The Art of Polarity

[Cado]

In nearly every major thread on this subject I've said that Love and Fear are woefully inadequate descriptors for lightworking and darkworking. Even selfless/selfish doesn't quite mesh with the true nature of the paths, and compassion/power is only a small part of the big picture.

My motto is, "don't complain-be the change, make it happen." Pointing to a problem is worthless unless you intend to work on a solution. So, in an attempt to honor both sides of the spectrum, this is what I'd offer:

Lightworking is the path of identifying the divine in all things and honoring it by doing the most good and the least harm.

Darkworking is the path of honoring the divinity within oneself.

To say lightworking is a path of love or compassion misses the point because it doesn't indicate why. Why do you love the people and creatures in this world? Why do you cry for them, why do you bleed for them? Why is it so noble for you to devote your energies to helping them, guarding them, and waking them up?

It's not because these things are inherently good, it's because the divine within the lightworker is moved by the divine without.

Fear doesn't even apply to darkworking outside of its use as a tool. We do pursue power in many forms-in every form-but again, that is not the root. What is, then?

We see the god within ourselves and we are moved to honor it.

It's not service because we identify with it, and paradoxically we destroy our old identities so that we can embody it more fully. It's a constant process of sacrificing self to Self.

What do I mean when I say the two paths intersect? At some point the whole becomes a mirror for the individual lightworker and for them to progress they have to be able to stand with the divine instead of serving it, as an equal and a collaborator fully entitled to their own passions as part of the whole.

The darkworker, on the other hand, reaches a stage where their identity becomes restrictive and they are forced to expand if they're to quench the thirst within them. "I am a world before I am a man."

The lightworker learns to see themselves as an extension of divinity. The darkworker learns to see the world as an extension of herself.

These are my thoughts as of now, and I'm confident in my understanding of theory even if, in relative terms, I'm still at an early stage. I present this not as "the truth" but something to build on, something which I feel is a vastly superior foundation to what Steve's original articles provided.

You're an intelligent crowd-we can have better discussions on this than we've had. Do you have the courage to rise to the challenge? Because if we're going to get anything done-if these discussions are to be anything other than mental wankery-that's exactly what's required.

[Mariana Trench]

This is the best description I've ever heard of the two compared and contrasted. May add thoughts of mine later in this thread; but for now let me just say you sir, are a god.

[Entelechy]

Good thoughts.

While it's always interesting to think about different concepts, I don't even really like the terms "darkworking" or "lightworking" honestly. To start, "darkworking" automatically implies evil-esque behavior through connotation alone. Obviously, people familiar with the subject know better, but for the vast majority that don't, it's not a good first impression for an otherwise very respectable mindset and lifestyle.

It's kinda like how Satanism was named because of the fact that it questions the Bible's scriptures (instead of just being a sheep like everyone else) -- it does not represent "the devil," it merely represents the concept of the adversary. Most people are under the impression that its followers actually worship Satan, despite the fact that it is an atheistic religion. Although this philosophy has great practical use and is extremely logical, most people will never check it out and probably improve their lives because of (false) negative associations built around the name.

Fortunately, for people that believe in "lightworking," this problem doesn't exist.

Anyways, though, to truly contribute to this topic, I'll throw the terms around.

From what I understand, the basic premises are:

Darkworking is driven by selfish desires.

Lightworking is driven by selfless desires (i.e. a desire to help someone else).

A few years back, I remember reading an article in the world-renowned magazine The Economist. The article was about charity, and how people that donate are selfish. In a nutshell, they came to this conclusion because donating to charity does several good things for the person who donates:

1) Strokes his ego
2) Serves as a tax write-off
3) Is excellent for PR
4) Assists in attracting mates
5) Makes him feel warm and fluffy inside

Yes, other people benefit, but if the one who is putting up the money doesn't receive any of these benefits (not even one), the donation is not happening. Period.

So in other words, even lightworkers are ultimately driven by selfish desires.

This leads me to the thought that everyone is in fact selfish, but darkworkers are directly selfish, while lightworkers are indirectly selfish. It is just as possible for the world to benefit from a powerful darkworker as it would from a powerful lightworker. Regardless if someone wants to make a billion dollars to be the ultimate playboy and world traveler, or feed many starving villages in Africa, the billion still has to be made by producing values in a free market (where everyone benefits). After being produced, once it is spent and/or invested, it's simply redistributed through society... one way or another.

In my opinion, the paths of darkworking and lightworking intersect before they even start. Once a desire starts burning in an individual -- it doesn't matter what it is -- it is selfish. If he wants to become the next billionaire to have the ultimate lifestyle, OR if he wants to feel reeeaaalllyyy good about himself for being a part in big philanthropy, OR if he wants to convert as many people as possible to his religion so his god will reward him with 1000 virgins and/or eternal life in heaven after death, the nucleus of that desire is comprised of selfish atoms. If what is being done is not perceived to benefit the self in some kind of way, it is not happening. If I had $50 million on me, I'd put it all on the table because that's a sure f***ing bet.

If we're going to be using these terms, even lightworkers are darkworkers at heart, objectively speaking.

Moving forward now... after making what I feel is the primary similarity clear, I'll dig into the differences between the two.

Leaving the start point, when (and if) the individual becomes polarized, I see this as basically choosing between one of two vehicles. They both begin at the same place, and if you stay on track, they both end at the same place as well. If you maximize your potential at either polarity, you'll be rich and self-actualized. It doesn't matter how you get to the end point, all that matters is that it happens. The vehicle you take (if any at all...most people never polarize) is entirely dependent on which one makes you feel better, and which one you think you'll enjoy more or receive more perceived benefits.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say most people that become darkworkers do so out of desperation. An individual sees his life going downhill (or nowhere), and decides he needs to take charge and get what he wants out of life no matter what. At this point, caring or even thinking about other people is a luxury at best, and a non-issue at worst.

With exceptions obviously, most people that polarize into darkworking are probably in survival mode, bored out of their mind and need to make their life exciting at any cost, or were one of those two in the past and have grown to like the mindset/lifestyle after seeing the results it can bring. Hey, we all need to survive, so I understand completely. Plus, some people want more out of existence than to simply exist, so I understand that too. Lastly, I hear power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, so why not binge on that, if anything? Makes perfect sense.

For lightworkers, I would guess that most people are coerced into being altruistic through religious or cultural programming, or have stabilized their lifestyle enough to not really care about adding more digits to some number on a screen for no specific end result (without getting addicted to darkworking first, of course). Considering the fact that lightworking initially stems from darkworking as far as I'm concerned, I don't necessarily see this path as anymore noble than darkworking -- just so that's clear. As stated earlier, it's simply just another vehicle. Either one can drive you towards wealth and self-actualization, or either one can get you killed. A lot of it depends on the driver.

Getting really deep now, here are my two cents.

I agree that darkworking is honoring the divinity within oneself, and making that the ultimate priority. With this logic, if you're god, it's foolish to honor yourself at anything under the maximum level. The darkworker places himself on a level above everyone else.

Lightworking is honoring the divinity in all life, and making altruism the ultimate priority. If god exists in each and every one of us (or is each and every one of us), it is your moral obligation to honor all living creatures at the highest possible level. Because of this, the lightworker places himself on a level equal to everyone else.

Darkworkers see themselves as a direct extension of god, and must produce values to society to enrich themselves accordingly. They see humanity as a resource to be tapped in order to accomplish this goal. The darkworker will sacrifice other people to make sure this happens, if necessary.

Lightworkers see humanity (as a whole) as a direct extension of god, and must produce values to society to enrich humanity accordingly. They see themselves as a resource to be tapped in order to accomplish this goal. The lightworker will sacrifice himself to make sure this happens, if necessary.

The end result is still a bunch of values being generated for society... either way. The main difference between the two, from an objective standpoint, is the intention behind the action. The final product is essentially the same, as are the benefits for the individual producing these values.

These are my thoughts in a nutshell. And I agree, Cado, that we're just scratching the surface here.



Cliff Notes:

- Darkworking and lightworking are created by the same energy (selfish desire)
- They are simply packaged differently
- In the end, if idealized (which is always the goal), they deliver the same product
- Choose your wrapping paper

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by Entelechy

While it's always interesting to think about different concepts, I don't even really like the terms "darkworking" or "lightworking" honestly. To start, "darkworking" automatically implies evil-esque behavior through connotation alone. Obviously, people familiar with the subject know better, but for the vast majority that don't, it's not a good first impression for an otherwise very respectable mindset and lifestyle.

It's kinda like how Satanism was named because of the fact that it questions the Bible's scriptures (instead of just being a sheep like everyone else). Most people are under the impression that its followers actually worship Satan, despite the fact that it is an atheistic religion. Although this philosophy has great practical use and is extremely logical, most people will never check it out and probably improve their lives because of (false) negative associations built around the name.

From what I've heard, far from being a drawback, the taboo is part of the point. Alister Crowley said that he painted his spiritual insights with that brush so that only those with a mind open enough would do the work to appreciate and glean from them; and I tend to think that's part of it. For the most part though, I'm going to let darkworkers address your points on darkworking.

Fortunately, for people that believe in "lightworking," this problem doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, the term does attract a lot of bull, and dogma even. "Believing" has no relevance. I don't believe in lightworking--I'm using the term, the anchors, the concept, the energy (whatever explanation) to describe drives I've always felt and funnel and accelerate the journey.

From what I understand, the basic premises are:

Darkworking is driven by selfish desires.

Lightworking is driven by selfless desires (i.e. a desire to help someone else).

It's a lot more nuanced than that. As I understand it, darkworkers focus on themselves. Their core motivation is to realize their godhood. It's not about action; it's about energy, drive. I'll let a darkworker elaborate.

Lightworkers focus on the Whole. Everything is divine. It's all to be improved, served, elevated. Anything that helps the Whole, advances the whole--it's as if that's beneficial to the lightworker herself. The boundary between self and Other is recognized as an illusion. My particular avatar--the boundaries of my skin, my thoughts, my social expressions, the things associated with me, perhaps even my soul/core if that transcends this lifetime--that may be my base of operation, and it needs to be kept in good shape if I'm going to be effective, but it's not really, truly Me. Just a part. A limited perspective that arose organically from the evolving whole. It's why I like the Carl Sagan quotation:

"The cosmos is also within us; we're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

A few years back, I remember reading an article in the world-renowned magazine The Economist. The article was about charity, and how people that donate are selfish. In a nutshell, they came to this conclusion because donating to charity does several good things for the person who donates:

1) Strokes his ego
2) Serves as a tax write-off
3) Is excellent for PR
4) Assists in attracting mates
5) Makes him feel warm and fluffy inside

Yes, other people benefit, but if the one who is putting up the money doesn't receive any of these benefits (not even one), the donation is not happening. Period.

Why do people even bring up the tax write off? It's not a financial benefit, it just means your gifts aren't taxed. Besides that, those are all reasons I'm sure people donate, but it leaves off one that should be very obvious. The giver wants to see the charity's goals realized. (I'd also bring up guilt as a reason people donate but it's not what I feel needs to be elaborated upon here.)

I just...God, are people really that jaded? That is doesn't even occur to them that someone could want charitable goals to come to pass?

I'd argue donating to charity is likely not the most effective way one could go about that, but it honestly boggles my mind how that wouldn't even occur to someone. I guess being a writer for a world renowned magazine doesn't prevent you from being wrong.

So in other words, even lightworkers are ultimately driven by selfish desires.

This leads me to the thought that everyone is in fact selfish, but darkworkers are directly selfish, while lightworkers are indirectly selfish. It is just as possible for the world to benefit from a powerful darkworker as it would from a powerful lightworker. Regardless if someone wants to make a billion dollars to be the ultimate playboy and world traveler, or feed many starving villages in Africa, the billion still has to be made by producing values in a free market (where everyone benefits). After being produced, once it is spent and/or invested, it's simply redistributed through society... one way or another.

Okay, first, selfish is a useless word as far as I'm concerned. I think we've outgrown the Puritanical context and baggage it was birthed in and still carries. (I went to check my facts on that, and sure enough, it was coined by Presbyterians in the 1690s, which cracks this ex-Calvinist/Presbyterian up.) We all have a right to exist; we all are; we're all in bodies and there's nothing we can do about that. "Selfish" comes from a cultural context that was very, very uncomfortable with those facts; and taught martyrdom in some form for redemption. If you weren't rejecting your form, your very existence--you were selfish. And, if as you suggest, everyone is selfish (because they won't do something without some motivation, and motivation has to be of, within, or processed by the self), then what makes it a useful distinction?

Lightworking has no use for self rejection. If you are self-rejecting, you are disempowering, rejecting and hurting a part of the Whole. You're burning down your base of operation.

The assumption that a billion dollars has to be made in the free market, and that the free market will eventually benefit everyone, and even that there is a free market are contentious; but out of the scope of this thread.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say most people that become darkworkers do so out of desperation. An individual sees his life going downhill (or nowhere), and decides he needs to take charge and get what he wants out of life no matter what. At this point, caring or even thinking about other people is a luxury at best, and a non-issue at worst.

With exceptions obviously, most people that polarize into darkworking are probably in survival mode, bored out of their mind and need to make their life exciting at any cost, or were one of those two in the past and have grown to like the mindset/lifestyle after seeing the results it can bring. Hey, we all need to survive, so I understand completely. Plus, some people want more out of existence than to simply exist, so I understand that too. Lastly, I hear power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, so why not binge on that, if anything? Makes perfect sense.

For lightworkers, I would guess that most people are coerced into being altruistic through religious or cultural programming, or have stabilized their lifestyle enough to not really care about adding more digits to some number on a screen for no specific end result (without getting addicted to darkworking first, of course). Considering the fact that all lightworkers initially stem from darkworkers as far as I'm concerned, I don't necessarily see this path as anymore noble than darkworking -- just so that's clear. As stated earlier, it's simply just another vehicle. Either one can drive you towards wealth and self-actualization, or either one can get you killed. A lot of it depends on the driver.

These are stereotypical ideas about how concepts like like these, when oversimplified, might manifest in the narrowest interpretation our culture. I personally, have spent most of the last two years undoing religious and cultural programming. It would be easier in one way to run the other direction from anything that sounds like those concepts (because I'm already very familiar with the ego traps there) but I'm not going to. I'm also broke as broke can be, but that's gonna change soon. And, well, I'll let a darkworker take on your other claims because they'll do it more justice.

I agree that darkworking is honoring the divinity within oneself, and making that the ultimate priority. With this logic, if you're god, it's foolish not to honor yourself at anything under the maximum level. The darkworker places himself on a level above everyone else.

In their own priorities. I imagine it would be hard to be truly effective without trying to assess the world around them accurately.

[Mariana Trench]

Lightworking is honoring the divinity in all life, and making altruism the ultimate priority. If god exists in each and every one of us (or is each and every one of us), it is your moral obligation to honor all living creatures at the highest possible level. Because of this, the lightworker places himself on a level equal to everyone else.

Why limit it to living creatures? Also, there are no moral obligations in the way I frame it--though I'm sure there are lightworkers who do otherwise. There are ethics--social contract stuff--there's compassion. There's empathy. There's identification with the whole and the actions that naturally stem from that. There's a desire to communicate the Truth as I see it--that another is valuable and wonderful--through actions. There's congruency. There's a personal code of conduct as an attempt to live one's values. But there are no moral obligations.

"Equal" is concept not questioned nearly enough. My status as me--as my perspective--does not trigger that social part of my brain that assigns status values. Neither do many things that are "supposed" to. Or sometimes they do, but I'll notice it and let it pass. Recognize it for what it is. And at the same time, no two things are equivalent. Ichi-go, ichi-e. How and why should they be? In value? Who determines that value? Value is subjective. Equal is a relevant concept in the governmental sphere for human beings, but it's given far more reign as a universal concept than it deserves.

[James81]

It's that old classic Good vs. Evil paradigm, and it's something I've touched on a few times around here. I think it's interesting because you can look at our world today, and you can see just how prevalent this "good vs. evil" paradigm is throughout our entire society. You see it everywhere in American society for sure....Democrats vs. Republicans (and depending on which one you are, the other one is "evil" ), male vs. female, good vs. bad.....look at our stories...classic tales of good and evil, where good ultimately triumphs over evil...the good guy always win, the bad guy is always defeated.

And on and on it goes, into just about every layer of society. And I have been suspecting for a while now that it's the very thing we use to destroy ourselves. That if there is a "root" to all the issues in our society, to all the destruction that mankind has caused to each other (and to the earth) throughout the ages.....that the root is this one simple idea: Good vs. Evil.

Or, as the bible talks about it, the AWARENESS of good and evil.

And I think that to transcend that paradigm, the idea of good vs. evil, that you might become aware that if you chunk it up high enough, that good and evil are actually the SAME DAMN THING.

But we call that blasphemy in our society (and it might be part of the reason why Jesus was crucified...for suggesting such a notion). Because the notion of good and evil is so entrenched into our society (lightworker vs. darkworker is just another attempt to assimilate that), that to change it would require a massive shift in consciousness on a level that is hard to even imagine.

One of the attempts has been to insert a third option (I've seen that since the 90's)....the idea that everything isn't "black or white," that there is a GREY AREA. That idea of a grey idea is an attempt to shift use out of black and white thinking (or the good and evil paradigm).

And I've been thinking about this concept for several months now, but I still haven't really came up with a really deep, insightful, emotionally satisfying solution to moving beyond good and evil. But it's fascinating to consider how every action of the last few thousand years has been fit within that good and evil paradigm. And that they crucified the last guy who suggested that there was something beyond that.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by James81

It's that old classic Good vs. Evil paradigm, and it's something I've touched on a few times around here. I think it's interesting because you can look at our world today, and you can see just how prevalent this "good vs. evil" paradigm is throughout our entire society. You see it everywhere in American society for sure....Democrats vs. Republicans (and depending on which one you are, the other one is "evil" ), male vs. female, good vs. bad.....look at our stories...classic tales of good and evil, where good ultimately triumphs over evil...the good guy always win, the bad guy is always defeated.

And on and on it goes, into just about every layer of society. And I have been suspecting for a while now that it's the very thing we use to destroy ourselves. That if there is a "root" to all the issues in our society, to all the destruction that mankind has caused to each other (and to the earth) throughout the ages.....that the root is this one simple idea: Good vs. Evil.

Or, as the bible talks about it, the AWARENESS of good and evil.

And I think that to transcend that paradigm, the idea of good vs. evil, that you might become aware that if you chunk it up high enough, that good and evil are actually the SAME DAMN THING.

But we call that blasphemy in our society (and it might be part of the reason why Jesus was crucified...for suggesting such a notion). Because the notion of good and evil is so entrenched into our society (lightworker vs. darkworker is just another attempt to assimilate that), that to change it would require a massive shift in consciousness on a level that is hard to even imagine.

One of the attempts has been to insert a third option (I've seen that since the 90's)....the idea that everything isn't "black or white," that there is a GREY AREA. That idea of a grey idea is an attempt to shift use out of black and white thinking (or the good and evil paradigm).

And I've been thinking about this concept for several months now, but I still haven't really came up with a really deep, insightful, emotionally satisfying solution to moving beyond good and evil. But it's fascinating to consider how every action of the last few thousand years has been fit within that good and evil paradigm. And that they crucified the last guy who suggested that there was something beyond that.

Ahem. That's....not actually what we're talking about here.

For what it's worth: I reject the good versus evil paradigm and I think that's practically a pre-requisite for a darkworker. And we're certainly not talking darworkers vs. lightworkers here. Think less Palpatine and Obi Wan, more Han Solo and Princess Leia. (Luke doesn't even factor into the discussion, he was just a Mary Stew to guide the audience through a Hero's Journey. )

My "working morality" beyond good and evil is based on three things: social contract, empathy/compassion, and value congruency. Social Contract: law, mainly. Taboos, social pressure, etc. "What kind of society do you want to live in?" It doesn't have a divine enforcer, it doesn't have to activate the judgment circuits in our minds; but it does serve a purpose, and it usually has consequences when you break it (and we have total choice to accept those consequences). It's already there, we don't need to do anything about it, except change it, if need be.

Empathy/compassion: I was actually wondering whether to list that as just a value of mine or leave it off the list entirely; but I think it deserves a mention. Not because it's a "should", but because it's an "is". People tend to feel things for other people. It's a factor in how we relate as social, "moral" animals, and it often prevents us from hurting each other.

Value congruency: What most people would refer to as "personal morality". We've got the social covered, we want to keep people from killing others, but how do we live our lives?

Or, you could always go with the belief, "Everything is okay. I don't need to change it, do anything about it, etc. It's all a growth experience."

That doesn't work for me alone, but I do see how it's true on some level.

[Mariana Trench]

And damn James, you're comparing yourself to Jesus, again?

[James81]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

And damn James, you're comparing yourself to Jesus, again?

I have a Messiah complex.

Many years ago, on another board, people called me the Fecal Messiah. And I promised them when I left them that I would return. Maybe I'll go ahead and do that tonight, if they are still there.

Seriously, though, I suppose I am a bit wrapped up in this Jesus character. Not sure why.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by James81

I have a Messiah complex.

Many years ago, on another board, people called me the Fecal Messiah. And I promised them when I left them that I would return. Maybe I'll go ahead and do that tonight, if they are still there.

Seriously, though, I suppose I am a bit wrapped up in this Jesus character. Not sure why.

Oh God, that reminds me of way too many conversations I've had with my brother.

[Annie Zero]

I don't have much to say, besides how the lightworker/darkworker dichotomy is very similar to the Right-Hand Path/Left-Hand Path dichotomy. Recommended reading:
LHP vs. RHP (it's pretty short)
The writer concludes: "Be that as it may, it does seem to me that the terms "RHP" and "LHP" aren't very useful anymore. Regardless of whether you identify as "RHP" or "LHP," the terminology encourages stereotyping of people and religions in the other category."

[James81]

An untroubled mind,
No longer seeking to consider
What is right and what is wrong,
A mind beyond judgements,
Watches and understands.

--Buddha

[Entelechy]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

From what I've heard, far from being a drawback, the taboo is part of the point. Alister Crowley said that he painted his spiritual insights with that brush so that only those with a mind open enough would do the work to appreciate and glean from them; and I tend to think that's part of it. For the most part though, I'm going to let darkworkers address your points on darkworking.

Unfortunately, the term does attract a lot of bull, and dogma even. "Believing" has no relevance. I don't believe in lightworking--I'm using the term, the anchors, the concept, the energy (whatever explanation) to describe drives I've always felt and funnel and accelerate the journey.

Yeah, the terms aren't that big of a deal, honestly. Could it have a more favorable title? Sure. Does it matter? Not really. I completely agree that it's all about the anchors and concepts behind the stuff.

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

It's a lot more nuanced than that. As I understand it, darkworkers focus on themselves. Their core motivation is to realize their godhood. It's not about action; it's about energy, drive. I'll let a darkworker elaborate.

Lightworkers focus on the Whole. Everything is divine. It's all to be improved, served, elevated. Anything that helps the Whole, advances the whole--it's as if that's beneficial to the lightworker herself. The boundary between self and Other is recognized as an illusion. My particular avatar--the boundaries of my skin, my thoughts, my social expressions, the things associated with me, perhaps even my soul/core if that transcends this lifetime--that may be my base of operation, and it needs to be kept in good shape if I'm going to be effective, but it's not really, truly Me. Just a part. A limited perspective that arose organically from the evolving whole. It's why I like the Carl Sagan quotation:

"The cosmos is also within us; we're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you just reinforced my statements... pretty much.

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Why do people even bring up the tax write off? It's not a financial benefit, it just means your gifts aren't taxed. Besides that, those are all reasons I'm sure people donate, but it leaves off one that should be very obvious. The giver wants to see the charity's goals realized. (I'd also bring up guilt as a reason people donate but it's not what I feel needs to be elaborated upon here.)

I just...God, are people really that jaded? That is doesn't even occur to them that someone could want charitable goals to come to pass?

I'd argue donating to charity is likely not the most effective way one could go about that, but it honestly boggles my mind how that wouldn't even occur to someone. I guess being a writer for a world renowned magazine doesn't prevent you from being wrong.

Touche on the tax write-off thing. As far as lightworkers/primarily altruistic people wanting to see charity goals realized, this can be categorized as an ego boost and/or feeling warm and fluffy inside for giving more to humanity.

Nothing is carved in stone, including some article written by an Economist editor (obviously), but that doesn't change the fact that certain points made are valid.

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Okay, first, selfish is a useless word as far as I'm concerned. I think we've outgrown the Puritanical context and baggage it was birthed in and still carries. (I went to check my facts on that, and sure enough, it was coined by Presbyterians in the 1690s, which cracks this ex-Calvinist/Presbyterian up.) We all have a right to exist; we all are; we're all in bodies and there's nothing we can do about that. "Selfish" comes from a cultural context that was very, very uncomfortable with those facts; and taught martyrdom in some form for redemption. If you weren't rejecting your form, your very existence--you were selfish. And, if as you suggest, everyone is selfish (because they won't do something without some motivation, and motivation has to be of, within, or processed by the self), then what makes it a useful distinction?

I agree that the word "selfish" has a huge negative connotation in society, but I was referring to it in it's purest form. Ayn Rand Objectivism-type style. Thank you for clarifying the context.

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Lightworking has no use for self rejection. If you are self-rejecting, you are disempowering, rejecting and hurting a part of the Whole. You're burning down your base of operation.

I don't think that an intelligent lightworker would just destroy himself for no reason. Should it come down to the success of his mission, however, I can realistically see himself making the sacrifice... if needed.

To contrast, a true darkworker would probably not do this, since the purpose of his mission is to please himself and increase his overall quality of life.

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

The assumption that a billion dollars has to be made in the free market, and that the free market will eventually benefit everyone, and even that there is a free market are contentious; but out of the scope of this thread.

I can agree with that. I was mainly speaking from a perspective of looking at an ideal darkworker and an ideal lightworker.

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

These are stereotypical ideas about how concepts like like these, when oversimplified, might manifest in the narrowest interpretation our culture. I personally, have spent most of the last two years undoing religious and cultural programming. It would be easier in one way to run the other direction from anything that sounds like those concepts (because I'm already very familiar with the ego traps there) but I'm not going to. I'm also broke as broke can be, but that's gonna change soon. And, well, I'll let a darkworker take on your other claims because they'll do it more justice.

Stereotypes exist for a reason, but I'm aware they're not always the case. Regarding the oversimplification of these thoughts, there wasn't much of a choice if I wanted to keep the post at a reasonably short length. I'm sure entire textbooks could be written (not necessarily by me, of course) on both darkworking and lightworking, and would probably have to be in order to cover all the bases properly.

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Why limit it to living creatures? Also, there are no moral obligations in the way I frame it--though I'm sure there are lightworkers who do otherwise. There are ethics--social contract stuff--there's compassion. There's empathy. There's identification with the whole and the actions that naturally stem from that. There's a desire to communicate the Truth as I see it--that another is valuable and wonderful--through actions. There's congruency. There's a personal code of conduct as an attempt to live one's values. But there are no moral obligations.

"Equal" is concept not questioned nearly enough. My status as me--as my perspective--does not trigger that social part of my brain that assigns status values. Neither do many things that are "supposed" to. Or sometimes they do, but I'll notice it and let it pass. Recognize it for what it is. And at the same time, no two things are equivalent. Ichi-go, ichi-e. How and why should they be? In value? Who determines that value? Value is subjective. Equal is a relevant concept in the governmental sphere for human beings, but it's given far more reign as a universal concept than it deserves.

You can be congruent regardless of which path you choose... lightworker or not. Also, everyone has a personal code of conduct that they live by, no matter how "official" or poorly defined it is. Lastly, all morals are relative, so technically, any "moral obligations" one has are ultimately self-imposed. So with all this being said, these "points" that you provided about lightworking say nothing at all.

Furthermore, I agree that value is subjective, and never said it wasn't. I was also using the term "equal" is a general sense, just so that's clear.

And finally, what exactly do you mean by "why limit it to living creatures?" Got me a little confused there.


Anyways, glad you you had some thoughts to share as well. I hardly wrote the darkworking/lightworking bible; these are just my personal thoughts and opinions and how I am integrating these concepts myself.

If there are any people who are real darkworkers or lightworkers and care to contribute to this topic, I'm all ears.

This is just my mental masturbation for the week -- looking at these two objectively from the middle.

[Cado]

I apologize for leaving this thread sit as long as I have. Real-life plan making has eaten up my time, as have various other endeavors.

Better late than never, hm?

Originally Posted by Entelechy

Good thoughts.

While it's always interesting to think about different concepts, I don't even really like the terms "darkworking" or "lightworking" honestly. To start, "darkworking" automatically implies evil-esque behavior through connotation alone. Obviously, people familiar with the subject know better, but for the vast majority that don't, it's not a good first impression for an otherwise very respectable mindset and lifestyle.

That's intentional, at least on the behalf of those who consciously align with the path and make it known.

The focus is on individuating, and part of individuating is building psychological strength. The most expedient route is to don the symbols of villainy within a given culture. It doesn't matter if you're truly evil, if you can stand apart as someone who would normally be ostracized-and even better, find acceptance-then you are a magnitude more powerful than most.

This is also a method to improve your focus and make you more effective with the LOA. The simple explanation is that if reality can imprint itself upon you you're at the mercy of the world but if you can imprint your will on reality the world is yours for the taking. Needless to say there are many action steps which go along with that but that's the energetic crux of the movement on the surface.

It's kinda like how Satanism was named because of the fact that it questions the Bible's scriptures (instead of just being a sheep like everyone else) -- it does not represent "the devil," it merely represents the concept of the adversary. Most people are under the impression that its followers actually worship Satan, despite the fact that it is an atheistic religion. Although this philosophy has great practical use and is extremely logical, most people will never check it out and probably improve their lives because of (false) negative associations built around the name.

The association of darkworking/The Left Hand Path with Christianity is a bit unfortunate, though inevitable. Adding to what I said above, taking on the appearance of "evil" is also a matter of breaking previous psychological conditioning.

Nearly every time I've made headway in distancing myself from my conservative upbringing it's been through a form of blasphemy or sin. That's the entire point of something like the black mass and I can attest to the fact that it works even though I'm still undoing certain aspects of my former life.

The truth is that the association with Satan wasn't nearly as detrimental to Satanism as was Anton LaVey's showmanship. His church has become a joke, and it arguably was for the last decade he was alive. Case in point, you can purchase a membership to this "elite" club for an exorbitant fee. That's exactly the kind of thing Christians are mocked for and this isn't done in a subversive way, it's just a cash-grab aimed at the gullible.

This is a slight tangent, but I'd also note the Christian influence in western culture goes so deep that it's nearly impossible to look to an alternative form of spirituality without stepping into "evil" territory. Take the horned man-in the pre-Christian era it was a force of nature. Post-Christianity it's identified as a demon and it's often associated with the devil.

As long as this collective conditioning remains the way to liberation is as the adversary.

Fortunately, for people that believe in "lightworking," this problem doesn't exist.

Lightworking has its own problems. For instance, the words "pompous *******" come to mind. It's more accepted by and large by the sleepers but there's a lot of pettiness and clashing agendas within that world which get wrapped up in ego and ultimately prove more insidious than an openly practiced LHP philosophy.

Keep in mind that one of the reasons terms like darkworking retain their wicked connotations is because lightworkers need something to call other lightworkers when their egos take over and they need an expedient method for discrediting the ones who don't agree with them. If you've ever been within the Christian church it's the equivalent of one denomination saying another denomination has strayed from the true teachings of Christ and are, by the subtle guidance of the devil, leading people astray.

From what I understand, the basic premises are:

Darkworking is driven by selfish desires.

Lightworking is driven by selfless desires (i.e. a desire to help someone else).

Desire is an element but it's not the root. As I explained in the OP, I feel the closest we can get to that is placing an emphasis on divinity within vs. divinity without. Selfless and selfish desires follow, but beginning there is like trying to start a roadtrip five miles from where you currently are.

Selfish and selfless are also imprecise terms, and truth be told I think their connotations present more problems than the "evil" vibe of the word dark. You're going to do things for others and for yourself on either path. You don't-you can't-exist in a vacuum, and you can't fully honor yourself without feeling both love and hate in some form. (Yes, even as a lightworker.)

The difference in relationships is psychological. As a darkworker, my experience is that getting close to someone entails feeling their pain as my own. We retain our distinct identities yet there is a part of me that considers any slight against them as a slight against me, their enemies are my enemies, and so on. It's still deeply personal but it is not, according to the usual perception of the word, selfish. I would still use that term because I define selfishness as deciding what's important to me regardless of what society tells me to prioritize.

A few years back, I remember reading an article in the world-renowned magazine The Economist. The article was about charity, and how people that donate are selfish. In a nutshell, they came to this conclusion because donating to charity does several good things for the person who donates:

1) Strokes his ego
2) Serves as a tax write-off
3) Is excellent for PR
4) Assists in attracting mates
5) Makes him feel warm and fluffy inside

Yes, other people benefit, but if the one who is putting up the money doesn't receive any of these benefits (not even one), the donation is not happening. Period.

So in other words, even lightworkers are ultimately driven by selfish desires.

I think of the yin-yang circle and how there's a white dot in the black and a black dot in the white, indicating that each contains a small bit of the other.

Lightworkers aren't driven by selfish desires. I don't believe in altruism, but their "selfishness" is of a decidedly different flavor than my own.

[Cado]

In my opinion, the paths of darkworking and lightworking intersect before they even start. Once a desire starts burning in an individual -- it doesn't matter what it is -- it is selfish. If he wants to become the next billionaire to have the ultimate lifestyle, OR if he wants to feel reeeaaalllyyy good about himself for being a part in big philanthropy, OR if he wants to convert as many people as possible to his religion so his god will reward him with 1000 virgins and/or eternal life in heaven after death, the nucleus of that desire is comprised of selfish atoms. If what is being done is not perceived to benefit the self in some kind of way, it is not happening. If I had $50 million on me, I'd put it all on the table because that's a sure f***ing bet.

Again, there is a clear difference in the flavor of our selfishness, though it becomes more distinct as two people grow on their respective paths.

You're right in that there's a strong intersection from the very start, but I'd say that has to do more with the fact that your energy is still very muddled when you first awaken, then it purifies and mixes again at the apex. I'm speaking both on a smaller scale and a larger one-that appears to characterize the beginning and "end", but also many smaller cycles you experience through growth. You can see it in Steve's writings if you look closely-there were times I was utterly convinced he was going through a polarity shift when it seems that what was really happening is he was integrating more of his shadow as he spiraled upward.

If we're going to be using these terms, even lightworkers are darkworkers at heart, objectively speaking.

Ah, but that line of reasoning makes the terms meaningless. That's not to say it doesn't convey an important truth, but there's a reason for the distinction that can't be understood if said distinction is eliminated at the beginning.

Leaving the start point, when (and if) the individual becomes polarized, I see this as basically choosing between one of two vehicles. They both begin at the same place, and if you stay on track, they both end at the same place as well. If you maximize your potential at either polarity, you'll be rich and self-actualized. It doesn't matter how you get to the end point, all that matters is that it happens. The vehicle you take (if any at all...most people never polarize) is entirely dependent on which one makes you feel better, and which one you think you'll enjoy more or receive more perceived benefits.

I'm far from the end point, yet while the vehicle makes no difference from one perspective I have a feeling it makes all the difference from another. There's a clear arc, and those more advanced are still defined by how they reached that point even when the energies mix to an extent that it's hard to intuit where they fall.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say most people that become darkworkers do so out of desperation. An individual sees his life going downhill (or nowhere), and decides he needs to take charge and get what he wants out of life no matter what. At this point, caring or even thinking about other people is a luxury at best, and a non-issue at worst.

As a generalization that's too specific. Pain often drives someone on this path, but the same can be said for lightworking-the difference lies in focusing on pain caused to self vs. pain caused to others. It's just as likely either path will begin with love.

Caring for others is not a prerequisite for darkworking but it's never forbidden or exempt from the path, either. In fact a good many begin their descent because they will to destroy injustices incurred by them and others dear to them. Some endeavor to change the world right from the beginning and their path is about working to the point where they're capable of it.

Going back to what I said about desire, what you're talking about is often built on the foundation but it isn't inherent to the path.

With exceptions obviously, most people that polarize into darkworking are probably in survival mode, bored out of their mind and need to make their life exciting at any cost, or were one of those two in the past and have grown to like the mindset/lifestyle after seeing the results it can bring. Hey, we all need to survive, so I understand completely. Plus, some people want more out of existence than to simply exist, so I understand that too. Lastly, I hear power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, so why not binge on that, if anything? Makes perfect sense.

I'd say I covered this with my last paragraph.

For lightworkers, I would guess that most people are coerced into being altruistic through religious or cultural programming, or have stabilized their lifestyle enough to not really care about adding more digits to some number on a screen for no specific end result (without getting addicted to darkworking first, of course). Considering the fact that lightworking initially stems from darkworking as far as I'm concerned, I don't necessarily see this path as anymore noble than darkworking -- just so that's clear. As stated earlier, it's simply just another vehicle. Either one can drive you towards wealth and self-actualization, or either one can get you killed. A lot of it depends on the driver.

In my experience with legitimate lightworkers, this seems way off the mark. I'm not qualified to talk on their behalf, but you've described more wannabes than actual tried and true lightworkers.

I agree that darkworking is honoring the divinity within oneself, and making that the ultimate priority. With this logic, if you're god, it's foolish to honor yourself at anything under the maximum level. The darkworker places himself on a level above everyone else.

Except when honoring the self means placing all people on an equal field. I don't have to be above you to place my priorities first. In my framework, we are both gods pursuing what we desire in whatever ways we see fit and that's beautiful-at times awe inspiring-even though it means there will be conflict.

My way of honoring your divinity is to say you're a big boy and if you want something it's up to you to get it just as it is for me to get what I'm after. The strongest will wins.

Lightworking is honoring the divinity in all life, and making altruism the ultimate priority. If god exists in each and every one of us (or is each and every one of us), it is your moral obligation to honor all living creatures at the highest possible level. Because of this, the lightworker places himself on a level equal to everyone else.

Or they can elevate themselves above the masses by calling themselves shepherds for the ignorant. "I know what's better for you than you do and I will make sure that's what you get no matter how much you protest." In extreme cases they see this as their duty and restrict free will to the fullest extent possible because most people are not advanced enough to use it well.

In other words they love mankind the way someone might love a pet.

This is another iteration of the foundation vs. what's built upon it.

Darkworkers see themselves as a direct extension of god, and must produce values to society to enrich themselves accordingly. They see humanity as a resource to be tapped in order to accomplish this goal. The darkworker will sacrifice other people to make sure this happens, if necessary.

The truth of that varies depending on the darkworker.

Lightworkers see humanity (as a whole) as a direct extension of god, and must produce values to society to enrich humanity accordingly. They see themselves as a resource to be tapped in order to accomplish this goal. The lightworker will sacrifice himself to make sure this happens, if necessary.

The truth of that varies depending on the lightworker.

The end result is still a bunch of values being generated for society... either way. The main difference between the two, from an objective standpoint, is the intention behind the action. The final product is essentially the same, as are the benefits for the individual producing these values.

I agree with the bolded statement, though intention feels a bit imprecise as well. That's not really a criticism of your style as I'm stumped to what would suit it better.

These are my thoughts in a nutshell. And I agree, Cado, that we're just scratching the surface here.

And you came out of the gate with a doozy. I like to see this much effort poured into a post. It's been a while since I've had the pleasure of diving into something like this.

[OptimistPrime]

Personally I find the darkworker/lightworker distinction to be useless for my own purposes, and I strongly disagree with Steve's assertion that people who care about empowering both themselves and others are less powerful than those who concentrate on just one or the other. I make all of my decisions (or at least as many as I can) based on what I intuitively feel like doing. Sometimes I feel like helping others, and sometimes I feel like helping myself. But I've always been guided by the belief that ultimately, the highest good for yourself and the highest good for another are the same. The dichotomy between helping others and helping yourself is an illusion based on how small a conception of Self you have. By working for years primarily helping myself by working on my own personal development, it has allowed me to get better and better at helping others.

Still, Cado, I like your theory of darkworking vs. lightworking, since it at least seems compatible with my views. I'd probably qualify as a darkworker within that paradigm, since recognizing the divine in your Self so that you can recognize the divine in Others is part of my philosophy.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by OptimistPrime

Personally I find the darkworker/lightworker distinction to be useless for my own purposes, and I strongly disagree with Steve's assertion that people who care about empowering both themselves and others are less powerful than those who concentrate on just one or the other. I make all of my decisions based on what I intuitively feel like doing. Sometimes I feel like helping others, and sometimes I feel like helping myself. But I've always been guided by the belief that ultimately, the highest good for yourself and the highest good for another are the same. The dichotomy between helping others and helping yourself is an illusion based on how small a conception of Self you have. By working for years primarily helping myself by working on my own personal development, it has allowed me to get better and better at helping others.

Yes, placing the distinction on who you care for is quite confusing because everybody's going to care about somebody and nobody can care about everybody. The meaningful differences lie in psychology, the flow of energy, and creation vs. destruction.

Lightworking focuses on harnessing our creative potential and thus it's almost universally considered "good" whereas darkworkers harness destruction and so we are "evil". These are constants but that view is overly simplistic. I'll delve into this aspect a bit more but part of the reason I make topics like this is that Steve's posts are written at a level the sleeper can understand (which means it's horribly confusing to try and proceed solely off of that) and there are too few comprehensive resources on this topic.

Destruction isn't parasitical, it does not mean someone aspires to stir fear and loathing within the people they influence, it's simply a natural force which is essential to balancing the universe and that we as human beings can choose to embody an aspect of that. There's nothing sinister about it though it's certainly more likely to trigger the fight-or-flight response than creative energies are.

Still, Cado, I like your theory of darkworking vs. lightworking, since it at least seems compatible with my views. I'd probably qualify as a darkworker within that paradigm, since recognizing the divine in your Self so that you can recognize the divine in Others is part of my philosophy.

Much appreciated.

[OptimistPrime]

Originally Posted by Cado

Lightworking focuses on harnessing our creative potential and thus it's almost universally considered "good" whereas darkworkers harness destruction and so we are "evil".

Haha, well, when you put it that way, maybe I'd qualify as a lightworker in your eyes. I have to admit, I'd never even heard of darkworkers before joining this forum, and I'm also willing to admit that I may not know what the hell I'm talking about.

[Cado]

Originally Posted by OptimistPrime

Haha, well, when you put it that way, maybe I'd qualify as a lightworker in your eyes. I have to admit, I'd never even heard of darkworkers before joining this forum, and I'm also willing to admit that I may not know what the hell I'm talking about.

Hehe, it takes a lot of introspection and experimentation to really "get it", in my experience.

The terms are fairly new-both lightworker and darkworker. I'm not going to go into it, but in many ways they're a modern permutation of a dichotomy that reaches back to Babylon.

[OptimistPrime]

Okay, I just finished reading this article, What is a Darkworker?, and (assuming that article is at all accurate) I guess I had a better idea of what I was talking about than I gave myself credit for.

And yeah, after reading that, I stand by what I said earlier. I find the idea of exclusively following either of those paths--as opposed to going with a synthesis of the two and combining whichever elements resonate with me from either path--deeply unappealing. Just using the example of that article itself, I spend half the time really agreeing with the author's sentiments, and the other half thinking he sounds like a real jackass. So I guess I view them as a duality, rather than a polarity. To me, the word "polarity" implies that they can't coexist harmoniously with one another.

Interestingly enough, every definition of "lightworker" I ever saw (prior to joining this forum) was basically a synthesis of what that article (and Steve) describe as "darkworker" and "lightworker". I never thought of a lightworker as someone who primarily seeks divinity outside of him- or herself instead of within, or who strives to be as selfless as possible, etc. And all of the PD-related books and websites I saw during that same period (or at least the ones that resonated with me) advocated a synthesis between those two. I guess that's one reason I find the whole darkworker vs. lightworker paradigm so alien. It's completely new to me in the context of PD, even though, as you say, it's a very old paradigm.

[Cado]

What's commonly understood as following both paths isn't incompatible with polarity. I want to stress that you're not lobotomizing yourself when you polarize; you're still going to care for others, and you still need some focus on yourself, it doesn't matter which way you go, it's a question of focus and degree. The actual phenomena is very subtle and can't be understood from the outside looking in.