Can a Darkworker be nice?

[Cado]

Originally Posted by CroMagna

Ditto. New Age Schmew Age.

The term, sure. But it goes back a long, long way.

Contrasting light and dark as a force would be easier when comparing a star to a black hole. Darkness, in this case, relates to drawing energy in, and while there is always give and take polarizing as a darkworker means you have a very strong inward pull. In time this awakens other abilities which, while similar to things lightworkers experience, take a slightly different form as a result of the direction the energy flows.

That's what you watch for-where is the energy in your environment concentrated? Darkworkers will always bear a strong presence and even if they're masking well enough to throw you off the trail the signs should be evident.

[Cado]

Also, as far as all the misunderstandings go, that has nothing to do with the terminology. Darkworker, Satanist, Setian, whatever, that comes into play after people's initial reactions. We set off the fight-or-flight response because if the mood is right we threaten the ego. Lightworkers can stir this kind of reaction, too, but it seems to be less pronounced in the earlier stages because they radiate warmth and it's not until they challenge the status quo that they set off alarm bells.

Not only do we represent what people don't want to face, we are willing and able to embody it for the sake of our own purposes. Whether we've sinister intent or we don't is of no consequence; though both lightworkers and darkworkers are capable of putting a boot up someone's ass, we're far more likely to do it. That's partly why the Left Hand Path is synonymous with rebellion-we take what's normal and turn it on its head, violating the supposed "laws of nature" without suffering as we apparently should.

The notion that we are wicked and inhuman is a comfortable lie which is believed because it's easier than accepting the whole spectrum of life, as it is, without compromise. So long as perception is held more dear than truth both light and dark will be twisted in the common mind because the mind alone cannot understand what must be seen first hand.

[jellybeanpimp]

Originally Posted by Cado

Also, as far as all the misunderstandings go, that has nothing to do with the terminology. Darkworker, Satanist, Setian, whatever, that comes into play after people's initial reactions. We set off the fight-or-flight response because if the mood is right we threaten the ego. Lightworkers can stir this kind of reaction, too, but it seems to be less pronounced in the earlier stages because they radiate warmth and it's not until they challenge the status quo that they set off alarm bells.

Not only do we represent what people don't want to face, we are willing and able to embody it for the sake of our own purposes. Whether we've sinister intent or we don't is of no consequence; though both lightworkers and darkworkers are capable of putting a boot up someone's ass, we're far more likely to do it. That's partly why the Left Hand Path is synonymous with rebellion-we take what's normal and turn it on its head, violating the supposed "laws of nature" without suffering as we apparently should.

The notion that we are wicked and inhuman is a comfortable lie which is believed because it's easier than accepting the whole spectrum of life, as it is, without compromise. So long as perception is held more dear than truth both light and dark will be twisted in the common mind because the mind alone cannot understand what must be seen first hand.

What do you embrace that people don't want to face? I mean, what exactly do you stand for?

[Cado]

Originally Posted by jellybeanpimp

What do you embrace that people don't want to face? I mean, what exactly do you stand for?

There's the obvious-facing emotions like anger, hatred, etc. A lightworker would process them and let them dissipate. (Usually.) A darkworker masters them and puts them to work. To channel anger is held as an expression of divinity, it's not an act of succumbing to lower forces.

Both lightworkers and darkworkers endure the continuous deconstruction and rebirth of the self. I don't know exactly how lightworkers do it but as I understand it it's an act of sacrifice to higher forces, however that particular lightworker defines them. Darkworkers are much more hands-on, tearing it apart piece by piece until their desired self is able to emerge.

We are extremely pragmatic which means that when we're idealistic it's within the context that ideals are constructs we are using to achieve our goals, they are not reality.

We embrace the loss of innocence, in other words.

I can go on, but the two common elements which have already emerged are thus:

1. We challenge the status quo which disrupts peoples' identity constructs and thus stirs their ire.

2. We are not gentle about it.

Also, whereas most people try to avoid conflict and many would like to think it can be eliminated altogether, darkworkers embrace it. The fact is that every path that's worth following will stir conflict somewhere along the line. This is a very unpleasant reality for some people and they're the ones most likely to attach the "fear" label to us, but this isn't a matter of being evil, this is an acknowledgement of the truth. Conflict is overcome far more easily by those willing to face it than by those who try to snuff its very existence. Funny enough, if conflict ever does vanish from earth it will only be after it's accepted without judgement by the whole. Acceptance, after all, is necessary to transmute.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by VinceG

You cannot "brainwash" an entire people. Brainwashing just one person requires an immense amount of effort. That Hitler was able to use parades, symbolism, and fiery speeches to whip the Germans up into a frenzy means that that's exactly what the Germans wanted at the time.

You can hypnotize an entire people if they are open to your suggestion and have nothing to lose, such as the circumstances at the time. The German people needed that at the time...it gave them hope. He spoke with passion and certainty and that's something very powerful when combined with words.

Once he had put across his agenda to them in his speeches and "frenzy whipping" as you put it, all it took was them speaking amongst themselves for a while until consensus reality had gelled in their minds.

You still haven't mentioned how you came to the conclusion that the German people manipulated Hitler though...

[taylor]

Do darkworkers even know what they are? Cado, you seem to be making a lot of generalizations as if you are the authority on the definition of darkworker. In my understanding it's a very sloppy label and many people will not fall into the description you're expounding on here.

There are probably many self professed darkworkers who avoid conflict and don't challenge the status quo, who don't embody things like anger, simply because it isn't very effective for achieving their particular goals.

There are probably others who intentionally screw over other people because it helps them achieve their particular goals.

Some are going to say they're objectivists, others left hand path, others are straight up sociopaths.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by jellybeanpimp

I think it's a reflex to associate a term such as darkworker with qualities someone should shy away from rather than embrace. The night time is merely the absence of the sun. Darkness has no natural source of it's own. It only exists in areas where light, which does have a natural source, is not shining. What celestial body gives off darkness?

What qualities are you speaking of exactly?

Darkness has no natural source of it's own sure...what I'm saying is you wouldn't be able to see the light of the stars if there was no background for it to be complimented by. Light needs Darkness to shine.

When it comes to shadow aspects of ourselves, I guess it really depends on the shadow aspect. There are definitely some things that people should shy away from or seek treatment for that fall under the shadow aspect category, lest they hurt someone else, hurt themselves, or just end up in a bad situation. Most, if not all, shadow aspects really aren't going to serve any higher interests. Acknowledging and being aware of certain aspects of your shadow is different from embracing and nourishing them.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that not all aspects of being human 'should' be embraced, is that right?

You would probably need to outline which aspects you are speaking of that people 'should' seek treatment for before I can fully understand what you are saying here. If you are speaking of conditions like psychosis, I'm not sure that actually falls under the term "human aspect", that's more of a state of mind the individual is afflicted with at the time.

I totally disagree with the notion that "most, if not all shadow aspects will serve any higher interests" though. Again, I have no knowledge of what you consider to be "shadow aspects' but I suspect they are not what I am thinking of here. If you could clarify, that might help.

Also, I never said these aspects need to be nurtured...just embraced, and owned.

And my point regarding ultimately serving good is still true in my opinion. Even if you don't go for one day without thinking of serving your needs and only your needs, you will still have to provide a service or product or something of value in order to stay alive on this planet. That service, in and of itself, is contributing to the wellbeing of someone somewhere. So no one can really say they got through life and only benefited themselves. Everyone ends up serving some greater good.

As I see it, the more you take care of yourself the more you have to give to others. It spreads out into the community with the ripple effect. So self-service is really serving the community, though lightworkers may not see it that way.

In this case I agree with what you are saying.

[taylor]

Originally Posted by elucidate

So self-service is really serving the community, though lightworkers may not see it that way.

I think I'd flip that around and say you can only really serve yourself by serving everyone. If you set up a Win/Lose scenario, you are short changing your own growth.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by taylor

Do darkworkers even know what they are? Cado, you seem to be making a lot of generalizations as if you are the authority on the definition of darkworker. In my understanding it's a very sloppy label and many people will not fall into the description you're expounding on here.

There are probably many self professed darkworkers who avoid conflict and don't challenge the status quo, who don't embody things like anger, simply because it isn't very effective for achieving their particular goals.

There are probably others who intentionally screw over other people because it helps them achieve their particular goals.

Some are going to say they're objectivists, others left hand path, others are straight up sociopaths.

It doesn't matter how you use anger, hatred, etc., you will face it. It doesn't matter whether you use the label or you don't, you can generate a strong inward pull and thus fall beneath it.

The left-hand path is very individualistic. That's why it can be so messy because the only solid rule per se is "do as thou wilt." Paradoxically, there are habits of thought as well as certain methodology which is nigh universal, not because it's mandated but because it's the natural result of walking the path-or generating said inward pull.

Let me put it this way-if you're a self-professed darkworker and you always avoid conflict and you're afraid of shaking things up, you're either not or you're going to get eaten alive by your own energetic pull. The trademark of the darkworker is courage and while there are many ways to accomplish something you cannot consistently act from a place of cowardice and claim that this is where you fall.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by taylor

I think I'd flip that around and say you can only really serve yourself by serving everyone. If you set up a Win/Lose scenario, you are short changing your own growth.

You can flip it around if you like. I like the way I put it personally.

I don't consider taking care of yourself in order to have more to give to be win/lose though, so that's the difference.

[jellybeanpimp]

Originally Posted by Cado

It doesn't matter how you use anger, hatred, etc., you will face it. It doesn't matter whether you use the label or you don't, you can generate a strong inward pull and thus fall beneath it.

The left-hand path is very individualistic. That's why it can be so messy because the only solid rule per se is "do as thou wilt." Paradoxically, there are habits of thought as well as certain methodology which is nigh universal, not because it's mandated but because it's the natural result of walking the path-or generating said inward pull.

Let me put it this way-if you're a self-professed darkworker and you always avoid conflict and you're afraid of shaking things up, you're either not or you're going to get eaten alive by your own energetic pull. The trademark of the darkworker is courage and while there are many ways to accomplish something you cannot consistently act from a place of cowardice and claim that this is where you fall.

I find it hard to believe that you truly embrace anger and hatred. On some level, at your very core, is there not some part of you that recoils at these negative emotions? I have to really manage things like anger and what not, because of how much destruction they actually cause. If I totally embraced it, I would go mad and fall off the radar altogether. It'd be like the hoover dam collapsing, my rage would just fly all over the place and for some reason I would be embracing this madness. Even if I focused my anger, it would get too hot to hold, burning a hole in the very soul that possesses it.

There's negative consequences to negativity. I don't know how else to put it.

[taylor]

Originally Posted by Cado

It doesn't matter how you use anger, hatred, etc., you will face it. It doesn't matter whether you use the label or you don't, you can generate a strong inward pull and thus fall beneath it.

What does fall beneath anger mean?

Originally Posted by Cado

The left-hand path is very individualistic. That's why it can be so messy because the only solid rule per se is "do as thou wilt." Paradoxically, there are habits of thought as well as certain methodology which is nigh universal, not because it's mandated but because it's the natural result of walking the path-or generating said inward pull.

Are you a fan of Crowley or has that phrase been borrowed by someone else?

Originally Posted by Cado

Let me put it this way-if you're a self-professed darkworker and you always avoid conflict and you're afraid of shaking things up, you're either not or you're going to get eaten alive by your own energetic pull. The trademark of the darkworker is courage and while there are many ways to accomplish something you cannot consistently act from a place of cowardice and claim that this is where you fall.

I see what you're getting at. I was thinking more of strategy than cowardice. I find anger to be very rarely useful in modern society, and frankly really only to threaten animals. I use kindness even when I essentially threaten people. "Sorry I have to do this but..." Better to try to be everyone's friend than to be an outright enemy who they'll resist and fight. I'm sure many darkworkers employ this same tactic to get what they want. Politicians come to mind. Brute force should only be used by brutes.

[elucidate]

Anger doesn't necessarily equate with brute force though.

The energy of anger can be harnessed into action. If there weren't so many people who have had abusive childhoods, we wouldn't have angry activists fighting for change in the world. That's just one example of how anger can be channeled into positive directions.

Embracing anger doesn't mean you have to act it out all the time, and you wouldn't want to either. Embracing anger means acknowledging that it's there and it's a part of your human experience instead of stuffing it down and becoming depressed in an attempt to always be happy and be socially acceptable and pleasing to others.

As an artist, I find anger to be an interesting energy to pour out onto the canvas.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by elucidate

You can hypnotize an entire people if they are open to your suggestion and have nothing to lose, such as the circumstances at the time. The German people needed that at the time...it gave them hope. He spoke with passion and certainty and that's something very powerful when combined with words.

Once he had put across his agenda to them in his speeches and "frenzy whipping" as you put it, all it took was them speaking amongst themselves for a while until consensus reality had gelled in their minds.

You still haven't mentioned how you came to the conclusion that the German people manipulated Hitler though...

If you're willing to be extremely flexible with the definition of hypnosis, then sure, Hitler hypnotized the masses. But you could say the same of any strong charismatic leader, such as JFK, or even strongly emotional events like watching movies. But you have to be willing to be hypnotized, it's not something that can happen against your will.

I've studied seduction and charisma and its application to the political sphere. Everywhere there's this theme, from confidence schemes to sexual seduction to mass charm, whether it's interpersonal, in a music video, in a press conference. The seducer has to fit himself into a role that his target will accept. The process is never controlled by you. You manipulate, but never control. You have to exercise the gentlest touch.

Those in power are often the least in control. Look at similar situations that happened in America, such as the Japanese internment camps during WWII. From the late 19th century up until the war, Japanese immigrants were subject to a lot of racial prejudice. In 1905, Japanese and other Asians were banned from marrying white Americans. In 1944, an opinion poll found that 13% of Americans were in favor of exterminating all Japanese.

FDR could not have avoided the repeated calls to do something about the sizable Japanese population in the US.

It was exactly the same in Germany. Every arm of society and the economy became involved in the genocide. Mein Kampf became a bestseller while Hitler was still in prison, as the ideas resonated deeply with the Germans. Hitler did not have to do much to get his country agreeable to genocide.

Hitler was Germany's tool in their quest for greatness, not the other way around.

[jellybeanpimp]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Anger doesn't necessarily equate with brute force though.

The energy of anger can be harnessed into action. If there weren't so many people who have had abusive childhoods, we wouldn't have angry activists fighting for change in the world. That's just one example of how anger can be channeled into positive directions.

Embracing anger doesn't mean you have to act it out all the time, and you wouldn't want to either. Embracing anger means acknowledging that it's there and it's a part of your human experience instead of stuffing it down and becoming depressed in an attempt to always be happy and be socially acceptable and pleasing to others.

As an artist, I find anger to be an interesting energy to pour out onto the canvas.

Of course everyone gets angry, but it sounds like he is talking about embracing and glorifying it as a means to an end. When you embrace anger, you are planting the seeds for more anger inside your head. Negative thoughts lead to negative thoughts, it's a vicious cycle. There's always a better way to look at these things. I can look at my dad and be enraged that he used to hit me. Or as the saying goes, "we are all victims of victims". He got beaten up too. So did his dad. And so did his dad. By showing compassion for him, I end up putting this positive spin on it that dissipates the negativity associated with the whole situation. It's much more cathartic than just being mad. Anger should be an initial reaction, a reflex that tells us something is wrong, but it is definitely not something to hold on to or embrace. You look for way to get rid of it, whether it's through meditation, working out, painting a picture, or thinking it through.

[taylor]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Anger doesn't necessarily equate with brute force though.

The energy of anger can be harnessed into action.

True enough. Before when I've gotten really angry I use that energy to get paperwork filed, exercise, get my room cleaned, etc. It works fine for maintenance tasks. Anger seems to come from an animalistic instinct to fight though. If you use that energy to do any interacting with people, they are going to get fight/flight themselves and shut down on you. The whole concept of emotional intelligence comes into play because people shut down so easily that you have to handle them as gently as possible, avoiding their egos like land mines.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by jellybeanpimp

Of course everyone gets angry, but it sounds like he is talking about embracing and glorifying it as a means to an end.

I can't speak for cado, but I think you are interpreting his words with your own slant here, and it's not necessarily what he is talking about. Just my opinion.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by taylor

True enough. Before when I've gotten really angry I use that energy to get paperwork filed, exercise, get my room cleaned, etc. It works fine for maintenance tasks. Anger seems to come from an animalistic instinct to fight though. If you use that energy to do any interacting with people, they are going to get fight/flight themselves and shut down on you. The whole concept of emotional intelligence comes into play because people shut down so easily that you have to handle them as gently as possible, avoiding their egos like land mines.

Same. I've gotten a lot of domestic stuff done using my anger as a propellant, and channeled it into martial arts and riding my bike etc.

Is it possible you are confusing anger with aggression here though?

[taylor]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Is it possible you are confusing anger with aggression here though?

What's the difference? I think of aggression in this context as the expression of anger.

Then there's the softer gentler context for aggression which has nothing to do with emotions, it just means an extreme or overwhelmingly large course of action.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by taylor

What's the difference? I think of aggression in this context as the expression of anger.

Then there's the softer gentler context for aggression which has nothing to do with emotions, it just means an extreme or overwhelmingly large course of action.

You can feel angry without acting it out, but it can be harnessed into action. You can get angry without attacking anyone basically.

Aggression is an attacking action. It may use the feeling of anger to fuel it's purpose, but I think it is different to anger, and more primal as you were saying before.

To put it another way, if you are walking down the street and you see a person coming towards you who is obviously angry in their face, then you might avoid making eye contact or take a few steps to the right so you don't come too close, you might feel scared,

If someone is actively being aggressive, then you won't be there to ask if they're angry or aggressive, you'd split.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by jellybeanpimp

I find it hard to believe that you truly embrace anger and hatred. On some level, at your very core, is there not some part of you that recoils at these negative emotions? I have to really manage things like anger and what not, because of how much destruction they actually cause. If I totally embraced it, I would go mad and fall off the radar altogether. It'd be like the hoover dam collapsing, my rage would just fly all over the place and for some reason I would be embracing this madness. Even if I focused my anger, it would get too hot to hold, burning a hole in the very soul that possesses it.

There's negative consequences to negativity. I don't know how else to put it.

That's because most people are so trained to shun those parts of themselves that they don't know how to release it. Those emotions are only destructive to the self when they're bottled up without an outlet. If you build, focus, and release there's no inherent drawback, it'll only blow up in your face if you fail to heed cause and effect or you violate your own code of honor.

It's fiction, but look up the Count of Monte Cristo for the perfect example.

Edit: To elaborate-have you ever been torn apart by love? Because I have and it's not pretty. Any emotion is highly destructive when it isn't given an outlet or it's expressed without restraint or discretion. That one side of the coin gets a better rap just because it tends to feel better is, in my mind, one of those unpleasant realities people would rather ignore.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by taylor

What does fall beneath anger mean?

To be controlled by it instead of controlling it.

Are you a fan of Crowley or has that phrase been borrowed by someone else?

"Do as thou wilt", you mean? That is Crowley. I can't say I'm a fan because I've never delved very deep into his work, but I like that quote. Only the first half, though. "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." There is no law, not in the sense that the universe comes built with inherent restrictions. There are only actions and consequences. If you can accept that you're free to do whatever you wish.

I see what you're getting at. I was thinking more of strategy than cowardice. I find anger to be very rarely useful in modern society, and frankly really only to threaten animals. I use kindness even when I essentially threaten people. "Sorry I have to do this but..." Better to try to be everyone's friend than to be an outright enemy who they'll resist and fight. I'm sure many darkworkers employ this same tactic to get what they want. Politicians come to mind. Brute force should only be used by brutes.

As elucidate says, there's no reason the outward actions can't be fuelled by anger even if it's placid on the surface. Besides, this ignores the many circumstances where it is useful to choose sides and make enemies. Getting along with absolutely everyone only gets you so far as is proven many times, funny enough, in politics. In America, the right will label you wishy-washy if you try to make friends with everyone and that has lost a lot of elections.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by jellybeanpimp

Of course everyone gets angry, but it sounds like he is talking about embracing and glorifying it as a means to an end. When you embrace anger, you are planting the seeds for more anger inside your head. Negative thoughts lead to negative thoughts, it's a vicious cycle. There's always a better way to look at these things. I can look at my dad and be enraged that he used to hit me. Or as the saying goes, "we are all victims of victims". He got beaten up too. So did his dad. And so did his dad. By showing compassion for him, I end up putting this positive spin on it that dissipates the negativity associated with the whole situation. It's much more cathartic than just being mad. Anger should be an initial reaction, a reflex that tells us something is wrong, but it is definitely not something to hold on to or embrace. You look for way to get rid of it, whether it's through meditation, working out, painting a picture, or thinking it through.

Lots of people won't wake up if you rub their backs and coo in their ear. To clarify, I am not for mindless destruction, not by a longshot. In a case like you mentioned above, I'd be more inclined to show understanding and work with the person-but that doesn't mean I'd handle them with kid gloves. I'd come at it with my own flair.

And if there's no way to work together? F' it, I'm getting it off my chest and washing my hands. It's up to them what they do from there.

Win/win is a good ideal but while it sounds great on paper it's not always going to happen because some people are so committed to losing that if your outcome stays attached to theirs you're gonna be stuck for a long, long time. That will feed the gremlins within and all through that time they'll gnaw and gnaw until you either act or hit your breaking point. There's a big difference between emotions which are used and released and emotions which are channeled and dwelt upon.

The goal of the darkworker is not to align with any one emotion (or group of emotions) all the time but to be able to switch between them at will for a given purpose. The theory is that it's all the same energy taking different forms, meaning love and hate are the same thing and the difference lies in their expression. In practice, this makes the most sense to me based on my own experiences.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by VinceG

If you're willing to be extremely flexible with the definition of hypnosis, then sure, Hitler hypnotized the masses. But you could say the same of any strong charismatic leader, such as JFK, or even strongly emotional events like watching movies. But you have to be willing to be hypnotized, it's not something that can happen against your will.

I'm not sure about that. People can be open to suggestion...that is, in a vulnerable state of mind, such as being scared and feeling hopeless like the people of Germany would have been feeling at the time, which makes them more easily manipulated...and lets face it, most people are. I agree that they did allow themselves to be manipulated. Even the soldiers could have refused to kill all those people, but they chose to give into the fear of death they were being filled with.

I've studied seduction and charisma and its application to the political sphere. Everywhere there's this theme, from confidence schemes to sexual seduction to mass charm, whether it's interpersonal, in a music video, in a press conference. The seducer has to fit himself into a role that his target will accept. The process is never controlled by you. You manipulate, but never control. You have to exercise the gentlest touch.

Again, it's the person/s who allows themselves to be controlled.

It was exactly the same in Germany. Every arm of society and the economy became involved in the genocide. Mein Kampf became a bestseller while Hitler was still in prison, as the ideas resonated deeply with the Germans. Hitler did not have to do much to get his country agreeable to genocide.

Hitler was Germany's tool in their quest for greatness, not the other way around.

True, he planted those seeds at just the right time, when people were looking for someone to save them from the dire economic situation that was rapidly unfolding for them, so they embraced his ideas and they embraced him. His speeches and use of symbolism added some real oomph to the seduction though.

He did become their tool, but they did not manipulate him, he just saw an opportunity and played the role of savior/father, and gave them what they wanted, what they needed at the time.

[invisiblehouses]

I once asked a similar question around here, and got some interesting responses. The gist of what I was told then was that yes, you can be a nice darkworker; if helping others and being kind makes you feel the best, and making yourself feel good is your primary focus, hey-presto, you're a kind, gentle darkworker! All that sweetness and love you're spreading around is just collateral non-damage in your goal of making yourself feel awesome.

I believe there was an article posted here about polarity that says both types are highly conscious people. If you're just an a**hole, you're not a darkworker, you're just...well, an a**hole.

At the time, I was wondering if I was secretly a darkworker deep down. I know I've been an a**hole before, so maybe I was progressing. I don't know now...I want to provide value to others, but the jury's still out on why. I don't feel good being unkind, though, I know that much.

It's a progression. I trust the process (and ultimately I think I'll land on the lightworker side of the fence).

[jellybeanpimp]

It's been suggested here that we are not defining darkworker with the same definition, so let me just say how I define darkworker.

To me, a darkworker is concerned about themselves and only themselves. Through the eyes of a darkworker, I am merely something to be exploited for their benefit. My money, my pride, my body, my everything, should they desire it, they will covet it through any means, no matter how violent or depraved. Stealing, rape, bribery, assault, murder, to one who is 100% polarized on the side of darkworker, all of these and more are on the table as far as how they acquire their wants or desires.

That's my definition of darkworker, and those who pursue that path have that supreme darkness as their ultimate goal. Do they ever achieve it? I don't know. Do people who pursue the lightworker path really ever acheive a state where they are 100% lightworker? Not really, there is still fluctuations, but they established the lightworker path as their goal. In my view, the same is true with darkworkers, they fluctuate but their ideal is that supreme darkness, with some being much higher up on the dark scale than others.

I do think that darkworkers can be nice, just like a lightworker could be mean. Is there really a dark way to take a shower? Or to drive a car? I guess you could get imaginative with those examples, but not really. They are neutral activities. You only get to see what polarity someone is when something they want is on the table and they are going after it. Waving hello to someone is totally neutral.

[taylor]

My definition would be someone who is focused on selfish ambition. This isn't the opposite of a lightworker though because just being selfishly ambitious isn't "dark" unless it implies you're doing something bad to someone else in the process. A darkworker could be dark, neutral, or positive.

If you were looking for the opposite of a lightworker it would be someone who wants to destroy everyone including themselves. The Virginia Tech guy would be an example of that, whereas Mark Zuckerberg would be an example of a darkworker as is explained by Steve.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by invisiblehouses

I once asked a similar question around here, and got some interesting responses. The gist of what I was told then was that yes, you can be a nice darkworker; if helping others and being kind makes you feel the best, and making yourself feel good is your primary focus, hey-presto, you're a kind, gentle darkworker! All that sweetness and love you're spreading around is just collateral non-damage in your goal of making yourself feel awesome.

But don't most people do things like this to feel good themselves? I am about to apply to work as an advocate in the disability field because it takes the focus off my own problems and places it on other people and their issues, so by doing that I am relieved of thinking of my own stuff and can gain perspective whilst being a voice for someone who isn't able to speak. If this is darkworking then I am this kind of darkworker.

I believe there was an article posted here about polarity that says both types are highly conscious people. If you're just an a**hole, you're not a darkworker, you're just...well, an a**hole.

At the time, I was wondering if I was secretly a darkworker deep down. I know I've been an a**hole before, so maybe I was progressing. I don't know now...I want to provide value to others, but the jury's still out on why. I don't feel good being unkind, though, I know that much.

It's a progression. I trust the process (and ultimately I think I'll land on the lightworker side of the fence).

I just think everyone can be an ******* at times, so in that respect we are all *that* kind of darkworker...even the lightworkers, and I've met one or two ******* lightworkers I can tell you that much.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by jellybeanpimp

To me, a darkworker is concerned about themselves and only themselves. Through the eyes of a darkworker, I am merely something to be exploited for their benefit. My money, my pride, my body, my everything, should they desire it, they will covet it through any means, no matter how violent or depraved. Stealing, rape, bribery, assault, murder, to one who is 100% polarized on the side of darkworker, all of these and more are on the table as far as how they acquire their wants or desires.

I wouldn't say you're working from an inaccurate definition but rather it's incomplete. That is something which can result from walking this path. It's not the inevitable evolution of everyone who chooses it, and it's likely that someone on that road has not gotten there by reading discussions like we're having here. Most likely they were shaped by rough circumstances which required them to toughen up and instead of rising above they mastered and manipulate the system. If they feel no urging from their core to shift away from that then they'll go deeper and deeper until they either go into fusion or follow it to its logical end-crime boss, politician, etc.

Just like not every lightworker is Jesus, not every darkworker is a serial killer. In fact many walk this road because they're disgusted by the attitude you described and believe they can more ably wield the power others have held over them. They tend more toward idealism than the usual fare but they still have strong ambition, they still destroy the obstacles in their way, they just focus that power in a way that aligns with their True Will.

The defining aspect of the darkworker is first and foremost the inward pull. You're not dealing with a darkworker if they're not drawing energy into themselves from the environment. Second, they use everything at their disposal to advance themselves both physically and spiritually. Note that "using everything" is not the same thing as "****ing people over." It all depends on their code of honor, and every darkworker has a code of honor. You don't get very far without restraint. You are supposed to be in control. A hedonist is not in control. Someone who's so reckless they destroy without thought is not in control.

The thing to understand is that darkworkers are human. The point is to fully embody one's humanity, not chop off the pieces which are inconvenient. Every single person wants what will make them happy. Would you take joy in being an absolute dick? As I'd assume the answer is no, that's not what you'd do as a darkworker.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Cado

I wouldn't say you're working from an inaccurate definition but rather it's incomplete. That is something which can result from walking this path. It's not the inevitable evolution of everyone who chooses it, and it's likely that someone on that road has not gotten there by reading discussions like we're having here. Most likely they were shaped by rough circumstances which required them to toughen up and instead of rising above they mastered and manipulate the system. If they feel no urging from their core to shift away from that, then they'll go deeper and deeper until they either go into fusion or follow it to its logical end-crime boss, politician, etc.

If I can elaborate on this, it would be from them having had no one care about them growing up or during hard times, they would develop the attitude of "well no one gave a damn about me so why should I care about them now", and those people probably have never heard of the darkworker label, they are just reacting normally to harsh circumstances, as you said. It actually makes sense, from their point of view, to think this way. Why would you care about anyone else when no one has ever cared about you? Some people do, and can, but not the majority of people like this.