Can someone please explain to me how polarization makes any sense???

[tomn8er]

Ok, sorry i'm sure this topic has been covered somewhere. I only discovered this site 2 months ago so I guess I'm a little behind schedule.

Just read Steve's articles on polarization. I generally agree with most of Steve's ideas, but this one totally confuses me. This post is gonna be pretty lengthy, b/c I'm seriously in disbelief.

How is being a 'darkworker' (fear-polarized) even remotely desirable?? I mean, who wants to be like the emperor from Star Wars??? Surely Hitler also fits this 'darkworker' mold, so why would anybody choose to walk that path rather than someone like Buddha's? Incidentally, I've heard Darth Vader referred to as 'Space Hitler'.
I understand how being fear-polarized is related to personal growth, since you are becoming more powerful through manipulation of others and such.
But why would you consciously want to live this way when given the alternative?
As Steve said in his second article on polarization, a fear-based person will inevitably face competition and have enemies. Why on earth would you willingly choose to have enemies? The option for love seems obviously the better life.

I can accept that both options may be equal in terms of their effectiveness to achieve personal growth. But I don't agree that both paths taken to reach this achievement of personal growth are equal in terms of merit, which Steve seems to be implying by not condemning fear-polarity.

Isn't the method in which you achieve something also important? To me, choosing to be a darkworker is like saying that all that matters is the end result, not how you got there. In my mind, being a darkworker is like cheating or stealing - you are being dishonest to others by manipulating them, and what you are doing is ultimately not for the greater good. What kind of a world would we live in if everyone was entirely self-centred? I would think a pretty terrible one.

This whole idea that both options are equal in terms of merit seems totally bogus to me. A life ruled by self-interest and a desire for power over others seems totally corrupt, and ultimately, i think it would be an unfulfilling way to live.
Furthermore, this outlook is totally ego-driven. How would you not become paranoid if your life was rooted in fear?
I would also believe that living in fear would lead one to be close-minded, defensive, likely fanatical, and ultimately very ignorant. Just like Hitler.

Another point relates to Steve's podcast on overcoming fear. I can understand how fear-based people try to conquer their fears, whereas love-based people strive to transcend them.
This makes sense to me.
But is it really possible to transcend all your fears without first conquering a few?
It seems logical that conquering some of your fears is a stepping stone in the process of transcending fear altogether - not two distinct and unrelated approaches as Steve implies in his polarization articles.

One last note is why can you not be giving (love-polarized) and still have some degree of personal selfish desire (fear-polarized).
How are these two qualities necessarily contradictory?
In other words, why would having both love-based desires and fear-based desires be ineffective in manifesting intentions???
If you buy into subjective reality, then you are everyone and everything, but your physical body is certainly still included. So having personal, ego-based desires is not automatically incongruent with the desire to benefit others.
A good example is the intention for a romantic relationship.
On the one hand, you have the desire for a relationship that will benefit you (fear-polarized), but you could (and hopefully would) also want to benefit your partner (love-polarized).
Thus, good relationships must be mutually beneficial (that is, both love-polarized and fear-polarized), otherwise why would the one person even bother investing their time and energy into something that doesn't give them any value?

Please feel free to shed some light on these questions for me. Usually I find Steve's articles rather enlightening, but these two on polarity just make me cringe in confusion and I feel worse off now than before I read them.

[Bitsy]

Hello,

This topic has been extensively discussed in the "Steve Pavlina" section under the thread related to the respective blog. I tried posting something there too, but I don't think anyone noticed me, so I deleted it and presumed I had no idea what I was talking about .

That is to say, I guess no one else agrees with and/or understands what I am going to write here and I have had no confirmation of it from anyone or even any response at all and if it were as simple as my explanation, I'm sure Steve would have explained it in simple terms instead, and also would not have associated certain intentions with a certain polarity. However, I am just trying to understand these things as best I can by myself. My understanding is further hindered by the fact that the way Steve understands and describes things causes him to use examples and references that I have no hope of understanding without going back to university and majoring in subjects that I suck in, and I've never even seen Star Wars.

From one example that Steve had written in the "Polarity" thread of an experience he had when trying to work with other people, I gathered that "polarization" is just simply a way to qualify your motive for an intention. Meaning, the motive for an intention you have can either be founded in fear or in love.

Due to the way polarity has been explained, lots of people here are now thinking that an intention in and of itself can have polarity and are asking questions like "does this intention have fear-based polarity".

1. For myself, I am sure, until the time that a knowing person takes the time to correct me, that what is really meant by polarity is your core motive for wanting and intending something, which has absolutely nothing to do with the intention itself. If you want a relationship, the intention itself does not have "polarity". Your reason for wanting it is the polarity. If you identify your motive, either love or fear (or a mixture thereof), for wanting something, you have identified your polarity for that intention.

2. Concerning choosing a fear-based polarity, realize that people are not consciously and deliberately choosing fear. Consider all the things you wrote about how terrible the world would be if people lived with a fear-based polarity and then look around you, turn on the news. People are living this way. They do not sit down and say "I want to live in fear and because of my fear I am going to fight and struggle to control everyone else." They just do it. To add to that, most people are not even aware of their true motive ("polarity") and may often think they are doing what they do out of love instead of fear, if they even think at all.

3. And I'm glad someone else finally brought up the "Overcoming Fear" podcast in light of "polarization" too, because I had asked a question about that in the post I deleted. My question was different than yours though. Think about this:

“As Buddha figured out, that sense of duality is really the source of all your fear and suffering. The more your life is rooted in the sense of separation from others, the more you believe in this objectified sense of reality, where people are separate and distinct objects from yourself, unlike in your dreams, where you compete with other people, where you’re vying for scarce resources, where when you succeed somebody else has to fail, the harder it will be for you to embrace non-duality, which is, in fact, the solution. I think this is what Jesus meant when he said that it’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. That’s a metaphorical way of saying that the more attached you are to your belief in duality, for example by thinking that money is something you have to hoard in order to feel secure, the more impossible it will be for you to transcend suffering.”

From this, and other things Steve has said and written, we can understand that a fear-based polarity occurs when one has a dualistic view of reality, which basically all people have by default. The preceding quote by Steve also clearly implies that those with a fear-based polarity (i.e. having fear for your motives) will always be suffering and they will not be able to enter "heaven".

When you put what Steve says about polarity in the light of this podcast, he really does appear to be condemning the fear-based polarity, or "darkworkers" ... (wherever that term came from). He himself said in the "True Nature of Reality" podcast basically exactly what you said: "Who would want to live in a reality like that??!"

4.why would having both love-based desires and fear-based desires be ineffective in manifesting intentions???

Well, I don't have anything to say about this, because I don't know, but I can feel it is true. There is some kind of contradiction between the two. At the very least, you know that if you are doing something, like writing a forum post, and your attention is split, maybe you are also aware of the work you should be doing that is due right now, you are not able to be fully effective in writing the post. Maybe it is something similar to that.

Which reminds me, now I really have to do my work...

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by tomn8er

Another point relates to Steve's podcast on overcoming fear. I can understand how fear-based people try to conquer their fears, whereas love-based people strive to transcend them.
This makes sense to me.
But is it really possible to transcend all your fears without first conquering a few?
It seems logical that conquering some of your fears is a stepping stone in the process of transcending fear altogether - not two distinct and unrelated approaches as Steve implies in his polarization articles.

I forgot about this part

The reason the two approaches are distinctly separate is because transcending fear requires an entirely different understanding of reality, while conquering a fear does not. You can have a fear and confront it time and time again - maybe you won't have that particular fear anymore. However, if you want to have no fears and no fear at all, ever, you must change your understanding of reality, for example, by adapting the subjective reality model and deliberately changing your mind so that you perceive reality in that way.

[impaul99]

I'm a big Steve fan. I've been reading his site for over a year on a regular basis and have posted quite a bit on these forums.

However, when it comes to Steve's articles on Polarization and Darkworkers and Lightworkers, I honestly don't have a clue what Steve is talking about.

My guess is that Steve's probably going through a growth phase right now and trying to figure out how to go from where he is now to the next level of "enlightenment" and the way he's trying to do that is by aligning every action he takes with love, and this he calls "polarization" towards love in his case. So for example, when he orders pizza he's probably asking himself "Did I order it with love?" and when he has to make the decision as to what kind of tip to give the delivery guy even though the pizza is cold because the delivery guy got lost he's thinking "What kind of tip would I give him acting out of love?" etc.

In other words, Steve's trying to align every action and thought he takes to be coming from love, not fear, but in my opinion he's missed a point. The act of JUDGING himself as a "darkworker" when he has a fearful thought or takes a fearful action is FAR WORSE than the fearful thought/action itself. It is far better to be compassionate and to accept oneself, including one's fears and not feel guilt for them, but just accept them as part of the journey.

There is no LIGHTWORKER and DARKWORKER thoughts or actions, except based on your own JUDGEMENT of your thoughts or actions in a subjective reality model. Meaning, punching the wall is neither GOOD nor BAD. It is neither a LIGHTWORKER action or a DARKWORKER action. It is only your judgement of which one it is that makes it that. To judge anything as GOOD or BAD, as LIGHT or DARK is to act out of fear.

Therefore, nobody can say they are a lightworker because if they believe they are thinking and acting out of love, that means that they must be constantly judging every thought and action they experience as being GOOD or BAD , or LIGHT or DARK, and even if every thought and action they do take is LIGHT, the JUDGING that they are doing is DARK so they are then DARK.

The only path towards true light, true love is to stop judging. If you stop judging yourself, you will stop judging others. If you stop feeling guilty about what you do, you will heal, and everyone else in your world will heal.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I see Steve struggling with this right now, only because I'm struggling with self-judgement right now, so all I can do is be self-accepting to myself and accepting to Steve. I hope he finds his way.

One last thing I can add to maybe demonstrate this point further is if you think of eating a super healthy and life-filled fresh salad you might think that you're acting as a LIGHTWORKER, but if you ate a large tripple-chocolate cake all by yourself dripping with 2 pounds of icing sugar you might feel guilty about it and think that you're acting out of FEAR, therefore you're acting like a DARKWORKER.

Now, imaging if Jesus appeared in front of you and you asked him if he would be willing to eat the salad for you and he did. And then you asked him if he would eat the whole chocolate cake for you and he did. Do you think Jesus would be acting as a DARKWORKER while eating the cake? No. The cake wouldn't affect him at all in any bad way. Why? Because Jesus knows that there is no cake, it's just an illusion, and there's nothing to feel guilty about so he wouldn't judge himself for the action of eating the cake, just like he didn't judge those who attacked him and crucified him. He forgave them.

Anyway, I'm rambling. I do think Steve's "stuck" right now though, but will soon see the light out of this. Just my opinion though, i could be totally wrong. Maybe I'm just too dense to understand his polarization and lightworker/darkworker articles.

[judge45]

I like much of what Steve relates, but polarity is a bunch of crap designed to fill pages will advertising.

6000 words to confuse people, so other people who say they get it, can explain with another 8000 what it's really about???

Lightworkers? Darkworkers? Blah!

Please just say you're a giver or a taker, you can be both, it works on both levels.

Like all gurus, not everything they say will feel right or be right to you.

This is Steve's greatest strength and his ultimate weakness.

Don't worry, I'm not being mean or hard on Steve, because in my SR I'm talking to myself

[renie408]

Originally Posted by judge45

I like much of what Steve relates, but polarity is a bunch of crap designed to fill pages will advertising.

6000 words to confuse people, so other people who say they get it, can explain with another 8000 what it's really about???

Lightworkers? Darkworkers? Blah!

Please just say you're a giver or a taker, you can be both, it works on both levels.

Like all gurus, not everything they say will feel right or be right to you.

This is Steve's greatest strength and his ultimate weakness.

Don't worry, I'm not being mean or hard on Steve, because in my SR I'm talking to myself

Ok, that last part was funny.

And I tend to agree with the rest.

[tomn8er]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

I forgot about this part

The reason the two approaches are distinctly separate is because transcending fear requires an entirely different understanding of reality, while conquering a fear does not. You can have a fear and confront it time and time again - maybe you won't have that particular fear anymore. However, if you want to have no fears and no fear at all, ever, you must change your understanding of reality, for example, by adapting the subjective reality model and deliberately changing your mind so that you perceive reality in that way.

That's true. But what I'm saying is that you can't change just change your entire perspective of reality overnight. You will obviously have to make this transition of beliefs gradually.

For instance, if someone is chock full of fear due largely to societal conditioning, uprbringing, past experiences etc. and then reads some articles on subjective reality and realizes that there is a better alternative to being held back by their fears, its not like they could easily become 100% convinced of subjective reality and suddenly no longer feel any fear.
To me, it seems like transcending fear is the final step, the utlimate goal, but it can't be reached quickly because something as fundamental as one's belief in reality cannot be easily changed.

So yeah, you're right that conquering fear and transcending it are two different approaches, but it seems logically implausible that you can make a direct transition from one end of the spectrum (fearful) to the other (fear-transcendent) without taking a few steps (i.e. conquering some of your specific fears) along the way.

[renie408]

Originally Posted by tomn8er

So yeah, you're right that conquering fear and transcending it are two different approaches, but it seems logically implausible that you can make a direct transition from one end of the spectrum (fearful) to the other (fear-transcendent) without taking a few steps (i.e. conquering some of your specific fears) along the way.

That's what Buddha did. And apparently Eckhart Tolle (I am going based on his account of his experience). Maybe Jesus, too. But obviously it ain't easy and is not the common path to enlightenment.

But it makes me wonder if that really is the ONLY way to enlightenment (transcendence)? Because the people who work on it piece by piece don't become Buddha or Jesus. Or Eckhart Tolle. They get close, but no cigar. So, I wonder if some cataclysmic epiphany is the only way to get TRUE transcendence or enlightenment?

[tomn8er]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

Hello,

When you put what Steve says about polarity in the light of this podcast, he really does appear to be condemning the fear-based polarity, or "darkworkers" ... (wherever that term came from). He himself said in the "True Nature of Reality" podcast basically exactly what you said: "Who would want to live in a reality like that??!"

Okay, I agree with you that in most of Steve's other articles, he does seem to stress that being love-polarized is superior. But in these articles on Polarity, he basically contradicts himself. Here is an exact quote in his original polarity article: "But as far as the universe is concerned, these polarities are equally acceptable. To say that one is better than the other is to say that breathing in is better than breathing out."

Okay, I don't buy that. Not based on his descriptions of the two polarities at least. In fact, I don't think Steve quite understood what he meant when he said that. He tries to rectify this slip-up in the follow-up article: "In the previous article, when I explained the polarities of inflow and outflow, I failed to do them justice. As I scanned the feedback (via email and forums), it was clear that many people thought I was describing two sides of the same coin, like yin and yang."

Ok, so what he's saying here in these two excerpts isn't a complete contradiction. But he then goes on to describe the inflow as fear and the outflow as love. He might as well say: inflow is evil and outflow is good. Here, he basically does:

"If you use the polarity of creation and giving (outflow), you will experience a surge of related emotions such as love, joy, and inspiration.
If you use the polarity of acquisition and receiving (inflow), you will experience a surge of related emotions such as greed, lust, and power."

Hmmmm.... Seems to me that the related emotions of fear are inherently more destructive than those of love. While both sets of emotions can be powerful motivators, they cannot be said to be "equally acceptable."

Steve, what are you talking about??

[Chris_Stretten]

Originally Posted by tomn8er

Okay, I agree with you that in most of Steve's other articles, he does seem to stress that being love-polarized is superior. But in these articles on Polarity, he basically contradicts himself. Here is an exact quote in his original polarity article: "But as far as the universe is concerned, these polarities are equally acceptable. To say that one is better than the other is to say that breathing in is better than breathing out."

Okay, I don't buy that. Not based on his descriptions of the two polarities at least. In fact, I don't think Steve quite understood what he meant when he said that. He tries to rectify this slip-up in the follow-up article: "In the previous article, when I explained the polarities of inflow and outflow, I failed to do them justice. As I scanned the feedback (via email and forums), it was clear that many people thought I was describing two sides of the same coin, like yin and yang."

Ok, so what he's saying here in these two excerpts isn't a complete contradiction. But he then goes on to describe the inflow as fear and the outflow as love. He might as well say: inflow is evil and outflow is good. Here, he basically does:

"If you use the polarity of creation and giving (outflow), you will experience a surge of related emotions such as love, joy, and inspiration.
If you use the polarity of acquisition and receiving (inflow), you will experience a surge of related emotions such as greed, lust, and power."

Hmmmm.... Seems to me that the related emotions of fear are inherently more destructive than those of love. While both sets of emotions can be powerful motivators, they cannot be said to be "equally acceptable."

Steve, what are you talking about??

What constitutes "acceptable" to you? What is wrong with greed lust or power? What is wrong with love joy or inspiration? Who decides? Our society? Our currently held beliefs as a society are constantly changing and are not the same ones (I'm sure) as previous civilizations...
You said that each "side" can be powerful motivators... leave it at that. Follow which side resonates with you and you alone. Applying what you consider (or society considers) "good" and "evil" to the sides is simply your perspective at that time.
Steve is using analogies and terms which have meaning to his readers at this time. Calling something "greed" and conferring a negative aspect to it does not make it so for everyone. What is the negativity based on? Who's beliefs? If yours... then fine, it is good for you. BUT it may not be viewed the same way from another's point of view.
Steve is simply laying down, as he sees it, the various forces that are available to us. Use what you will, but be mindful that some contradict and negate the others, however they're labelled.
Thats my opinion anyway

Cheers,
Chris

[tomn8er]

Originally Posted by Chris_Stretten

Calling something "greed" and conferring a negative aspect to it does not make it so for everyone. What is the negativity based on? Who's beliefs? If yours... then fine, it is good for you. BUT it may not be viewed the same way from another's point of view.

Well, I suppose you have a point there. I guess I am just a loved-polarized person, at least I am striving to be, so the whole idea of being self-centred and fear-driven is totally against my nature. The decision to be fear-polarized totally befuddles me, but I will try to accept that other people might see things differently. (I guess you could say that if I was more strongly love-polarized, I wouldn't even bother attacking the fear-polarized position b/c i would tolerate it unconditionally, but hell, I'm not a saint!)

Just out of interest, what do you personally see yourself as Chris? Or do you even buy into this whole idea of polarity?

[Chris_Stretten]

I'm actually a bit messed up hahaha
I have a great admiration for "darkworkers" who seem to have it all with a don't care about the world attitude. They make things seem easy. Companies that don't care about the little guy (most of them) and are so successful... basically taking people to the bank. The end result is they are financially wealthy and the CEO's enjoy their lavish lifestyles. I have a romantic view of the darkworker side... and I sometimes wish I had it in me to be like those people.
After much introspection I realize that I don't have that kind of attitude. I don't have that step-on-peoples-back kind of mentality. I have seen in my own actions doing the opposite, regardless of the kind of image I hold in my head or the image I try and project to the world. My intentions and attitudes mesh with the "lightworker" side of things. I am coming to terms with that aspect of my life and once I do, I know I'll be able to plow ahead and not bother myself with questioning my own intentions anymore.
I am an artist and my goal is to create works of art. I currently work as a 3d artist... but I got into this business years ago because it offered great monetary return. It's more of a technical process for me than an art form. I hope to switch back out of this type of life and become successful as a traditional artist... which is what I wanted to become as a kid anyway. I know that selling my paintings will provide me with money, and perhaps even large amounts of money... but that isn't the goal anymore with my art. I have a lot of ideas to get on to canvas now, for their own sake.
So... I'd have to say "lightworker" or "love polarized" in the end.
Cheers,
Chris

[tomn8er]

Just read Steve's article on "polarity and your career". Well, he does do a good job of finally explaining in practical terms the dichotomy of darkworkers and lightworkers. I'm actually fairly satisfied with this explanation, for the moment anyway. Just gotta give this explanation some time to absorb, but I'm feeling a lot less confused now.

[renie408]

Originally Posted by Chris_Stretten

What constitutes "acceptable" to you? What is wrong with greed lust or power? What is wrong with love joy or inspiration? Who decides? Our society? Our currently held beliefs as a society are constantly changing and are not the same ones (I'm sure) as previous civilizations...
You said that each "side" can be powerful motivators... leave it at that. Follow which side resonates with you and you alone. Applying what you consider (or society considers) "good" and "evil" to the sides is simply your perspective at that time.
Steve is using analogies and terms which have meaning to his readers at this time. Calling something "greed" and conferring a negative aspect to it does not make it so for everyone. What is the negativity based on? Who's beliefs? If yours... then fine, it is good for you. BUT it may not be viewed the same way from another's point of view.
Steve is simply laying down, as he sees it, the various forces that are available to us. Use what you will, but be mindful that some contradict and negate the others, however they're labelled.
Thats my opinion anyway

Cheers,
Chris

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

Lust: uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.

And wasn't the last part of being a darkworker that you attach yourself to people for so long as they are useful to you? The negative connotation for pretty much everybody is explicit. Both 'lust' and 'greed' point to being out of control of your driving forces.

Is it ALWAYS wrong to make ALL judgements? Isn't that throwing the 'logical' baby out with the politically correct bathwater?? Is it wrong to judge certain behaviors as undesirable?

[Chris_Stretten]

Originally Posted by renie408

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

Lust: uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.

And wasn't the last part of being a darkworker that you attach yourself to people for so long as they are useful to you? The negative connotation for pretty much everybody is explicit. Both 'lust' and 'greed' point to being out of control of your driving forces.

Is it ALWAYS wrong to make ALL judgements? Isn't that throwing the 'logical' baby out with the politically correct bathwater?? Is it wrong to judge certain behaviors as undesirable?

Greed: Greed is called a selfish desire to obtain money, wealth, food, material possessions or any other entity more than one legitimately needs.
- wikipedia

Lust: Lust is any intense desire or craving for self gratification. Lust can mean strictly sexual lust, although it is also common to speak of a "lust for life", "lust for blood (bloodlust for short)", or a "lust for power" or other goals.
- wikipedia

I'm not putting these definitions here to start a "definition war" but it illustrates my point about point of view. You say that "lust" and "greed" denote being a slave to those desires, or out of control. Is it that way for everyone? And... these definitions, of themselves, do not connote any specific "goodness" or "badness", they seem to offer a more subjective view. They simply point to ones self as a beneficiary of the desire... is that wrong?

Why is it negative to "attach" oneself to another person only as long as it is beneficial? In business would you consider staying attached to someone - say a supplier - if they were no longer beneficial to you? That wouldn't be "good" business anymore... In a undesirable relationship, any relationship... is staying attached to the people involved of any benefit? People who stay in bad relationships tend to only because they are still receiving something they feel they need... whether they want to admit it or not. Could be fear of being alone, so they stay for companionship as an example.

Judgments of a society in which you agree to live and be held accountable by, are not wrong to make. We (our society) as a whole have agreed that some things are to be considered undesirable.
But our personal judgments on what is considered "good" and "evil" are simply our own perspectives in the end. Our own subjective views on things. Some might consider a desire of greed to be a bad thing, and others not. I don't think a person can help but judge a thing... it happens instantly, inside our heads, based on our previous ideals and beliefs. But why is it you have those ideals in your head in the first place? They didn't grow there themselves... they were simply taught to you. Is it possible to begin to ignore that teaching and gut reaction and begin to view things in a non-judgmental way? I think it can be done, and is the main purpose of some teachings I think.
Steve is telling us here are two elements/alignments/sides/polarities of a force. One does one thing, the other does the opposite. If you want to achieve your intentions... then take a look at the basis for the intention and see which polarity it aligns to, and focus your energy along that polarity, rather than against it. He is saying that this is a way to help manifest the intention quickly. Any moral judgments we make and labels we call them are simply our own point of view. The polarities are tools... in and of themselves without moral. Like a hammer. Or a saw. Choose the tool that agrees with who you feel you are, and use it! They will both exact their costs from you in their own ways, and if used correctly, both can bring you your intentions.

I hope that makes some sense... And of course... all of this is simply MY point of view

Peace! Cheers,
Chris

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by Chris_Stretten

What constitutes "acceptable" to you? What is wrong with greed lust or power? Who decides? Our society?
What is the negativity based on? Who's beliefs?

I can answer this question easily. The reason greed, lust and power have negative connotations and are deemed evil is because they prompt their "host" to abuse other people and cause them suffering, while love causes the good and respectful treatment of others.

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

I can answer this question easily. The reason greed, lust and power have negative connotations and are deemed evil is because they prompt their "host" to abuse other people and cause them suffering, while love causes the good and respectful treatment of others.

Greed, lust and power are just words. Greed and lust do generally have negative associations in our society. Power is a fairly neutral word though on its own, but for the sake of this discussion it can be a negative thing. Consider however that to someone else, "greed, lust and power" may instead look like "desire, passion and strength". These words are certainly not negative, right? Yet they're really the same thing. It just depends what lens you use to look at it.

And by the way, the idea that someone can use power to abuse people and cause them suffering is in my opinion a victim mentality. People allow themselves to be manipulated and abused. Nobody can make you feel bad without your permission. Also, if you reject strength and power you don't necessarily end up in the right place (as per the lightworker definition). You can end up with the "nice guy" syndrome where you're powerless, wimpy, but oh so nice, respectful and always putting other people's needs ahead of yours. I know because I've been there, and I know just how much self-suffering it can cause.

[ÜberDan]

Hi impaul99, that was a very enlightening post, i've heard it before but not for a while. Your point on not judging is very wise.

A lot of these posts and blogs are straight out of the Matrix... there is no spoon

[CdnNix]

I understand a lot of people are having the problem with Steve's equalization of dark and light, but let's not forget the bottom line truth of the article. If you look around, overwhelmingly successful people, have motivations strengthened and energized by either a very positive or a very "negative" selfish desire. By attuning these desires, to their extremes, intentions become enormously more powerful, and it is here where many people are lacking in intention-manifestation. They have an intention but there is very little emotional energy.

So in this perspective, it wasn't just written to fill up space, it's a very good observation and Steve is simply trying to describe it and accept it as best as possible.

Steve has thought through this very well. Some might argue, in the idea of polarizing intentions, they can choose very strong negative ones, and very strong positive ones to use this concept effectively. And I believe it is one solution. But the reason Steve talks about choosing one side completely is that ,though it's possible choosing both on an intention basis, it would require a lot of energy and may not be as effective when compared to choosing one polarity. Because if all you did was selfish things, you would constantly develop these tendencies and habits and dramatically and easily be able to force energy into the them. Because all your motives, and the emotion behind them are focused. By doing this the more selfish you are, the more focused upon the "dark" polarity, the better your intentions will manifest and the more power you will be able to compound. If this person, starts taking love polarized intentions, it will drain this snowball effect, possibly stopping it all together.

Is this not an amazing truth.

Think politics here, the greatest politicians were either completely polarized behind some sort of selfless desire or dedication...or... they simply were as polarized as possible with fear, building power and influence to achieve their ultimate goal.

My conflicting position here was that if these two equally polarized people ever conflicted it would obviously be the love one that would conquer, and my reason behind this is as humans we are inclined to love over fear, so love would always conquer.

And I was also thinking to become fully polarized as possible in "dark" wouldn't be good because, obviously you would become a machine. A walmart with no emotions or care for anyone else besides constant conquest and control. However, the same can be said for the love polarity, to be completely polarized in love is to be without any selfish desires, you would be a "god". So on both extremes you wouldn't be human, thus it's not a possibility. Both sides however, at this point, would be completely blissful.

So I dunno, it's an awesome concept and one that holds a lot of truth. I think that yes a balance isn't favorable, and complete polarization is humanly impossible so a surplus is what we should strive for. But to say you must be fully polarized is an impossibility. And I think impaul99 is right here, Steve is over analyzing his choice to be fully love polarized and in doing so is choosing fear, BECAUSE TO BE COMPLETELY POLARIZED IS NOT POSSIBLE. So he is hurting his surplus, by trying to perfect it. We have both selfless and selfish tendencies, thinking back to politicians, even the great one's of great selfless desires, had selfish positions. It was the only way they climbed the political ladder. So you have to accept your desires both "dark" and "light", choose a favorable side that really empowers you and pushes you. And keep a surplus there, again accepting your positions of the opposite polarity.

Nick

[Chris_Stretten]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

I can answer this question easily. The reason greed, lust and power have negative connotations and are deemed evil is because they prompt their "host" to abuse other people and cause them suffering, while love causes the good and respectful treatment of others.

Some people have suffered greatly under the influence of someone else who truly loved them. Love does not always cause the good and respectful treatment of others. One may argue that the person causing the negativity to another doesn't really love that person... but who's to say how they really feel? From their perspective, perhaps they really do love them in their own mind?

Cheers,
Chris

[renie408]

Originally Posted by Chris_Stretten

Greed: Greed is called a selfish desire to obtain money, wealth, food, material possessions or any other entity more than one legitimately needs.
- wikipedia

Lust: Lust is any intense desire or craving for self gratification. Lust can mean strictly sexual lust, although it is also common to speak of a "lust for life", "lust for blood (bloodlust for short)", or a "lust for power" or other goals.
- wikipedia

I'm not putting these definitions here to start a "definition war" but it illustrates my point about point of view. You say that "lust" and "greed" denote being a slave to those desires, or out of control. Is it that way for everyone? And... these definitions, of themselves, do not connote any specific "goodness" or "badness", they seem to offer a more subjective view. They simply point to ones self as a beneficiary of the desire... is that wrong?

Why is it negative to "attach" oneself to another person only as long as it is beneficial? In business would you consider staying attached to someone - say a supplier - if they were no longer beneficial to you? That wouldn't be "good" business anymore... In a undesirable relationship, any relationship... is staying attached to the people involved of any benefit? People who stay in bad relationships tend to only because they are still receiving something they feel they need... whether they want to admit it or not. Could be fear of being alone, so they stay for companionship as an example.

Judgments of a society in which you agree to live and be held accountable by, are not wrong to make. We (our society) as a whole have agreed that some things are to be considered undesirable.
But our personal judgments on what is considered "good" and "evil" are simply our own perspectives in the end. Our own subjective views on things. Some might consider a desire of greed to be a bad thing, and others not. I don't think a person can help but judge a thing... it happens instantly, inside our heads, based on our previous ideals and beliefs. But why is it you have those ideals in your head in the first place? They didn't grow there themselves... they were simply taught to you. Is it possible to begin to ignore that teaching and gut reaction and begin to view things in a non-judgmental way? I think it can be done, and is the main purpose of some teachings I think.
Steve is telling us here are two elements/alignments/sides/polarities of a force. One does one thing, the other does the opposite. If you want to achieve your intentions... then take a look at the basis for the intention and see which polarity it aligns to, and focus your energy along that polarity, rather than against it. He is saying that this is a way to help manifest the intention quickly. Any moral judgments we make and labels we call them are simply our own point of view. The polarities are tools... in and of themselves without moral. Like a hammer. Or a saw. Choose the tool that agrees with who you feel you are, and use it! They will both exact their costs from you in their own ways, and if used correctly, both can bring you your intentions.

I hope that makes some sense... And of course... all of this is simply MY point of view

Peace! Cheers,
Chris

A) Wikipedia is not a viable source. It is put together by anybody that wants to contribute. Do not ever use it on any other website if you get into a serious debate. They will rip you to shreds. Especially political or science forums. Shreds. Really.

B) "But our personal judgments on what is considered "good" and "evil" are simply our own perspectives in the end. Our own subjective views on things. " "Any moral judgments we make and labels we call them are simply our own point of view."
So, since Jeffrey Dahmer thought it was okey-dokey fine to kidnap young men, chop them up, stick them in the fridge and save them for snacks the rest of us shouldn't apply our limited viewpoints by determining this to be undesirable behavior? I understand that cannabalism is a little bit down the 'ick' road from greed, but is life THAT subjective? "If I think its fine, it is"...is that really going to work for the human race?

All those 'hammer' and 'saw' analogies are mere sophistry. Essentially, you are saying that if it is your inclination to walk over the top of other people to get what you want because you are driven by lust and greed...no problem as long as that agrees with your basic nature and YOU don't have a problem with your behavior. This is a 'It's not how you play the game, it's whether you win or lose" mentality.

In the end, I think the polarity concept is too simplistic. It sounds slick, but doesn't really work once you start picking it apart. There are plenty of people manifesting plenty of stuff who do not fall into one of two categories. I don't have a problem with the basic motivators for most behaviors being based in either love or fear (except I think that 'ego' works better than 'fear'). I can see that might be the case. I have a problem assuming that to be effective a person has to be one or the other all the time. In other words, I think you might be fear(ego) based in business and love based in relationships. I know plenty of hard nosed businessmen who love their families and are kind and giving at home. And I don't think they look at their family members for what they can get out of them. I also think that you might start off fear(ego) based and grow to being love based. I also think single events can be polarized, I don't think a whole person has to be. You might find yourself in competition and become an aggressive, ego based competitor and as soon as the game is over, head off to the homeless shelter to offer loving, selfless, ego-less aid.

[Chris_Stretten]

Originally Posted by renie408

A) Wikipedia is not a viable source. It is put together by anybody that wants to contribute. Do not ever use it on any other website if you get into a serious debate. They will rip you to shreds. Especially political or science forums. Shreds. Really.

B) "But our personal judgments on what is considered "good" and "evil" are simply our own perspectives in the end. Our own subjective views on things. " "Any moral judgments we make and labels we call them are simply our own point of view."
So, since Jeffrey Dahmer thought it was okey-dokey fine to kidnap young men, chop them up, stick them in the fridge and save them for snacks the rest of us shouldn't apply our limited viewpoints by determining this to be undesirable behavior? I understand that cannabalism is a little bit down the 'ick' road from greed, but is life THAT subjective? "If I think its fine, it is"...is that really going to work for the human race?

All those 'hammer' and 'saw' analogies are mere sophistry. Essentially, you are saying that if it is your inclination to walk over the top of other people to get what you want because you are driven by lust and greed...no problem as long as that agrees with your basic nature and YOU don't have a problem with your behavior. This is a 'It's not how you play the game, it's whether you win or lose" mentality.

In the end, I think the polarity concept is too simplistic. It sounds slick, but doesn't really work once you start picking it apart. There are plenty of people manifesting plenty of stuff who do not fall into one of two categories. I don't have a problem with the basic motivators for most behaviors being based in either love or fear (except I think that 'ego' works better than 'fear'). I can see that might be the case. I have a problem assuming that to be effective a person has to be one or the other all the time. In other words, I think you might be fear(ego) based in business and love based in relationships. I know plenty of hard nosed businessmen who love their families and are kind and giving at home. And I don't think they look at their family members for what they can get out of them. I also think that you might start off fear(ego) based and grow to being love based. I also think single events can be polarized, I don't think a whole person has to be. You might find yourself in competition and become an aggressive, ego based competitor and as soon as the game is over, head off to the homeless shelter to offer loving, selfless, ego-less aid.

I realize wikipedia isn't considered a viable source. Although, one might argue the very point that it can represent the distilled thoughts of thousands rather than what one small group considers to be a definition, and that could make it a viable source of information, from a point. I know that many "scholarly" people are disdainful of wikipedia. For certainly, the common person could never have knowledge on a subject which is correct. One wonders why those same people wouldn't use the site to put their input on the subject? Ah... I remember now... some University professors I knew REALLY didn't like it when you questioned their knowledge. To think of putting their thoughts in a venue which allowed them to be changed is abhorrent. Personally, I think people shouldn't always take the views of a single source as fact. Knowledge evolves... and sources have been proven wrong before.
Besides... it was a quick google search on the words and wikipedia comes up first. Interestingly... other sites close by, such as about.com, simply use word for word, the wikipedia info .

For the sake of clarity:

Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Lust:
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. by for): a lust for power.
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.
5. Obsolete.
a. pleasure or delight.
b. desire; inclination; wish.
–verb (used without object)
6. to have intense sexual desire.
7. to have a yearning or desire; have a strong or excessive craving (often fol. by for or after).
- Websters Dictionary - online
Note: I put in bold the part of the definition you chose to list earlier

There is a point of view in some areas of the world, or was at one time, that cannibalism is a completely normal way of life. Some used to believe that eating the heart of a victim grants their strength, yadda yadda.
Do we condone cannibalism? Of course we don't... because we believe certain things and attribute certain values on the practice. I remember a story about some people trapped on a mountain from a plane crash... then ended up resorting to cannibalism to survive. Jeffry Dahmer's they were not... but in the end the results were similar i.e. eating people. The difference was the intention behind it. I would agree with anyone that Jeffry Dahmer was a criminal. He murdered people... and obviously we cannot have complete anarchy, because that would cause our society to cease. It would be very non self-serving to let people like that to run around . I'm not saying that we shouldn't have any labels or values... I'm only saying that the ones we choose to believe and follow are simply the group point of view sometimes. Perhaps they could have been different, where cannibalism was the norm... and we would grow up and be taught those values as truth... and who would know otherwise?
From a purely objective viewpoint... I would say that Jeffry Dahmer was able to manifest his desires... he was a successful "darkworker" if you wanted to apply the label to it (not to say that "darkworkers" = Jeffery Dahmer - unless of course you are a murderous cannibal). His polarity was from a negative, fear based side. I would say his energy levels were probably off the scale when it came to his ability to focus them to achieve his goals. But his levels were extreme, and so was his payment... which was extracted from him, and not given as would be required from a love polarity. If you can get past the disgust of his actions, he represents someone who was very powerful at IM, even if we don't agree with what he did.
We have come a long way from the initial post though
We agree on the hammer and saw analogies. You hit the nail on the head so to speak. It is what it is... obviously you see a problem with walking over people. Others do not... for they do it all the time. Again, to them, there is nothing wrong with it. Some people ARE only in it to win the game... and they will break or bend the rules to do it.
You make great points about the simplistic view on polarization. I wouldn't argue with them at all as you have offered many of your own opinions on the elements involved. If those work for you in the end, then perfect! I certainly can't tell you what would really work for you, or what wouldn't, you have to make that decision for yourself.
Personally I have taken what I can from Steves articles on polarity. I don't necessarily agree with everything he has said... but he has offered me a new view on old ideas. And many things make sense, to me and my life, when viewed through those parameters. Questions I would never have asked are popping up in my head, and that is a good thing... for me. If these help me manifest my desires more quickly, then that is good too.

Anyway... back to work... this web site sucks my time away like nothing I've experienced before. LOL
Peace, Cheers!
Chris

[renie408]

Originally Posted by Chris_Stretten

I realize wikipedia isn't considered a viable source. Although, one might argue the very point that it can represent the distilled thoughts of thousands rather than what one small group considers to be a definition, and that could make it a viable source of information, from a point. I know that many "scholarly" people are disdainful of wikipedia. For certainly, the common person could never have knowledge on a subject which is correct. One wonders why those same people wouldn't use the site to put their input on the subject? Ah... I remember now... some University professors I knew REALLY didn't like it when you questioned their knowledge. To think of putting their thoughts in a venue which allowed them to be changed is abhorrent. Personally, I think people shouldn't always take the views of a single source as fact. Knowledge evolves... and sources have been proven wrong before.
Besides... it was a quick google search on the words and wikipedia comes up first. Interestingly... other sites close by, such as about.com, simply use word for word, the wikipedia info .

For the sake of clarity:

Greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Lust:
1. intense sexual desire or appetite.
2. uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; lecherousness.
3. a passionate or overmastering desire or craving (usually fol. by for): a lust for power.
4. ardent enthusiasm; zest; relish: an enviable lust for life.
5. Obsolete.
a. pleasure or delight.
b. desire; inclination; wish.
–verb (used without object)
6. to have intense sexual desire.
7. to have a yearning or desire; have a strong or excessive craving (often fol. by for or after).
- Websters Dictionary - online
Note: I put in bold the part of the definition you chose to list earlier

There is a point of view in some areas of the world, or was at one time, that cannibalism is a completely normal way of life. Some used to believe that eating the heart of a victim grants their strength, yadda yadda.
Do we condone cannibalism? Of course we don't... because we believe certain things and attribute certain values on the practice. I remember a story about some people trapped on a mountain from a plane crash... then ended up resorting to cannibalism to survive. Jeffry Dahmer's they were not... but in the end the results were similar i.e. eating people. The difference was the intention behind it. I would agree with anyone that Jeffry Dahmer was a criminal. He murdered people... and obviously we cannot have complete anarchy, because that would cause our society to cease. It would be very non self-serving to let people like that to run around . I'm not saying that we shouldn't have any labels or values... I'm only saying that the ones we choose to believe and follow are simply the group point of view sometimes. Perhaps they could have been different, where cannibalism was the norm... and we would grow up and be taught those values as truth... and who would know otherwise?
From a purely objective viewpoint... I would say that Jeffry Dahmer was able to manifest his desires... he was a successful "darkworker" if you wanted to apply the label to it (not to say that "darkworkers" = Jeffery Dahmer - unless of course you are a murderous cannibal). His polarity was from a negative, fear based side. I would say his energy levels were probably off the scale when it came to his ability to focus them to achieve his goals. But his levels were extreme, and so was his payment... which was extracted from him, and not given as would be required from a love polarity. If you can get past the disgust of his actions, he represents someone who was very powerful at IM, even if we don't agree with what he did.
We have come a long way from the initial post though
We agree on the hammer and saw analogies. You hit the nail on the head so to speak. It is what it is... obviously you see a problem with walking over people. Others do not... for they do it all the time. Again, to them, there is nothing wrong with it. Some people ARE only in it to win the game... and they will break or bend the rules to do it.
You make great points about the simplistic view on polarization. I wouldn't argue with them at all as you have offered many of your own opinions on the elements involved. If those work for you in the end, then perfect! I certainly can't tell you what would really work for you, or what wouldn't, you have to make that decision for yourself.
Personally I have taken what I can from Steves articles on polarity. I don't necessarily agree with everything he has said... but he has offered me a new view on old ideas. And many things make sense, to me and my life, when viewed through those parameters. Questions I would never have asked are popping up in my head, and that is a good thing... for me. If these help me manifest my desires more quickly, then that is good too.

Anyway... back to work... this web site sucks my time away like nothing I've experienced before. LOL
Chris

First, the people in the plane crash at least waited until the people they ate were already dead of natural causes. And they weren't down the block from the local Food Lion, either.

Second, remind me to never get stranded anywhere with you. Or actually, just remind me to stay away from anybody who thinks the ends justify the means in general (can you say 'Dick Cheney'? Wait, he can't even get the ends right.)

Lastly, I think your argument strikes me as off because it sounds to me as if you are advocating sociopathic behavior as a great way to achieve goals. You basically define sociopathic behavior (doing what you want with no regard to others because you see no problem with your actions) and then say that is a viable behavioral model because it helps the sociopath manifest quickly. I get that sociopaths are manifesting machines. My point is that whether THEY think their methods are acceptable or not...they aren't. I am back to that judgement thing. But sometimes judgements feel like rational assessments to me. Certain behaviors have an intrinsic value aside from their usefulness in achieving individual goals. It is just bad to kill people to get what you want. Period. It might work really well, but it is still an undesirable behavior. There really is right and wrong. And I don't think that is just because that's what works for me. The human race won't last long without it.

[Chris_Stretten]

Originally Posted by renie408

First, the people in the plane crash at least waited until the people they ate were already dead of natural causes. And they weren't down the block from the local Food Lion, either.

Second, remind me to never get stranded anywhere with you. Or actually, just remind me to stay away from anybody who thinks the ends justify the means in general (can you say 'Dick Cheney'? Wait, he can't even get the ends right.)

Lastly, I think your argument strikes me as off because it sounds to me as if you are advocating sociopathic behavior as a great way to achieve goals. You basically define sociopathic behavior (doing what you want with no regard to others because you see no problem with your actions) and then say that is a viable behavioral model because it helps the sociopath manifest quickly. I get that sociopaths are manifesting machines. My point is that whether THEY think their methods are acceptable or not...they aren't. I am back to that judgement thing. But sometimes judgements feel like rational assessments to me. Certain behaviors have an intrinsic value aside from their usefulness in achieving individual goals. It is just bad to kill people to get what you want. Period. It might work really well, but it is still an undesirable behavior. There really is right and wrong. And I don't think that is just because that's what works for me. The human race won't last long without it.

HAHA... good points. I never said that I would resort to cannibalism! And I certainly am not a murderer . I'm not advocating anything... I am simply making an observation, from another point of view, and trying to be non-judgmental. I'm not defending the actions of murderers or condoning anything of the sort.
I know that the stranded people didn't kill to survive... they ate the dead. They performed cannibalism no? Would you have starved in that situation? Would anyone else you know? Hopefully you'll never have to face that decision...
Can you honestly say that the ends never justify the means? Perhaps they don't in your view... perhaps they do in someone else's.
I think that a conscious darkworker does what they want to achieve their ends with full knowledge of the consequences... but that they are willing to live with those and pay the price. Polarity has extremes (call them what you want) at both ends.
It's your right to come to a conclusion as to what is correct and acceptable to achieve an end. It is also the right of another person to come to a different conclusion. Murder is undesirable behavior in our society, and I agree with that (others do not though... as is evidenced by the fact that it happens all the time).
You believe that there is right and wrong - and that is that. I think that there is a level I would never reach to achieve an end, but others would be willing to. And personally, I would put the destruction of another human being at the furthest end of wrong - but that's just me (and you and millions of others). Is that the limit of what is to be considered acceptable? Or is the limit much sooner than that? Would you consider that "stabbing someone in the back" is acceptable (figuratively now ), just to achieve your goal? Perhaps you wouldn't... but there are millions of people who think that there is nothing wrong with that level of negativity. They may have surpassed your limit of what is acceptable, but does that make it wrong? I'm sure those people will pay a price in some fashion... but if they are willing to pay it, and it helps them achieve their intentions, then that is a success, like it or not. I have done this before... and it worked for me, but the price I paid for it was too high (for me), and I would never do so again.

Anyway - again! - back to work.
Peace.
Cheers,
Chris

[renie408]

Originally Posted by Chris_Stretten

HAHA... good points. I never said that I would resort to cannibalism! And I certainly am not a murderer . I'm not advocating anything... I am simply making an observation, from another point of view, and trying to be non-judgmental. I'm not defending the actions of murderers or condoning anything of the sort.
I know that the stranded people didn't kill to survive... they ate the dead. They performed cannibalism no? Would you have starved in that situation? Would anyone else you know? Hopefully you'll never have to face that decision...
Can you honestly say that the ends never justify the means? Perhaps they don't in your view... perhaps they do in someone else's.
I think that a conscious darkworker does what they want to achieve their ends with full knowledge of the consequences... but that they are willing to live with those and pay the price. Polarity has extremes (call them what you want) at both ends.
It's your right to come to a conclusion as to what is correct and acceptable to achieve an end. It is also the right of another person to come to a different conclusion. Murder is undesirable behavior in our society, and I agree with that (others do not though... as is evidenced by the fact that it happens all the time).
You believe that there is right and wrong - and that is that. I think that there is a level I would never reach to achieve an end, but others would be willing to. And personally, I would put the destruction of another human being at the furthest end of wrong - but that's just me (and you and millions of others). Is that the limit of what is to be considered acceptable? Or is the limit much sooner than that? Would you consider that "stabbing someone in the back" is acceptable (figuratively now ), just to achieve your goal? Perhaps you wouldn't... but there are millions of people who think that there is nothing wrong with that level of negativity. They may have surpassed your limit of what is acceptable, but does that make it wrong? I'm sure those people will pay a price in some fashion... but if they are willing to pay it, and it helps them achieve their intentions, then that is a success, like it or not. I have done this before... and it worked for me, but the price I paid for it was too high (for me), and I would never do so again.

Anyway - again! - back to work.
Peace.
Cheers,
Chris

Yes, that does make it wrong. I am the arbiter of acceptable behavior (actually, I kind of like the ring of that....).

I am not a really good person to ask about right and wrong. On the one hand, I cannot get in the express lane at the supermarket if I have 13 items and when the bank gave me $500 (yes, FIVE HUNDRED dollars) instead of the $100 I was supposed to get, I took it back. On the other hand, I have often thought I am capable of murder under the right circumstances and I don't *think* I would lose a minutes sleep over it. And the circumstances really don't have to be THAT dire. So I probably wouldn't be that great a final judge of right and wrong. That doesn't change the fact that deep in my gut I feel that there is a definitive right and wrong that exist outside of the eye of the beholder. Maybe that is my social conditioning, I don't know. Or maybe it has a more anthropological basis. In order to survive, a species has to have limits on its self destructive tendencies. Especially a species as devestatingly self-destructive as human beings. Maybe THAT is the root of our innate sense of right and wrong. I just know that if we are all going to fit here, we have to find a way to get by without hurting each other. My morals are pretty simple, really. If it isn't hurting anybody else, it is probably OK. When you start infringing on the people around you, you are crossing a line. So, yeah, I wouldn't accept stabbing someone in the back. Or cheating them. (Eating them once they are dead is OK, also. They're dead. What do they care?) I recognize that this might be viewed as a provincial attitude by many and perhaps it is just MY view. But it seems like a pretty good standard to me and it is what I am teaching my kids. On an intellectual level I can see your point. Practically, it does not seem to me to be very viable.


BTW....the price paid by those successful people you mention sounds to me as if it were paid by someone else. Again, it comes down to whether you subscribe to each individual defining acceptable behavior on their own terms or you subscribe to a more universal moral code. Maybe that is the difference between lightworkers and darkworkers. Darkworkers prize the individual to the exclusion of others and lightworkers prize the individual as a part of the whole. It reminds me of this thing I say about Republicans and Democrats: Republicans think the world would be a better place if we would all just take care of ourselves. Democrats think the world would be a better place if we would all take care of each other. Neither is really 'wrong' as long as neither is taken to extreme. And, ultimately, it most likely takes a little bit of both types for things to work. Darkworking isn't 'bad' if it isn't taken to extremes. You can look out for yourself without crushing someone else.

BTW some more....BUT 'greed' and 'lust', no matter what definition you are using, imply achieving your ends at the expense of others and you can spin it like a dreidel, you are going to have a hard time making that sound 'OK'.

[bellbird]

Interesting. I was just thinking that:
Bush = darkworker
Gore = lightworker
(didn't really want to put Clinton up there )

[ChrisC]

Neither is really 'wrong' as long as neither is taken to extreme. And, ultimately, it most likely takes a little bit of both types for things to work. Darkworking isn't 'bad' if it isn't taken to extremes. You can look out for yourself without crushing someone else.

BTW some more....BUT 'greed' and 'lust', no matter what definition you are using, imply achieving your ends at the expense of others and you can spin it like a dreidel, you are going to have a hard time making that sound 'OK'.

renie408,

To my understanding, Steve Pavlina is not advocating the extremes, and actually refers to those extremes as being destructive, calling them "dark-worker syndrome" and "light-worker syndrome". Being completely polarized does not mean going to those extemes. So it sounds like you have a pretty good understanding of the benefits of polarization.

[persephonevii]

Early on Steve advocated the idea of simply putting a polarity to an intention, and sometimes certain intentions would just work nicely with a certain polarity. I liked this idea. But the idea of committing oneself entirely to a single polarity, it just seems so big! I understand that for some people this might be more efficient and productive, but to me, it seems that you have an intention, tack on your chosen polarity and go for it. After your intention has manifested, go yay and drop the chosen polarity and go onto your next intention.

Although, it does strike me that some intentions might only take a month or two to manifest, some might take years. Could it be the reason why Steve suggests picking a polarity and permanently sticking to it? Because of some manifestations taking so long, that it could be dangerous to drop the polarity or switch it after that certain intention has been fulfilled.

And what about people who have not heard about polarity, and yet are successfully manifesting? Are they unconsciously polarizing? Or could it be something else?

Another reason why I find committing your entire self to polarizing unappealing is that you even have to think about the really little issues, like ordering pizza. It's just pizza! It seems as if you have to expend so much thought energy thinking about you are going to react to a situation, plus it almost feels artificial trying to figure how to act out in situation in accordance to your polarity. And if I remember correctly, polarity began as a simple yet powerful aid to IM and now it has evolved to the point of becoming a new PD subject unto itself.

[starlet]

Personally, I'm polarizing dark. No, I'm not an evil person. I spent my whole life very poor while I watched millionaires become billionaires, and now that I know about LOA, I know I can get a piece of that pie. I want to be big, I want to be known. The world is abundant, everyone can have anything they like, so why shouldn't I? Its not like I'm taking it from anyone. If I physically did, that would be bad. I also want to help the world...but after I help me first, then my parents who had to lose out on everything to be able to afford the raise me.

The average lightworker and the average darkworker are not that different at all on the surface. One just chooses to look at the world and say "How can this benefit me?" and one chooses to think "How can I benefit the world?"

[starlet]

Originally Posted by persephonevii

Although, it does strike me that some intentions might only take a month or two to manifest, some might take years. Could it be the reason why Steve suggests picking a polarity and permanently sticking to it? Because of some manifestations taking so long, that it could be dangerous to drop the polarity or switch it after that certain intention has been fulfilled.

That's what I was thinking too. You become so accustomed to either only outflowing energy or inflowing energy that you kind of get "stuck" doing one or the other, it becomes so natural that reversing the flow requires reprogramming.

Originally Posted by persephonevii

And what about people who have not heard about polarity, and yet are successfully manifesting? Are they unconsciously polarizing? Or could it be something else?

Apparently I have been polarizing dark unconsiously ever since I learned about LOA, one of my spirit guides told me. That would explain my "luck" with manifesting pretty big things.