they're problematic, but now moreseo because people to refer to them as binary, a mistake common in just about every spectrum-based system I have ever seen, from MBTI types to grades (you very quickly see people determine a particular grade is "good" or "bad"; they never think about it as a percentage).

Third Point: lightworkers and darkworkers, having reached Enlightenment, are indistinguishable.

Corollary: they are extremely obvious at lower levels of consciousness. Consider the lowest, Shame. The lightworker description that Steve provides is, "Just a step above death. You’re probably contemplating suicide at this level."

Rewritten for darkworkers, it would read: "Just a step above death. You’re probably contemplating largescale destruction at this level."

The most obviously questionable one is Fear: "Seeing the world as dangerous and unsafe. Paranoia."

The state, for darkworkers, would be the same. Their response, however, is immediately more proactive than a lightworker: they attempt to control the world, to master it somehow and bring it to heel. Why? Because they can.

That brings us back to Steve's analogy to Star Wars. Sith are generally seen as far more powerful than Jedi, because their potential begins to be expressed at a much lower state. Steve's description of Shame, for instance, points out serial killers. Why? Because serial killers remain capable of goal-directed action even at the lowest state of consciousness. That's pretty powerful. A newly admitted Jedi is working on understanding flow; a fresh Sith is being beaten to a pulp and being asked to survive by fighting back as hard as he can.

On the other hand, enlightened Force adepts generally appear to have the same general goals. Darth Traya, Revan, Vader, and even Sidious all had goals intended for the good of the universe, especially as they reached the end of their lives. It is interesting to note that the former three are, canonically, opposed to the Jedi primarily because the Jedi got in the way of their quest to save the universe.

Why, ultimately, is an Enlightened darkworker the same as an Enlightened lightworker?

To answer this, take a look at what Steve says about polarity. It's the direction in which energy flows between the universe and yourself.

For an Enlightened person, what would really be the difference between the universe and themself? Hardly any. Are they important? Certainly, says the darkworker: who else is there, in their subjective reality. Certainly, says the lightworker: everything and everyone in my reality is worthwhile.

But until you make this connection, energy flows in some direction.

Fourth Point: There's nothing wrong with being a darkworker.

Selfishness has a very, very old stigma. And it's understandable: people unconcerned about the good of society harm it, at worst, and fail to contribute, at least. In my definition of love, I intentionally address this point because selfishness is a powerful motivator in most people. (I do, in fact, disagree with Steve's usage of "fear-based" and "love-based" polarizations, btw. Well, it's not that we disagree; we're merely talking about different things.)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with selfishness when your "self" includes someone else. Take a second to mull that over, since it's a non-intuitive concept. Think about the Biblical expression of marriage: cleaving to another and becoming one with them; that's the general idea. You think of your self as more than just you. It's selfish for me to help my brother, because he is me, too.

That's something that isn't available at lower levels of consciousness. I'd peg "Acceptance" as the lowest level of consciousness where you can intentionally achieve it, lightworker or darkworker.

And note that I reiterate the point I made in Point Three: a darkworker, rising in levels of consciousness, will begin to envelop others' identities and eventually, at Enlightenment, become the Universe in an all-encompassing Self, which they continue to serve.

Finally, Fifth Point is a point of dispute with Steve that impaul99 brought up.

Lightworker Syndrome is, in short, the "lack of acceptance of one’s power" (link). However, if you start connecting dots, Steve also says, "The peak emotion of polarized fear energy is that of feeling unstoppably powerful." (link)

Darkworker Syndrome, on the other hand, is the ignorance of others' pain as a consequence of your actions. Thus, I would argue that what Steve describes as love energy ("Love seeks expression through giving and creativity. It wants to connect, to heal, to unite, to inspire. ") is precisely the solution to darkworker syndrome.

Thus, while polarization may be a very good thing, I think that when you run into either syndrome, countering it with the reverse polarization is the most effective measure. That probably won't occur all the time, of course, which is why polarization is, ultimately a good thing. But I don't think that it's the run and don't look back that Steve seems to suggest it is.

===

Whoo. That was long. That's what happens when I don't write an essay for over a few weeks, and then suddenly find something I want to write about immediately. Sorry for the long-windedness; I'll get better at that someday.

[impaul99]

Excellent post.

Maybe one of the reasons I also see that OUTWARD flow and INWARD flow can be mixed is because I see them achieving the same thing. Meaning, I already know that me and everyone "out there" are really the same thing, so helping myself or helping "everyone out there" is the same thing.

Think of it like a lucid dream. Inside your dream, would it be better to bake a cookie and give it to someone in your dream to eat, or would it be better to try to get a cookie to eat in your dream? The answer is both and neither. There is no cookie, there is no YOU or THEM in the dream. Whether YOU eat the cookie or THEY eat the cookie, it's actually just the REAL YOU eating the cookie in either case because you inside your dream and the other person are figments of your imagination.

The only difference is the experience. In one experience you will taste what the cookie tastes like, in the other experience you will experience the pleasure of watching someone eat and enjoy your cookie. In both cases you experience something of value to you.

The only thing I don't get from Steve's example is why you would only want to have dreams where you're always GIVING away cookies, or dreams where you're always GETTING cookies? Why not have dreams of all kinds? Giving dreams where you give/help people and Getting dreams where you get stuff?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Maybe one of the reasons I also see that OUTWARD flow and INWARD flow can be mixed is because I see them achieving the same thing. Meaning, I already know that me and everyone "out there" are really the same thing, so helping myself or helping "everyone out there" is the same thing.

And you're correct. The actual destination--actual achievement-- is the same.

But why are you making these achievements? This is a nonsensical question at Enlightenment, but it's a very important question at lower levels of consciousness.

"Why?" is the question that polarization answers.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

And you're correct. The actual destination--actual achievement-- is the same.

But why are you making these achievements? This is a nonsensical question at Enlightenment, but it's a very important question at lower levels of consciousness.

"Why?" is the question that polarization answers.

Why? To express love. Regardless of whether that's OUTWARD love from me to the world or INWARD love to myself.

[Iksander]

I also feel, and I am often guilty of it myself, that people forget there is no possible way to conclusively establish an absolute judgement of another person. For the exact reason that reality is entirely subjective - all 'truth' that we come to know (and believe) is based entirely upon sensory information impressed upon our consciousness. Which, due to personal preferences and personal experiences is in itself a subjective process.

That ties in, greatly, with how we as individuals 'conceive' of our brethren - if your conception of another is not consistent with their highest desires for themselves (how they WANT to be themselves) you end up bringing out those qualities that you are conceiving them of being. So, first I love this post because I think it will help other people define these two terms in a manner that doesn't carry so much distortion - allowing them to, in a sense, have a more relaxed and more allowing conception of those around them. Ultimately this benefits all, because the object of attention is being allowed full and true expression within the perceptions of the attention giver.

Often times the use of 'light-worker' and 'dark-worker' are such weak terms to me, mostly because it has such a 'fluffiness' to it that does not give justice to the actual state of the character values the individual is expressing.

This whole 'concept' in and of itself is complex and a simple, effective, and justifying attribute to basically describe the same thing - would be that of joy. If you experience joy on the path you are leading, then seriously, who cares if you are a light-worker or dark-worker? The attainment of joy is enlightenment. Viewed as such, enlightenment really sounds kind of easy... ('well gosh, I enjoyed my cereal this morning...').

As has been said - at the point of enlightenment Service To Self, and Service To Other are just the same thing and well summarized in a well known phrase:

"One for all and all for one."

So why complicate this enlightened description with a duality based conception? Duality is an inherent part of our physical experience, but 'Joy' and 'Enlightenment' are the harmonia Pythagoras spoke of, a state that is natural to us - a state, that will invariably fall back to dualism once a new element is introduced (change and growth) and is perceived by the experiencing body as either 'bad' or 'good' and develops a new point of desire for attaining harmonia.

I do feel, that concerning oneself with these 'lower states' is like a warrior worrying about what kind of moss to wipe his butt with.

Well, in a way I might see a meaningful reason for contemplating a 'most efficient' route when dealing with these 'lower states' - but that still can be answered in the manner of which would be most enjoyable? Does the warrior need to analyze the antibiotic qualities of this moss vs the sponginess of another? Just git'erdone!

[Edit]

My last statement just made me think, well - how many levels of 'lower states' are there? One mans butt wiping, could be another's kingdom... So - I suppose I will not go down that road ATM as I am tired, and philosophy is an exhausting exercise.

Wonderful topic, and as always - these are my own opinions, perspectives, and thoughts.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Why? To express love. Regardless of whether that's OUTWARD love from me to the world or INWARD love to myself.

So everything you manifest is for the purpose of expressing love? Could you elaborate on this?

Originally Posted by Iksander

Often times the use of 'light-worker' and 'dark-worker' are such weak terms to me, mostly because it has such a 'fluffiness' to it that does not give justice to the actual state of the character values the individual is expressing.

I definitely agree with those; the terms aren't applicable to people in general, and there isn't a way, beside I-M, to really choose who reads what you write when you put it out in the open. And near as I can tell, the usage of the terms hasn't helped anyone understand polarization at all, but rather seems to have shortcircuited people from thinking about polarization and reconceiving them as luminous beings of superhero light.

Originally Posted by Iksander

"One for all and all for one."

Excellent choice of quotations!

Originally Posted by Iksander

I do feel, that concerning oneself with these 'lower states' is like a warrior worrying about what kind of moss to wipe his butt with.

It depends, like many things, on why these things should concern you. I'd see some reason if you were trying to help someone else raise their levels of consciousness from the lowest states into self-reliance, for instance.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Thus, while polarization may be a very good thing, I think that when you run into either syndrome, countering it with the reverse polarization is the most effective measure. That probably won't occur all the time, of course, which is why polarization is, ultimately a good thing. But I don't think that it's the run and don't look back that Steve seems to suggest it is.

running into tje sundrome on either end sounds like being polarized is not an effective way to segragate and focus your energies/awareness on desires. If one has to pull out the other side to counter it - why strive to polarize at all?

One can not effectively focus on others and not also be focusing on onself.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by impaul99

Maybe one of the reasons I also see that OUTWARD flow and INWARD flow can be mixed is because I see them achieving the same thing. Meaning, I already know that me and everyone "out there" are really the same thing, so helping myself or helping "everyone out there" is the same thing.

I like that view of polarity. I don't see that mixing is possible either. There is always an in and out flow if one has a boundary somewhere (not being identified with all that is, which is like the ego). And the in and out do not mix since both are occuring.

The idea, as I understood Steve, was to focus on the out or in and let the other side be taken care of by the universe. Right? It seems to me if I focus more on outflow, the only way to make it still work is to include myself in that focus - which is also to say expand my conscoiusness so that giving is at an expanded self which also includes my old ego self.

A darkworker is, to me, more like a lightworker that hasn't expanded his or her sense or identification of self.

[Iksander]

"Identification of self."

I went through a great deal of experiences concerning this idea of defining 'who' you truly are...

My conclusion: definition is truly impossible, for, what attributes are you defining yourself by? Then define those attributes with more attributes, &c, until you are essentially describing yourself by the spokes of a wheel.

"The rose does not try to be beautiful, it simply is beautiful."

This is where I always run into a wall - because, on one hand I have chosen to define myself by what I aspire to, by what I am becoming (rather than what I have done and been); yet, on the other hand is a realization that ye beholdeth a universe in the eye of beauty.

Often times I can end up hammering these concepts into a pulp and I always seem to remind myself during the process that this sort of 'philosophical tail chasing' is a distraction from life just as draining as TV.

Even expressing oneself is an attempted form of identity - so, really, we are all on the merry go round together... Neither side has less or more identity, just, one side likes horses and the other; sea-horses.

@michael: True - it really is what you choose to concern yourself with, for some people that is a purpose, and others that is taking out the garbage.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Iksander

"Identification of self."

I went through a great deal of experiences concerning this idea of defining 'who' you truly are...

My conclusion: definition is truly impossible, for, what attributes are you defining yourself by? Then define those attributes with more attributes, &c, until you are essentially describing yourself by the spokes of a wheel.

I define it thusly:

"The essence of Self is perception by the self. Belief in uniqueness, identity, and difference is the reason we are unique, have an identity, and are different from others and other things."

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by impaul99

The only thing I don't get from Steve's example is why you would only want to have dreams where you're always GIVING away cookies, or dreams where you're always GETTING cookies? Why not have dreams of all kinds? Giving dreams where you give/help people and Getting dreams where you get stuff?

The answer is simple. I dont really know how you still dont understand it, its probably because you are very different from me, you seem to be very balanced 50%Lworker and 50%Dworker.

The answer is that Lworkers have more pleasure to give, so they will want to always have dreams where they give things away while Dworkers have more pleasure in receiving, so they would always want to receive rather than give.

Me being a Dark/Selfworker would much rather always dream of receiving than dream of giving, simply because everytime i can choose between receiving and giving i will certainly choose to receive. So theres no point for me on dreaming about giving.