Darkworkers

[Lider]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I just want to clarify. The people calling themselves darkworkers agree to the following statement from Steve's blog:

To a true darkworker, the life of another human being is as inconsequential as the life of a food animal. The energy of other people is nothing more than a meal or a snack. If the darkworker drains or harms other people on the path to his goals, it’s considered no big deal. The darkworker has to eat, right? Other people are valued only in terms of their ability to bring the darkworker pleasure.

Hypothetical situation:

You have a plan to rob a bank and you know without a doubt you won't get caught. However, you will have to shoot a few people and kill somebody's mom who got in the way. Then there's that kid you'll paralyze when you run him over in the getaway car. You don't care right? All you want is the money.

Just checking.

Just becasue Steve said it doesn't make it true. All of us on this site are Philosphers in our own way, and all of us have reasoning powers to decide which is probable and which is not.

Steve may say that Darkworkers are leeches that suck the blood from the underside of society... and some of us are... but some of use view cheating and stealing with distaste. For me to cheat and steal is depriving myself of an oppertunity to grow. Why steal money from a bank when im so amazing I can earn ten times that amount? It may take a while but I will learn more about making money in that time to make more money. Where as eventully a bankrober is going to get caught.

[jaydeschizo]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

OK, so you only care that someone is able to give you something in return. Giving to someone out of expecting they would give you something back. Then you have to figure out this equation over and over, right? Should I give to this person or not? Would this person return a favor if I do this for them? Maybe I should not give to this one over here because they won't give me anything in return. Is that not tiring to have to always think about what someone else would return to you and use that as a deciding point to give or not?

In cases of the new people I meet, I do wonder is he going to be of use to me or is he going to slow me down.

It's taking a chance, I meet a person, and decide if I will either enjoy that person, or have some value of knowing him. Often I'm right, on occasion I'm wrong, than I cut my losses and the person is exit.

so the DW gives by being motivated in hopes that means getting something from others. But the LW just gives with motivation in seeing it as giving to the whole. is that it?

I believe so, that is how I view it. I am not a LW so I cannot say that is absolutely true from their perspective, but I do believe that is it.

so a DW will always need to figure out how to get, before giving anything. If the DW sees no return they are not motivated to give. A LW gives without worrying about getting, right? What can anyone give anyway? We can only give what we can afford to let go of or we are being a sick LW by giving too much or a hording DW (both of which are stupid - give too much and hording). So what's the difference in a LW that gives and a DW that gives? The LW gives out of knowing giving is to the whole (which is also the LW individual). The DW gives out of expecting the giving to produce returns. How does the DW see these returns? Does the DW see the whole and know the returns will happen?

If I see no return I will not invest my time and resources. But is that not the same for a LW? If there is not greater good for the whole, he will not invest resources. I will do things for my self that require resources, but to get more resources for me I will have to create some sort of value.

I see the returns as mine, I create something and it gives me returns. That is my sole reason to give, I give somethinig of certain value to receive something that I perceive as greater value.

How do you mean the whole? Is there a population out there that is stupid enough to invest resources in stuff they really don't need? Yes. So what's wrong with me providing them that stuff? Nothing. And if they want to pay a premium for a certain logo on the stuff? Excellent. As long as it works out best for me it's all good.

What's the real difference?

LW=knows giving is to the whole.
DW=expects giving to produce returns or only invests in giving when returns are emanate.

Why wouldn't a DW see that giving is to the whole and produces returns no matter what since giving to the whole is also to the DW self? Why wouldn't that be motivating to a DW?

Perhaps that is what a so-called enlightend DW does, I see myself as me, and others as them. To a certain degree there is a we, but I'm still the me in that we. We are a complex and interconnected system of people and surroundings. But we are still interconnected individuals. I give to other individuals, and those individuals will give to me, more than I gave them if I can help it.

I suppose that I do not see myself as part of a whole.

Why is that motivation different than the LW's knowing that giving to the whole produces returns. It almost seems like the DW has a limited view on what the whole is.

Or you have a limited view of what's just a crowd of individuals, in a small space.

That there is not a whole, in the DW's model and there has to be calculations of what/where/who to give to because they think there might not be any returns - that others are separate from the whole and to be feared because they might not provide a return if you give to the wrong person. But the LW doesn't have to calculate all that, they just give and know it is how the universe works - that the universe gives back to those that give, one way or another. "reap what you sow"

Action will always have a return, if not in resources than in lessons. Others are not to be feared, most of them are harmless directionless boobs.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Cran

The effort of the calculation of give and return is cancelled out be the effort to give and give (and give more than a DW = more effort in giving, less effort in calculating for a LW)

Now, seriously: Figuring out how to give and how to do good is also an everoccuring effort. See a situation and figure out how to use it to your advantage or to the advantage of everybody involved, in both circumstances you'll do some figuring.

Is it an effort for a LW to give? That's where I'd say a LW just gives out of seeing the world as a place that gives to each other. I don't think a LW has to figure out what to give or who to give to, they just kind of give to those that match what they have in themselves to give. The LW's natural gifts are picked up by others that need or want what that is. The DW on the other hand is trying to figure out what the return will be.

Btw, I don't know if it is really an effort to calculate... for me, it isn't. It isn't really hard to know that it won't pay off to walk over the shy, but brilliant fellow student who hands out scripts even if he annoys me at times. I certainly won't put the same effort in not insulting the coffee cart girl in a big city.

Then I'm wrong about the taxing effort it seems to take to be an effective DW. It just seems that there's a fear running that makes it difficult to decide what to invest in.

Is that more effort than to think about how I can do good? Hardly.

To be able to think about how to do good is how a DW would see the LW's work. To the LW they are resting in abundance and sharing. If a LW is trying to figure out how to help the world, then it's a joy for them. For the DW it's a figuring out how to take and has fear about maybe it's not the right person to abuse/disregard or extract from. The LW doesn't have to figure out who to dump or not, there is no exclusion.

Second thoughts: "Reap what you sow" etc. are mindsets that tend to be self-fulfilling and are not universally accepted as truth. I certainly don't hold this principle to be true, therefore it doesn't influence me to think that I'll reap bad things for my selfish actions and so I do not reap bad things.

then many spiritual teachers have been wrong. The ideas are that we are actually all one. That when Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" was really to say "when you do something to others, you are actually doing that to yourself". Of coarse one can believe that there is no connection to others, to the world and we can exploit it to ruin. That would be pretty cool, wouldn't it?

[Cran]

Indeed, I think the idea to be pretty cool and pretty right - and Jesus to be pretty wrong. It is simply no argument for meh "He/she/whoever said that". For me, those teachings are not more than a system of thought that is designed to uphold society.

You try constantly to makehe point that a lightworker has less hassle to choose his actions than a lightworker, because he gives without regard of the person.
a) If he gives and gives without regard he'll most likely suffer from "lightworker-syndrome" ina very short time.
b) To figure out how to give is also an effort.
c) It is also a joy for a DW how to figure out how to serve self, not only for the LW to do good, I can assure you that . Where would be the point in being a DW if you didn't benefit from the choice? None at all.

If you're trying to point out that it is per se easier to choose the unselfish path than the selfish path, you have to assume that people are by nature more inclined to it, which I doubt in the light of evolution 8survival of the fittest) and by the news.

Basically, I think the fear-approach to DW is plainly wrong. In his podcast "Owning your dark side", Steven cooks it down to: You have fear if you do not believe in a kind of continued existence after this life. So every atheist would most have to be a DW, which doesn't seem to be true. Like Sartre put it: It's the goal to realize that everything has no sense, but act as if it had sense anyway.
So it would opt for a motivation of self vs. others, not love. vs. fear.
There is no fear involved if I drop a person. I have just decided that he is not useful to me... no fear.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Cran

Indeed, I think the idea to be pretty cool and pretty right - and Jesus to be pretty wrong. It is simply no argument for meh "He/she/whoever said that". For me, those teachings are not more than a system of thought that is designed to uphold society.

I think it was religion that took what Jesus said and twisted it around for their purposes of controlling society. Even Jesus got crucified because he was bucking the system. He was a rebel. People forget that. The Jews didn't understand their own teachings and Jesus was trying to stop all the nonsense. But that's a tangent. I understand that it makes no difference for you if I quote something. Although I quote things to support what I'l looking at - that there is something that connects us all. Even DWs have to deal with this. They have to figure out how to get things from people, if that's part of what their goals involve.

You try constantly to makehe point that a lightworker has less hassle to choose his actions than a lightworker, because he gives without regard of the person.
a) If he gives and gives without regard he'll most likely suffer from "lightworker-syndrome" ina very short time.

the same can be said about a DW the other way around. there's a the DW syndrome of being totally disconnected, right? take, take, take...

b) To figure out how to give is also an effort.

ok, it's true if one has to figure out how to give, then it's an effort. the idea I have is that it is not something that has to be figured out. A LW just does what is part of feeling abundant. But, sure, I can see that fallacy in that a LW should be trying to save the world - but that is super hard to figure out how to do.

c) It is also a joy for a DW how to figure out how to serve self, not only for the LW to do good, I can assure you that . Where would be the point in being a DW if you didn't benefit from the choice? None at all.

Well, then if it's a joy to serve the self then it's the same thing as a LW. Except the sense of self is different. The DW's joy is only for the personal self, while the LW is for a larger sense of self, of say community or family.

If you're trying to point out that it is per se easier to choose the unselfish path than the selfish path, you have to assume that people are by nature more inclined to it, which I doubt in the light of evolution 8survival of the fittest) and by the news.

I thought the whole reason for Steve writing about DW/LW was to point out how out of balance the world is. That there are too many DWs exploiting. That as much as survival of the fittest has maybe evolved us - it's is not working as well with the earth taking hits from us exploiting her. I think people are generally self centered and selfish. I, Me, Mine. Maybe my difficulty in seeing the DW as a cool choice is that I am stuck in it and it kind of sucks. I'm tired of trying to get things from people. I'm tired of feeling disconnected. And then at the same time I have flashes of spiritual feelings that come from enjoying nature and I just hear all that has been said about us really being something other that a separate self that creates the "other" to not care about or exploit.

Basically, I think the fear-approach to DW is plainly wrong. In his podcast "Owning your dark side", Steven cooks it down to: You have fear if you do not believe in a kind of continued existence after this life.

Should I just say the same thing about quoting Steve as you said about me quoting Jesus? no I won't do that. First, that fear is of "nothing after death" is also of not realizing the oneness of Life. That we are not separate in the grand scheme of things and death doesn't mean the end of Life. And I thought Steve's ideas of DW was about fear based motivation. Or self service - which is also a kind of fear. I have to try to get what's mine because I fear that there's not enough (not enough comes from not seeing the connective-ness or abundance of life).

So every atheist would most have to be a DW, which doesn't seem to be true. Like Sartre put it: It's the goal to realize that everything has no sense, but act as if it had sense anyway.

I like that Sartre quote. Although I usually say - even if there is a personal destiny, we can't act as if we don't have free will.

So it would opt for a motivation of self vs. others, not love. vs. fear.
There is no fear involved if I drop a person. I have just decided that he is not useful to me... no fear.

But, again, what makes one focus on self more than others? Is that not a fear reaction to feeling separate? In other words, to act only for yourself is because there is fear about others either taking or not giving, so you have to look out for #1? Or the flip side, to act for others is realizing the connective-ness of beings and the planet and the love for that being extends to a inner sense of self that reaches others?

[Cran]

Twisted or not, the teychings of Jesus are indeed of absolutely no consequence to me.

I wouldn't put DW-syndrom as to much taking, but stepping on to many toes by taking - i.e. acting unwise and too much upon the first impulse. Taking per se is nothing that would constitute a syndrome.

I donot think you get my point when I am saying that it takes effgort to give, too. It takes effort to figure out HOW to give exactly as it takes effort to figure out to take (it will require the same amount of thinking how to avoid giving that unloved aunt a birthday present as to think about it how the mutual dislike of the aunt can be turned into something more lw-like). Therefore, I regard your point that a DW would have to put more thinking-effort into his polarization than a LW as invalid.

What is the point to benefit more people than just myself, as you write about LWs? Sure, the wordl will get better and everything... honestly, I do not care about the world. Therefore, creating benefits for the world is no benefit to me. Of course, long term, this will damage the world I am living in, but until that point arrives I'll be safely dead.

What makes you think being DW is being disconntected in every case? Just because you feel that way if trying to get something from people doesn't make that an universal experience. I do not feel disconnected, au contraire: Very connected. i am very aware of my needs and of the people around me. To have friends and family and be connected with them is also a need of mine (and of most people, I assume). DW doesn't mean being absolutely self-sufficient. My feelings toward people I like and love are no different than that of a LW. But I do not extend this to the whole world as many of them do. No purpose in that for me.

You ust claim that self-service equals the fear that there is not enough. I can't speak for everybody, but I do not feel and act upon this impulse. Everything is there, and enough for everybody, but it is at everybody's discretion to take what he wants. Who doesn't want doesn't take and can't bet on just getting things. This it not fear, but acknowleding needs and wants.

For your stance about people being connected and one: This is a metaphyscial approach I do not share. There is imho no such thing as being "one" or being more connected than in the very basic sense that one action leads to another.
I regard man as an animal, nothing more, nothing less. No higher purpose, no being-connected.

[Asmoday]

Let it suffice to say that these last two blog posts of Steve's, including this thread and the thread surrounding those posts, have brought me out of semi-retirement. I discontinued my blog because I quite simply had other goals that were more interesting, but the lack of consolidation, and frankly, the ignorance surrounding who and what we are must be addressed.

Besides, its time to take my teaching to a larger economy of scale, anyway. I can help more people.....let me say this:

A world of lightworkers with no darkworkers would be unbalanced and just as sick as a world with no lightworkers and all darkworkers. Our existence isn't just a function of us choosing to be such -- we are a part of the natural order, and this world could not function without us. That is what this *bias* ignores. We *must* exist.

Now, my way isn't the only way, or even the best way -- but it is A WAY, and there are cetain fundamental truths to our path.

Babylon, Rome, most of the Asian Empires, the Renaissance -- all these were but stepping stones to this intellectual revolution, the technology, the humanism, the relativism (which Steve calls "swapping software"), the connectivity, the very concept of personal development, including the meaning-of-the-moment culture which is addicted to it, are all facets resulting from Darkworker echos in this world. Pretty positive effects, if you ask me.

A little appreciation would be nice. Or, just remove the scorn and I would be happy.

Lots of Darkworkers do nice things just because it makes them feel "good", grateful, powerful, or just all plain moosy. They don't play chess with each and every move. The point of our path is that we do what the self truly desires, and have no beholdent interest to any "morality" that supercedes those desires.

In fact, most Prince's I know are some of the most giving people I know -- and no, they give beyond their advantageous tax cut ceiling, and some give anonymously at that -- so their is no socio-political advantage. They simply enjoy it.

Consider what hoarding and stinginess are -- a lack of faith in yourself, ultimately. When you truly trust your abilities, and you have had insight into deep reality, you understand you can always replace and even multiply what you let go of.

My blog will be up and strong in a couple weeks.

[robc]

If you use Steve's subjective reality model and that everything in our own existence is really just a reality we created, which includes all the people & resources in our environment, how does it matter if you're a darkworker or lightworker? You have created everything in your own reality, it's your consciousness, your own perception of reality that your dealing with. If you're taking resources from things in your reality or giving to things in your reality, based on the subjective reality model, aren't you just taking & providing to yourself then.

This could all be one giant simulation that you are living in (or in this case I am living in).

It's your reality, your LOA & IM you're using to live life with.
The distinction between lightworker & darkworker doesn't make a lot of sense when you view it from this perspective.

Am I wrong in this understanding of subjective reality? (still trying to get a grasp of it all, still learning)

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Cran

Twisted or not, the teychings of Jesus are indeed of absolutely no consequence to me.

I see. you are not interested in spiritual writings of the past. But are interested in what this darkworking idea is of Steve's.

I wouldn't put DW-syndrom as to much taking, but stepping on to many toes by taking - i.e. acting unwise and too much upon the first impulse. Taking per se is nothing that would constitute a syndrome.

So the DW syndrom is more so about actually ending up hurting people? Is that what you are saying? But then I thought DW don't care about that. Oh, they only care if someone gets hurt in such a way as to be no benefit to the DW anymore. hmm...

I donot think you get my point when I am saying that it takes effgort to give, too. It takes effort to figure out HOW to give exactly as it takes effort to figure out to take (it will require the same amount of thinking how to avoid giving that unloved aunt a birthday present as to think about it how the mutual dislike of the aunt can be turned into something more lw-like). Therefore, I regard your point that a DW would have to put more thinking-effort into his polarization than a LW as invalid.

maybe the too much giving is where it takes effort to give - to avoid being a LW syndrome candidate. and the same with DW taking - if they take too much they are in the syndrome and in danger of killing the golden goose.

What is the point to benefit more people than just myself, as you write about LWs? Sure, the wordl will get better and everything... honestly, I do not care about the world. Therefore, creating benefits for the world is no benefit to me. Of course, long term, this will damage the world I am living in, but until that point arrives I'll be safely dead.

this is the issue that the world is facing that you seem to not care about - it is sad to me. You are only able to feel this way because you have lost you feeling of connection to nature and hardened your view of what self is. And how do you know how well off the world is? How do you know it's not going to effect you? It can be too late by the time something bites back.

What makes you think being DW is being disconntected in every case? Just because you feel that way if trying to get something from people doesn't make that an universal experience. I do not feel disconnected, au contraire: Very connected. i am very aware of my needs and of the people around me. To have friends and family and be connected with them is also a need of mine (and of most people, I assume).

well, then my DW definition is wrong or something. but what you write there almost sounds like being a LW.

DW doesn't mean being absolutely self-sufficient. My feelings toward people I like and love are no different than that of a LW. But I do not extend this to the whole world as many of them do. No purpose in that for me.

I thought DW are about self. and getting stuff for self from others. That means being connected in one way - of viewing "others" as something to take from. the connection is of viewing "others" as not me. Is that a connection? Or a rejection and polarizing - me and them. And if a DW isn't self-sufficient then they rely on others and that goes into LW world stuff. LWs know others are there for them and vice versa.

You ust claim that self-service equals the fear that there is not enough. I can't speak for everybody, but I do not feel and act upon this impulse. Everything is there, and enough for everybody, but it is at everybody's discretion to take what he wants. Who doesn't want doesn't take and can't bet on just getting things. This it not fear, but acknowleding needs and wants.

ok, I'd say LW have to also acknowledge their needs and wants too or they become syndrome candidates.

For your stance about people being connected and one: This is a metaphyscial approach I do not share. There is imho no such thing as being "one" or being more connected than in the very basic sense that one action leads to another.
I regard man as an animal, nothing more, nothing less. No higher purpose, no being-connected.

sorry, you have lost your sense of awe and wonder. and I see how you regard man as an animal. the earth will suffer after we are all gone, after we all have been DWs for too long. but then it doesn't seem to matter to DWs about what comes after. If a DW has kids, what do they think about handing down a broken earth to their kids?

[Eric Revelin]

To get caught up in polarization is utter nonsense. I believe in yin and yang. I believe both are absolutely necessary and the healthiest approach for most people isn't to be pure yin or pure yang but rather to embrace the middle ground. That's where most of us fall anyways.

There are times when one strongly embodies light or shadow but there is never a time when he's completely rid of one or the other. That's a good thing; to accomplish that feat would mean becoming less than human. People who can lead healthy and fulfilling lives while constantly on the extreme end of one polarity are rare, if they exist.

This is somewhat off-topic, but the core issue is perfection, or rather our skewed definition of it. It stems from religious and societal conditioning. There's this idea that only half of what we are is good and praiseworthy and the rest needs to be scorned and tossed aside. While I don't see one side bashing the other on this forum (at least not to the same extreme I've seen in other places) there's a strong tendency within the human species to attack whatever embodies the things we dislike in ourselves. Arguing over polarity and the precise definition of light and dark only strengthens that tendency.

We've already got a strong idea of what "good" and "evil" are. It seems that every discussion on these subjects raises the same points and eventually winds around in a circle. What's far more important is where and how they overlap. That angle has been explored just as thoroughly but it hasn't broken into the mass consciousness.

As cliché as it is, every light casts a shadow. I'm glad many people here are willing to acknowledge that. However, if these concepts are so flawed, it may be better to do away with them and create something new that accounts for more aspects of the same ideals. Rather, people are too complicated to be neatly labeled and tucked into specific categories. The ones that aren't are usually the ones who whittle away at their own personality until they fit a specific definition, at which point they aren't even themselves anymore.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Eric Revelin

To get caught up in polarization is utter nonsense. I believe in yin and yang. I believe both are absolutely necessary and the healthiest approach for most people isn't to be pure yin or pure yang but rather to embrace the middle ground. That's where most of us fall anyways.

There are times when one strongly embodies light or shadow but there is never a time when he's completely rid of one or the other. That's a good thing; to accomplish that feat would mean becoming less than human. People who can lead healthy and fulfilling lives while constantly on the extreme end of one polarity are rare, if they exist.

most of the examples of the extreme are in the syndrome of their workerness.

This is somewhat off-topic, but the core issue is perfection, or rather our skewed definition of it. It stems from religious and societal conditioning. There's this idea that only half of what we are is good and praiseworthy and the rest needs to be scorned and tossed aside. While I don't see one side bashing the other on this forum (at least not to the same extreme I've seen in other places) there's a strong tendency within the human species to attack whatever embodies the things we dislike in ourselves. Arguing over polarity and the precise definition of light and dark only strengthens that tendency.

also that is projection of our shadow selves. to try to be a lightworker or darkworker may require us to deny part of us and then project it outside of our persona, which then make us see it in others, when they might not be that way. I can't seem to use the polarity idea, and when I try to I end up projecting and seeing something outside of myself that is my shadow self, which I really need to claim and become whole and move on.

We've already got a strong idea of what "good" and "evil" are. It seems that every discussion on these subjects raises the same points and eventually winds around in a circle. What's far more important is where and how they overlap. That angle has been explored just as thoroughly but it hasn't broken into the mass consciousness.

glad someone else is finding it kind of circular to try to make polarity "work". The overlapping is very apparent to me in how but the DW or LW can not do too much of their tendency or method/way or they become syndrome candidates.

As cliché as it is, every light casts a shadow. I'm glad many people here are willing to acknowledge that. However, if these concepts are so flawed, it may be better to do away with them and create something new that accounts for more aspects of the same ideals. Rather, people are too complicated to be neatly labeled and tucked into specific categories. The ones that aren't are usually the ones who whittle away at their own personality until they fit a specific definition, at which point they aren't even themselves anymore.

yeah, no need to use polarity if I don't get it. then Steve's saying I'm going to have difficulty making decisions and be not as effective. Why would it be bad to seek wholeness instead of trying to get somewhere/be effective (produce gains for self or others) by fitting my behavior into a definition?

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Asmoday

Babylon, Rome, most of the Asian Empires, the Renaissance -- all these were but stepping stones to this intellectual revolution, the technology, the humanism, the relativism (which Steve calls "swapping software"), the connectivity, the very concept of personal development, including the meaning-of-the-moment culture which is addicted to it, are all facets resulting from Darkworker echos in this world. Pretty positive effects, if you ask me.

A little appreciation would be nice. Or, just remove the scorn and I would be happy.

I'd like to hear more about the "Darkworker echos" you referred to. For some reason, I'd never made that connection, but it makes sense. As a darkworker in the making myself, I find this idea intriguiging.

[Cran]

Wolfgang, would you please not interpret something into my posts I didn't say? I didn't say I am not interest in the teachings of Jesus/whatever spiritual teacher, but that they are of no consequence to me. That is a serious difference.


"So the DW syndrom is more so about actually ending up hurting people? Is that what you are saying? But then I thought DW don't care about that. Oh, they only care if someone gets hurt in such a way as to be no benefit to the DW anymore. hmm..."
Yep, your last sentence does sum it up, imho. If someone is hurt in such a way that he'll take revenge or will not serve the intended purpose of a relationship any longer, it is perfectly valid for the most selfish person to care about this person not getting hurt... because you'd hurt yourself if you hurt somebody you want something from.


"this is the issue that the world is facing that you seem to not care about - it is sad to me. You are only able to feel this way because you have lost you feeling of connection to nature and hardened your view of what self is. And how do you know how well off the world is? How do you know it's not going to effect you? It can be too late by the time something bites back."

How do you know all that about me? You claim all that.. and don't even know me. I am not "disconnected" but simply have another view of world and nature than you, same goes for being "hardened". Of course, your believe that something will "bite back" will make it very likely that you'll experience exactly the results of this believe. But think about it: Many good people (good as in unselfish) experience many, many bad things too. So the principle diesn't seem to work, does it? Be good and the world will backfire vs. be bad and the world will backfire doesn't fit with the daily events.


"I thought DW are about self. and getting stuff for self from others. That means being connected in one way - of viewing "others" as something to take from. the connection is of viewing "others" as not me. Is that a connection? Or a rejection and polarizing - me and them. And if a DW isn't self-sufficient then they rely on others and that goes into LW world stuff. LWs know others are there for them and vice versa."

Being about self doesn't mean being self-sufficient, that's also a difference. Being not alone is a very basical need, even natural. Man is no hamster who likes to be alone apart from the time in the year when the hormones go crazy.
Having friends, being connected is therefore fulfilling a need of man, which is selfish, but of course, attributes also of the happiness of others who want to feel connected to that person, too.
Where did you get the idea that being not self-sufficient is being a LW? It is simply the realisation that in the lifestyle of the current culture, being alone won't achieve most goals.
And however your views of connection, a person that is not yourself will always be an other and not me


"sorry, you have lost your sense of awe and wonder. and I see how you regard man as an animal. the earth will suffer after we are all gone, after we all have been DWs for too long. but then it doesn't seem to matter to DWs about what comes after. If a DW has kids, what do they think about handing down a broken earth to their kids?"

Well, loosing sense of awe and wonder means that there is something to wonder about... indeed, there is nothing I see reason to wonder about and feel awe for. This is again one of your metaphysical constructions that are just a believe, and nothing more. My believes are just as valid as yours, because we can't proove them. Therefore, I think your constant expressions of "feeling sorry for me" "you are so hardened" etc. rather inapprobiate. Wouldn't it be enough to say that you don't agree with me, but can accept my point as possibility? You don't need to share it, you know

For darkworkers and children, I guess they would have a different approach, as people usually love their children, so they would perhaps take extrem pains to make the world a better place - out of the selfish motive to leave a better world for the beloved child. You make an invalid point when you try to classify some actions as darkworker per se just by my opinion. The maxime "doing what's best for ME" can take many, many different forms depending on the personal definition of "best".
You can't tell the motivation of someone by their actions, or only very rarely.
As the spiritual teacher you seem to be so fond of would say: Judge not, that you not be judged.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Cran

Wolfgang, would you please not interpret something into my posts I didn't say? I didn't say I am not interest in the teachings of Jesus/whatever spiritual teacher, but that they are of no consequence to me. That is a serious difference.

No consequence, ok. The interest is there then? But only to just dismiss the ideas?

"So the DW syndrom is more so about actually ending up hurting people? Is that what you are saying? But then I thought DW don't care about that. Oh, they only care if someone gets hurt in such a way as to be no benefit to the DW anymore. hmm..."
Yep, your last sentence does sum it up, imho. If someone is hurt in such a way that he'll take revenge or will not serve the intended purpose of a relationship any longer, it is perfectly valid for the most selfish person to care about this person not getting hurt... because you'd hurt yourself if you hurt somebody you want something from.

ok, that's a difference in the two modes. but both can care about others, which is cool. maybe DWs end up caring about others more than I image.

"this is the issue that the world is facing that you seem to not care about - it is sad to me. You are only able to feel this way because you have lost you feeling of connection to nature and hardened your view of what self is. And how do you know how well off the world is? How do you know it's not going to effect you? It can be too late by the time something bites back."

How do you know all that about me? You claim all that.. and don't even know me. I am not "disconnected" but simply have another view of world and nature than you, same goes for being "hardened". Of course, your believe that something will "bite back" will make it very likely that you'll experience exactly the results of this believe. But think about it: Many good people (good as in unselfish) experience many, many bad things too. So the principle diesn't seem to work, does it? Be good and the world will backfire vs. be bad and the world will backfire doesn't fit with the daily events.

you posted something that made me project onto what you said. You posted something that said: honestly, I do not care about the world. Therefore, creating benefits for the world is no benefit to me. Of course, long term, this will damage the world I am living in, but until that point arrives I'll be safely dead. I took that into thoughts of why one might think that way, and maybe that is not your way of thinking. If someone tells me they dont' care if the world is damages after they are gone, and also that they admit their actions may be part of this - then I trip out on the reasons, like I wrote. Again, I don't know if you have a hardened sense of self. But that would explain not caring about the world to the degree you stated. Also, having the mindset of me versus nature can produce the feeling that it's ok to conquer nature and produce waste (maybe not what you do), just saying that mindset can produce not caring about the earth because I'll be gone before I have stop something that contributed to depleation of the environment. I perhaps was "using" you to bounce the DW ideas off you, not to suggest I know anything much about you. I'm not sure I believe the world will bite us back either - it's just me writing as if I think I understand the LW mind set. Which I probably don't. However, if you kill the golden goose, there will be not more golden eggs. There are ways that actions

"I thought DW are about self. and getting stuff for self from others. That means being connected in one way - of viewing "others" as something to take from. the connection is of viewing "others" as not me. Is that a connection? Or a rejection and polarizing - me and them. And if a DW isn't self-sufficient then they rely on others and that goes into LW world stuff. LWs know others are there for them and vice versa."

Being about self doesn't mean being self-sufficient, that's also a difference. Being not alone is a very basical need, even natural. Man is no hamster who likes to be alone apart from the time in the year when the hormones go crazy.
Having friends, being connected is therefore fulfilling a need of man, which is selfish, but of course, attributes also of the happiness of others who want to feel connected to that person, too.

so there's not distinction in DW/LW with looking at how much one relies on others or not, ok.

Where did you get the idea that being not self-sufficient is being a LW? It is simply the realisation that in the lifestyle of the current culture, being alone won't achieve most goals.

then, again, no need to look at self sufficient attributes as being DW/LW distinctions. I got the idea from my head that is trying to understand. And that I thought LWs are into sharing and gifting, which is not an isolation but a community way.

And however your views of connection, a person that is not yourself will always be an other and not me

well, I try to see what has been proposed in spiritual writings. That others are as if also "me".

"sorry, you have lost your sense of awe and wonder. and I see how you regard man as an animal. the earth will suffer after we are all gone, after we all have been DWs for too long. but then it doesn't seem to matter to DWs about what comes after. If a DW has kids, what do they think about handing down a broken earth to their kids?"

Well, loosing sense of awe and wonder means that there is something to wonder about... indeed, there is nothing I see reason to wonder about and feel awe for. This is again one of your metaphysical constructions that are just a believe, and nothing more. My believes are just as valid as yours, because we can't proove them. Therefore, I think your constant expressions of "feeling sorry for me" "you are so hardened" etc. rather inapprobiate. Wouldn't it be enough to say that you don't agree with me, but can accept my point as possibility? You don't need to share it, you know

I try not to believe anything, actually. Belief is a hardened view of something. I do however realize my head is more exercised than my heart and feelings. I kind of know for myself there is something else besides thinking and conquering - nothing to prove, just an inner feeling of mine. I don't need to defend it as a belief either. I would be sad if I lost my sense of wonder, sorry to put that on you. I guess in me trying to think like you to see what DW means to you, it shows me I don't think like you. I guess I can't take on the idea that there is nothing to wonder about. But I can see that some don't have that, and it's sad- I think. It's like we had it when we were kids - everything was wondrous. I think we were trained to not think out side the normal boxes society wants us in.

For darkworkers and children, I gue