2 Mental Blocks to Making Money (Blog)

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by impaul99

What if I'm an artist and I get absolute FULFILLING BLISS by painting giant paintings that look completely ugly to everyone else. Am I providing value?

Well I'm an artist who gets fulfilling bliss by painting, and I tell you for sure that there is no money returned on the self-perceived value of an ugly painting that no one but the creator falls in love with .

Now, if someone out there craves ugly paintings, then you would be providing value.


Cheers,
John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by impaul99

For example. I went to your site and I saw you paint and sell paintings. What if you took one of your paintings you normally sell for $4,000 and you put it up for sale for $40,000 instead?

You might think "Nobody will buy it for that price!" but that's your problem, not the buyers. If you put it up for $40,000, and it sells, did the purchaser not purchase a $40,000 for $40,000? How is that different from paying $4,000 for a $4,000 painting?

If I buy that $4k painting from you for $40k, as long as I think it's a $40k painting it WILL be a $40k painting and when someone were to ask me about it I might tell them that it's a $40,000 painting or even higher.

Here's what I'm saying. If someone hypnotized you tonight and made you believe that you earn 10x as much money per year than you actually do right now and you DESERVE to make that much and they also changed all the prices on your site to be 10x more expensive, what would happen?

Something to think about. Perhaps the "perceived value" is not in the eyes of the buyer, but the seller.

I agree with on this. Value can be perceived independent of perhaps what some might call the value fundamentals of a product. Your example of my paintings for instance is a good one. I wouldn't think one of my paintings is worth anywhere near $40,000, but if I did, then perhaps that confidence would come across in my promotions, and maybe I'd encounter a buyer who is influenced to believe in the value. All the same though; he perceives it to be a $40,000 value.

Value is never an absolute. It is always perception, and I guess my thinking might differ from yours in that I feel there is always a perception of value somewhere in the equation when money is made, however indirect or hidden it may be.

You're on to something here. Excuse me me while I reprice my paintings .

Best,
John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I agree with on this. Value can be perceived independent of perhaps what some might call the value fundamentals of a product. Your example of my paintings for instance is a good one. I wouldn't think one of my paintings is worth anywhere near $40,000, but if I did, then perhaps that confidence would come across in my promotions, and maybe I'd encounter a buyer who is influenced to believe in the value. All the same though; he perceives it to be a $40,000 value.

Value is never an absolute. It is always perception, and I guess my thinking might differ from yours in that I feel there is always a perception of value somewhere in the equation when money is made, however indirect or hidden it may be.

You're on to something here. Excuse me me while I reprice my paintings .

Best,
John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

One of my coaches once told me a story of a woman who was doing a weekend seminar for $300. She wanted to get more attendence. She was instructed to raise her prices to $1250. More people showed up and she made way more money.

Why? Because her target audience couldn't be bothered showing up to a "$300 seminar". It's a waste of a weekend. But a $1250 is worth it.

Isn't that insane? They have to pay more money! And more show up!

Why don't you try painting a $40,000 painting. From day one when you go to pickup the canvas and the paints, set an intention that you're going to paint a masterpiece for $40,000. THen, on your site you can have a "Masterpiece" collection that offers the painting, a certificate of authenticity in a nice frame. If nobody buys it, then they don't buy it. At least you tried and it might help you sell your other paintings for $4,000. Until you try you don't know what will happen.

What if it DOES SELL? What will happen to your way of thinking then?

Besides sending me a nice gift for the idea since I "provided value" think about what you could do with the extra money! Like donate $36,000 of it to Charity if you wish. The BCSPCA could use some extra cash!

My main point in all this is this: don't accept limiting beliefs as truth. Challenge your beliefs. What if we DON'T need to provide value to make money? What if it has nothing to do with it?

What if I'm right? What if you can make $4,000,000 this year doing the painting you're doing. WITHOUT any more value then you are already providing! Then, if you feel you don't need that much money, you give it away to charitable causes. Hmmmmmmmmmm....something to think about eh?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by impaul99

What if I'm right? What if you can make $4,000,000 this year doing the painting you're doing. WITHOUT any more value then you are already providing! Then, if you feel you don't need that much money, you give it away to charitable causes. Hmmmmmmmmmm....something to think about eh?

I actually know an artist who has done this, and put a crazy price on some work; I think it was $150,000. She got her price and repeated it several times. I know what you are saying, and I know that it works when you put yourself totally behind it. I guess it comes down to what the purpose behind the offering is.

In my case, I want to share a sense of beauty and energy that I receive from nature, as well as a sense of the human condition that I try to get across in my street scenes. So my primary purpose is to visually inspire and share those feelings. I guess if my primary purpose was to earn a lot of money, I would do as you suggest, although a person would have to watch the image they project. It's a risky technique in the art world.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to earn a bundle. I could really use it .

I'll have an in-depth look at your sites ASAP by the way. Looks interesting.

John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[qed]

Originally Posted by JohnR

You are missing my point. The philanthropy I was referencing is the direct result of corporate profit. Gates and Buffett would not have been able to do what they are doing without corporate growth. You said, "Philanthropy is a human activity. It would exist whether corporations exist or not." But where would the money come from?

What I meant to say was that capitalism puts too much emphasis on money itself which is just an abstraction. Money was invented so that you don't always have to give away something you want/need for something else you want/need. Money is just a way to decouple the exchange of services/products from physical objects which you would like to acquire and hold on to. However, without services/products being exchanged, money alone is meaningless as a concept. Of course, when you give an abstract concept like money a physical shape and form, now you can concentrate solely on it, completely forgetting what it really stands for.

[qed]

Originally Posted by impaul99

One of my coaches once told me a story of a woman who was doing a weekend seminar for $300. She wanted to get more attendence. She was instructed to raise her prices to $1250. More people showed up and she made way more money.

Why? Because her target audience couldn't be bothered showing up to a "$300 seminar". It's a waste of a weekend. But a $1250 is worth it.

Isn't that insane? They have to pay more money! And more show up!

That's still the issue regarding the mindset of the buyers. Some buyers think higher price tag = more value/quality which is completely wrong, but what are you going to do about it.. You have to match the mindset of your buyer (which is why it is so important to know your target market).

Exchange value is always in the eye of the buyer. The seller can do things to make his offer more compelling by appealing to the buyer's mindset.

I sometimes question why Steve's articles are so popular/valuable since he really isn't saying anything new, but I guess the way he says it appeals to some people... We could argue if he is really creating value or not, but as long as people are interested, such a debate is pointless.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by qed

What I meant to say was that capitalism puts too much emphasis on money itself which is just an abstraction. Money was invented so that you don't always have to give away something you want/need for something else you want/need. Money is just a way to decouple the exchange of services/products from physical objects which you would like to acquire and hold on to. However, without services/products being exchanged, money alone is meaningless as a concept. Of course, when you give an abstract concept like money a physical shape and form, now you can concentrate solely on it, completely forgetting what it really stands for.

I totally agree with that. We often forget what the money stands for, and we put it up front as our sole purpose, rather than a measure of, and a means of, trading value. I think we are slowly learning though, don't you? I hope so.

Cheers,
John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[Baltar]

Originally Posted by impaul99

One of my coaches once told me a story of a woman who was doing a weekend seminar for $300. She wanted to get more attendence. She was instructed to raise her prices to $1250. More people showed up and she made way more money.

Why? Because her target audience couldn't be bothered showing up to a "$300 seminar". It's a waste of a weekend. But a $1250 is worth it.

Isn't that insane? They have to pay more money! And more show up!

...

My main point in all this is this: don't accept limiting beliefs as truth. Challenge your beliefs. What if we DON'T need to provide value to make money? What if it has nothing to do with it?

Your argument sounds deceptively logical, but hinges on the idea that the value of a product or service should be an absolute measure. You seem to be put off by the fact that someone can sell the same product or service for different amounts of money, in which case they didn't provide an objectively measurable amount of value. Hence providing value isn't directly linked to making money. However, in capitalism there is no absolute value for anything.

Capitalism works by having a buyer and a seller agree on the price of a product or service. This price is technically determined by two factors -- the break even point of the seller, and how much the buyer is willing to pay for an item. In practice it's mostly determined by the latter. The seller can create something that cost him a ton of money to make, and thus he has to sell it for more money than the cost (otherwise he'll be out of business very quickly). However he won't be able to sell it if he can't find a buyer that needs/wants the item and agrees that it's worth the amount that the seller wants for it (the buyer doesn't care what it cost to make the item). On the other side of the scale it's possible for something to be sold for a lot more than it costs to create, because the item is worth more to the buyer (luxury automobiles, paintings, designer clothing).

My point is that you must create value to make money, but value doesn't have a predetermined fixed price. The worth of something is determined largely by the buyer. There's also a psychological issue of perceived value, where charging more for something will make people think that it's better. Charging more for a seminar will make people think it's better and thus attract more people (assuming the target audience consists of people that have that kind of money to pay). You still have to provide value though, or your seminar business won't last very long.

Charging a lot for a painting works partly because of perceived value, but also because there are wealthy folks who want to buy something expensive. If you have 100 million dollars, then 100 thousand becomes pocket change. People with a lot of money don't want to buy cheap art. Whether or not something is worth 100K is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, and if a buyer agrees that a painting is worth that much then it's worth that much to that specific seller and buyer (maybe not to you or someone else, but that's irrelevant). In both of those cases though, it's a pairing of seller and buyer that agree on a specific price.

[Steve Pavlina]

@Paul: I understand what you're saying. For me that mindset was a dead-end. It makes me feel empty, bored, and disconnected instead of inspired and fulfilled. It's simply the wrong polarity for me.

As someone mentioned earlier, this is essentially a darkworker philosophy. Energetically speaking, a side effect of your approach would be that you'd (perhaps unconsciously) have a strong tendency to pull, draw, or drain energy from other people. As a general rule, lightworkers draw their energy from Source, while darkworkers must draw their energy from other souls.

So this would imply that if you're not channeling Source energy (which has a natural tendency to manifest via creative expression), then you'd be draining it from others. Please forgive me for saying this, but this does appear to be true in your case. I often perceive an unusual sensation of pulling/draining when reading your posts, almost like you've come here to feed. In contrast there are many forum members where I feel the light and love flowing through their words (Angela is a prime example).

Consequently, I think your philosophy is subtly being reflected in your words already, and that may dispose people to respond to you in a certain way... possibly one that yields some of their energy to you, however unwillingly or unconsciously.

While I would say that your overall approach is philosophically sound, it creates a bit of a self-reinforcing bubble that will make it hard to perceive genuine alternatives. You could of course argue that I'm also in a self-reinforcing bubble, and I wouldn't disagree.

In all human interaction we're either giving energy or drawing energy. What actually occurs mainly depends on your intentions for the interaction.

I'm grateful for the interesting contrast in ideas you help create here.

[Witch Hazel]

Personally, the things I am most passionate about in this life are the things I would like to spend my time, energy and focus on. I view wealth as a way to buy my freedom. I know for certain that I would never be able achieve success spending day after day doing and saying things that did not fuel my passion. BTDT, and it's done nothing but drain me of my very essence.

When I die, I want to leave a legacy. Not a soulless money-machine.

[Lauxa]

@Mag: Maybe it is all in the definition of "hard work". Because if you truly love what you are doing, it isn't really like work at all.

@Steve: Loved the post, it had me saying "amen"! I think the people who knock the Secret and the Law of Attraction just don't get it that these philosophies are not an excuse not to create value. Your advice on value creation is a constant beacon to me in the website I am trying to launch. The reason creating it is so exciting for me is that I think it will provide a huge value to many many people.

[Scipio]

This article was a boatload of reality.

[Scipio]

Originally Posted by fbmfor

There are ways of making money that do not provide value to other people, or at least provide it very, very indirectly. Or at least people executing them do not view them as value providing methods, but only as money making methods. Take for instance trading. Lots of people have trading as a career or as a main activity. Some are successful and some are not, like with any other money making method. But their success doesn't depend on the value they provide to others.

How do these ways of making money contrast with the first two sentences of Steve's post "The essence of successful income generation is value creation. If you want to earn income, you must provide something that matters enough to someone else that they’ll pay you for it."?

A trade is an exchange of value for value. Traders provide an essential service.

Take, for example, a grocery store owner. He doesn't create the goods sold at his store. Farmers, bread makers, and others create those goods. He is simply in the distribution business. That in itself is an immense value.

The same with a stock market trader. They correct inefficiencies between markets (in the case of market arbitrage), they provide customers with access to company stocks (in the case of a broker), and people who invest in stocks for a living provide needed capital to companies that will expand and produce immense value! People who invest in stocks analyze the books of companies and estimate how well they will perform in the future. If they think the company is set to perform well, they give their money to the company so that it may expand and produce more value and service. Without stock market trading, there would be nowhere near the prosperity and abundance that we enjoy in the world today, because innovative companies would never been able to get off the ground or expand.

I think that you should learn how a particular system of the economy works before you label it as useless. What you did was judgment without consideration of any facts. Don't be quick to judge, judge properly with regard to the facts.

[JohnR]

Lauxa,

Had a peak at your web site. Loved the simple machinery flash cards. Children really like to learn when the lessons are clear and engrossing.

When our Son was very young, a person came door to door selling a record (the days of LP's I'm afraid). The record was titled "Nathanial the Grublet." It was an entertaining and riveting story narrated by the voice of Tony the Tiger (remember him?) about little creatures called Grublets. The whole intent of the record was to impart a values and honesty lessons to children. We used to have kids over all the time, and they laid on the floor glued to that record.

Sometimes it's just a matter of the right tool and the right timing to help children, and bigger people, learn. Good luck with that if that is the web site you referred to building.

Cheers,
John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[Scipio]

Originally Posted by qed

I am sure you are aware of this (doesn't sound like it though), but just to be clear, the money is made when the shares are first offered to public. Any further trading between individuals have no value to the company.

Further trading has immense value to a company! Imagine for a second, that further trading was not possible. That when an individual bought a stock, he could never liquidate his asset. That he would have to continue receiving dividends.

Would individuals be likely to buy stock? Maybe--but they would be much less likely. So the possibility of further trading of a stock provides an immense value to a company, because they wouldn't be able to sell shares without it.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

@Paul: I understand what you're saying. For me that mindset was a dead-end. It makes me feel empty, bored, and disconnected instead of inspired and fulfilled. It's simply the wrong polarity for me.

As someone mentioned earlier, this is essentially a darkworker philosophy. Energetically speaking, a side effect of your approach would be that you'd (perhaps unconsciously) have a strong tendency to pull, draw, or drain energy from other people. As a general rule, lightworkers draw their energy from Source, while darkworkers must draw their energy from other souls.

So this would imply that if you're not channeling Source energy (which has a natural tendency to manifest via creative expression), then you'd be draining it from others. Please forgive me for saying this, but this does appear to be true in your case. I often perceive an unusual sensation of pulling/draining when reading your posts, almost like you've come here to feed. In contrast there are many forum members where I feel the light and love flowing through their words (Angela is a prime example).

I disagree. You're missing the point. You're equating what you do as "taking from source" and then "giving that value to the people" and then "the people give you money", and you imply that my soure is to "take from the people".

I do not "drain" from others. In fact for the large part of my life I have been doing what you do which is to work my butt off and to offer my connection from source "to the people" and to work on providing as much value as I possibly can. It does work, and I have been successful at it and have been able to make a six figure income with that way of making money for years now.

However, I am now exploring a different path where I don't act as a conduit for channeling source to people in exchange for money like you do, but instead help people to connect themselves to source directly.

Hmmm...how can I better articulate this. Let's use your wife as an example. She connects to source and gives "readings" and charges $50 (example, I don't know what her rates are now). So essentially her source of money is source, she takes source, channels it, gives that value to a person, and then charges them money for it. The flow goes "Source > Erin > Value > Person > Money > Erin".

So if Erin does 1,000 readings per month she could make $50,000/month in income. What is the real source of her earnings? Her connection to source. Which is fine. It's one way of looking at it.

Now, what if instead she taught those 1,000 people to meditate, connect to source and get the answers they seek themselves and charged them $600 for it. With her training, they would be able to get answers themselves from source and no longer need her as a conduit. Instead of having to spend $50/month for a reading, they now get the benefit of a lifetime of "self-readings" for $600. Of course Erin has to charge more for this because she is essentially training her customers to be self-sufficient, but at $600/each that's $600k which is 1 years worth of earnings at her other rates. THe following year she could start training another group of clients.

The flow now becomes "Source > Client > Value > Money > Erin".

In both scenario's the true "value" comes from source. It always does. Steve, YOU - don't provide any value. Source does. Therefore you get paid by Source.

In all human interaction we're either giving energy or drawing energy. What actually occurs mainly depends on your intentions for the interaction.

You're equating your life with a hero's journey. You think that your job is to be a hero and to rescue people. By "providing value" to people, you feel that you are helping them and as such you feel deserving of the world's love.

What if for one week you didn't TRY to provide value to anyone. What if you didn't try to be a hero. What if you just woke up and did what you love doing at any given moment. And what if that was ENOUGH?

What if you could be a lightworker (love polarized) but you CHOSE to express that love not by GIVING VALUE?

I'm not saying that giving value is wrong or bad or that you can't make money with it. It's fine and it's probably the easiest way to make money in the world. However, just beause it's easy and it's done by almost everyone who makes money, what if there are other ways?

What if there's a way to express love without having to "provide value" so that you can get paid? Like, for example what if you put a "donate" button on your site, and instead of providing value to the person reading you simply tell them that by GIVING TO YOU with that donate button they can participate in the spirit of giving. Essentially RECEIVING a donation from them *IS* the value you provide, in a way. Oh wait! You already do that on your site...Hmmm....

I'm grateful for the interesting contrast in ideas you help create here.

Thanks. I enjoy reading your site because your growth parallels mine. We have different perspectives on things and it provides good contrast for further growth. Even when we disagree, I see a lot of intelligence in your defence of your point of view which helps me to consider things in a new light and to refine my view as well.

[impaul99]

Steve, I'd like to also add this. It's from "Ask and It Is Given" by Esther and Jerry Hicks. I hope it's ok to quote their book. Abraham says:

"The greatest gift that you could ever give to another is your own happiness, for when you are in a state of joy, happiness, or appreciation, you are fully connected to the Stream of pure, positive Source Energy that is truly who you are. And when you are in that state of connection, anything or anyone that you are holding as your object of attention benefits from your attention."

It doesn't say "The greatest gift that you could ever give to another is to provide value to them in the physical world..." does it? Hmmmm.... something to think about perhaps?

[munish]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

there are many forum members where I feel the light and love flowing through their words (Angela is a prime example).

.

Angela is definitly a true lightworker.

[JohnR]

I was reading this article in a local online news site (excerpt pasted below) Castanet.net - Kelowna News

How,s this for providing value that will circle back to her business. I know that she means what she says and is genuine about her intent. She is running the perfect business for such an action wouldn't you say? I'm going to try and find time tomorrow to go have a tea I think.

Buy Nothing Day
by Malcolm Petch - Story: 35434

A Kelowna business is hoping to bring a new awareness to the forefront with a slight twist in its support of the controversial Buy Nothing Day.

Chai Baba Tea House will be open as normal on Saturday the 24th, but it won’t be open for business. In support of the International Buy Nothing Day, the Tea House will mark the day by becoming a place where the public can “learn, laugh, love, drink free tea and make the world a better place,” according to Chai Baba’s owner, Tina Prichard.

“It’s not just about making money and serving quality,” says Prichard. “At the risk of sounding esoteric, I am passionate about saving the collective human spirit.”

Cheers,
John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[Kylark]

I just want to say that I enjoy Paul P's posts and I feel energized after reading them, not drained. I think his writing is thought-provoking, and his ideas are a nice complement to Steve P's.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Kylark

I just want to say that I enjoy Paul P's posts and I feel energized after reading them, not drained. I think his writing is thought-provoking, and his ideas are a nice complement to Steve P's.

Thank you. I actually get that quite often in personal emails and PM's as well as from people in real life. In fact, I have to say that Steve Pavlina is the first person who has ever told me that I "drain him" with what I say or write. I've had people disagree with me, or question it or ask further questions, but I've never been told by anyone that they feel like they have "less energy" after interacting with me than before.

In fact, just three days ago I received this wonderful letter from someone on my blog (Posted with her permission):

Hi Paul. I hope life is offering you many kindnesses. I am writing to express my deep gratitude. You will forever live in my heart as one of the people who has profoundly changed my life in a good way. Since working through the Passion Project, every day I have done some little thing towards manifesting Bravehearts (the residential youth center). It is gaining momentum now. I am meeting with people who have founded and are running youth shelters, and have an appointment coming up with a man who runs a youth residential facility. I am being very supported in my belief that there is a dire need for Bravehearts in this area. I am in the research stages-- statistics etc, and putting together different aspects of the “services” to be provided. Before long, I expect to be working as part of a community effort to bring the center to life. The strangest- for lack of a better word- thing about this is I feel like I’m just following a script that’s already been written. I have no fear, no hesitation whatsoever, even tho I am lacking many of the skills that are needed in this process. I feel like I am following the energy rather than creating it. I have a KNOWING that this center will open, and have an intuition that I will work to open others like it in other areas. I have a deep sense of peace and faith in what is happening. It all started with you and your vision, Paul. Your vision brought my own to life. Thank you is a gross understatement. I hope you feel the gratitude in these words. I wanted you to know. emilee

ps. you will touch many more lives through Bravehearts, and I recommend The Passion Project every chance I get.

I am not posting this to brag, but rather to illustrate that if my point of view had a "draining" effect on people I wouldn't be doing it. In fact, my point of view has had an empowering effect on people and they've let me know that, and it keeps me going in that direction.

The only thing I can think of in terms of why Steve would have said something like that is that I know from his Lightworker/Darkworker articles, I know he's convinced that the path to Enlightenment is to GIVE LOVE to the world only and "the world will take care of me". My personal view on it is a bit different. I see it as GIVE LOVE to myself AND the world. Steve seems to believe that you can only offer love to the world or yourself because they are going in different directions. I don't believe this so some of what I write concentrates on how to love the world, while other things I write concentrate on how to love yourself.

I think that whenever I write from the point of view of taking care of yourself, it brakes one of Steve's beliefs/rules away from concentrating on GIVE LOVE TO WORLD ONLY and perhaps that feels draining to him. However, in my opinion that only happens because he has some ego issues to resolve in that area of life still. It shouldn't feel draining to love yourself, and it shouldn't feel negative to love yourself. I really don't believe one can truly love the world to it's fullest without first fully loving oneself to the fullest. Many have tried though.

Anyway. Thanks for your comment. If anyone else feels drained by what I write, just ignore my blabber. It's meant for the other people.

[JohnR]

Hi Steve,

I agree, all have different avenues of understanding life that cause us to have different perspectives. In the end, it is those differences that interact to further the understanding of each of us.

Steve, with respect, there is no loss of energy to someone whom you perceive to be of an opposite polarity. A person perceives a draining effect from someone usually because of an insecurity or weakness within the person who feels drained. They aren't really drained; they just loose some of their own connection within themselves, but it is their own issue; something they need to understand.

I used to teach people, including energetic body workers and people who deal with others on an energetic and emotional level. My classes were centered on becoming aware of energy within and around you in a tangible way; learning to move that energy at will anywhere you want; learning to free it up on extremely subtle levels, as well as learning the dangers and safety valves. When you do that work, and it takes years of hard work, it becomes clear to you that your energy knows no limits except those that you yourself impose on it. A person who learns deeply about energy learns that they are much more at risk of psychicly and physically harming themselves than they ever are of being fed upon by others.

Body workers then learned that clients that they perceived as negative or dark-minded, didn't really drain them. It was their own fears, sometimes a lack of understanding, and mostly a lack of confidence in the infinite source of their own subtle energy. Knowing how to hold and move their energy safely helped tremendously also.

It always comes back to us. If I have a problem with someone, I have ask myself, what don't I understand and where am I lacking compassion in this instance? I ask myself a lot And that has a direct correlation on the energetic level

John
Paintings of British Columbia - John Rocheleau

[Bruce Achterberg]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I have to say that Steve Pavlina is the first person who has ever told me that I "drain him" with what I say or write. I've had people disagree with me, or question it or ask further questions, but I've never been told by anyone that they feel like they have "less energy" after interacting with me than before.

From what I've read, Steve seems to be just a little bit more energetically sensitive/adept then myself, so I'll offer my thoughts on this for you.

Honestly, I have to agree with Steve. I think the reason you don't agree with Steve is because you're trying to assess this matter intellectually and you're getting caught up on the definition of terms rather then experientially interpreting things using your senses. Unfortunately for you, the energetic portion of your words is more telling then the words themselves.

When reading your posts in this thread, you remind me very much of a friend of mine who also seems quite drawn to a darkworker mindset. He hasn't made the decision consciously to my knowledge, but that's definitely the path he seems to be going down. I’d say he’s experiencing darkworker syndrome at the moment, but I digress.

Anyway, when I read your posts, Paul, it’s not so much a draining sensation I feel, but I feel almost as if you are drawing me into your world of ideas, as if you want me to agree with you on some level. I kind of feel that I’m expected to do something, as if there is a sort of pressure there, and while it isn’t directly unpleasant, it at least feels incompatible with my modality and I feel like I want to move away from that type of reinforcement.

On the other hand, when I read Steve’s posts, I very much feel the opposite. Steve’s posts essentially “give me power” and encourage me to draw from my own desired source of “power”, whatever that may be. You may argue that you do the same, and that may be true, but there is a subtle difference in your approach. It reminds me of something David Sirlin wrote in his excellent book, Playing to Win (it’s a bit of a lengthy quote, but it falls within fair use because of the licence Sirlin uses, so oh well):

Shadows and Vorlons

Before we get to The Teacher, and before you write me letters on any of this, consider the parable of The Shadows and the Vorlons from J. Michael Straczynski’s Babylon 5 television series. In this space epic, the Shadows and the Vorlons are the two “ancient races” that have opposite belief systems about how to treat all of us younger races. The Shadows cause chaos and unrest. They make deals engineered to incite war between races and they double-cross their “allies.” They use nearly invulnerable spooky black ships piloted by kidnapped telepaths to attack, unprovoked. Obviously, they’re evil.
The Vorlons, on the other hand, are diplomatic and nurturing. They prefer to stay out of the action, letting the younger races develop on their own, but the Vorlons do make critical moves to help the younger races unite. In fact, the Vorlons even seeded the galaxy with certain DNA during the beginnings of life to guarantee that all of us younger races would grow up to view them as gods when they appeared. This way, we will all be sure to listen to their message and unite against the forces of the Shadows when the time comes. The Vorlons represent good.

Or do they? The Shadows eventually reveal that they are after the same thing as the Vorlons: to ensure that we younger races become strong and wise. The Shadows believe that showing up every few eons to shake things up frees the galaxy of the weak to make room for the strong. Coddling the weak, though poetic, is not healthy for the long-term survival of a race, they argue. The Vorlons seek similar ends, but through nurturing, promoting growth, and peace.

One argument against the Shadows is that they are imposing their will and their beliefs on everyone, which is seen as wrong. Consider the application to competitive games, though. There are two key differences. First, the Slaughterer does not impose his beliefs on everyone—only those who play his game. While humans were not free to simply ignore the beliefs of the Shadows, no one is forcing you to play competitive games at all, much less the Slaughterer’s particular game. You have entered his domain by choice. Second, the very nature of competitive games is that one player (the winner) imposes his beliefs about how to play the game on another player (the loser). Perhaps this is inappropriate in galactic politics, but it’s exactly what competitive games are about. Those who are turned off by the notion of the Slaughterer imposing his values of winning and losing really shouldn’t be playing competitive games in the first place (or they should adopt the values of the Slaughterer).

Although this Shadow approach may seem harsh, I am often reminded of the meetings between American and Japanese players of Street Fighter. In general, the Japanese are on a higher level of play (I won’t go into the reasons for that here). When faced with a new set of incredibly strong opponents such as the Japanese, wouldn’t you rather your own community of players were trained in a results-oriented system that pruned the weak and produced winners forged in fire? A nurturing, kindergarten-like system may have many more civic virtues, but when you face the Japanese (or any fierce opponents) only military virtues will save you.

Still, though, the Vorlon’s approach has some appeal. I know everyone wants their way to work and is rooting for good to triumph over supposed evil. Many players need coddling before they can mature into strong warriors. The gaming community as a whole needs nurturing teachers who can guide new players in the right direction. Surely the community as a whole would benefit from having nurturing teachers working to increase the number of overall players, and increasing the skill level of those players. By mentoring weaker players rather than just slaughtering them, they are increasing the overall level of competition and slowly forcing everyone to improve.

So who is right? Unlike the Shadows, I’m not here to impose my beliefs on you (on this topic, at least), so you will have to choose for yourself. I think either approach is viable and perhaps a gaming community needs people from each of these camps to be complete. I will say this, though: taking the Shadow’s approach will generally strengthen your own play skills, while taking the Vorlon’s approach will generally weaken them. Teaching has its virtues, but it is often bad for the teacher.

-- Source: David Sirlin, Playing to Win, Sirlin.net/ptw

Here’s where I admit that for most of my life I unconsciously used a darkworker mindset. That is why I am so good at recognising it. I didn’t know it at the time, but I unconsciously manipulated people into giving me energy for my own purposes. I had good intentions, but I had to “drain” or “defeat” my “opponent” before they could manifest.

Now I learn towards the lightworker modality, and I’m learning how to use the darkworker methods I learnt and have great experience with in a way that doesn’t drain people, but empower them. I’m still not very good at this, and I have a lot of internal conflict that manifests as a severe lack of effectiveness, despite my high potential for effectiveness, but that’s something for me to work out. (I rate that a 1 out of 10 on the modesty scale. )

Unfortunately I find that whenever I use a darkworker approach, it sucks me back into the “manipulation” modality, and instead of serving as a beacon of light to inspire people, I indirectly attempt to “do the best for people” by manipulating them in some way.

I’m learning that the lightworker path is completely different from the darkworker path, and I essentially have to learn a whole new way of doing things if I wish to progress down the lightworker path. I will say, however, that having fallen on the darkworker extreme before (note that I was never consciously polarised, but rather leaned in that direction), I make for a very interesting lightworker in that my specific ways of expressing “love and light” are influenced by my experience with the darkworker modality.

Anyway, I’m not really trying to disagree or agree with anyone in saying what I have, but rather offer my unique interpretation. There is much more I could say on this subject, and I could have written this post better, but I’m out of time. I hope you found this post useful, or at least, interesting.

PS. Paul, a good rule of thumb to get a sense for whether you're able to communicate with people without drawing them into your "control drama" (ie. draining them or manipulating them in some way) is to take a look at who seems to be more energised after the interaction. You could even ask the person how they feel -- energised or drained.

I learnt this process from the book, The Celestine Prophecy, and I've found it to be highly effective in diagnosing whether I'm free of the ego and my conditioned "control drama" or whether I've unconsciously fallen back into using it again. In my experience, ego (specifically the type Eckhart Tolle speaks about) goes hand in hand with darkworker types, or at least, darkworkers tend to more effectively use their ego for their own gain, regardless of where they choose to channel that gain (ie. to themselves or others).

Keep in mind that while many people are leaning towards the darkworker path, not many have cultivated the awareness needed to transform "darkworker syndrome" into "enlightened self interest" which is a sort of acceptance where one embraces the qualities of enlightenment but does so through the use of ego.

[John Prophet]

I have to say that I’m a little annoyed by your refusal to acknowledge that you may be (what Steve refers to as) a darkworker. I’m one, and I have to say that reading many of your comments above, they seemed to absolutely scream "darkworker". There’s nothing wrong with this of course, in fact it’s a very great thing. You said “I think that whenever I write from the point of view of taking care of yourself, it brakes one of Steve's beliefs/rules away from concentrating on GIVE LOVE TO WORLD ONLY and perhaps that feels draining to him. However, in my opinion that only happens because he has some ego issues to resolve in that area of life still.”

This could very well be true, but what does your denial of the title of “darkworker” say about your ego? I realize that there’s a lot of bias against people like us in these forums (and most other places,for that matter), and I will not deny that Steve himself can be somewhat bias. In fact, he’s admitted to this. But I do find it kind of insulting, when a guy who’s practically spelling out darkworker philosophy still insists that he’s not one. Be proud of what you are; enjoy it, its fun.

The only thing I can think of in terms of why Steve would have said something like that is that I know from his Lightworker/Darkworker articles, I know he's convinced that the path to Enlightenment is to GIVE LOVE to the world only and "the world will take care of me".

What you said here would seem to imply that you don’t believe that darkworkers can achieve enlightenment. This is not the case. Although I don’t believe everything that Steve has said about polarizing, one reason that I generally approve of this concept is that I stumbled onto many of the same ideas completely independently of Steve’s articles and before he wrote them (though he does give a little bit more credit to lightworking then I probably would). It is entirely possible to reach a sort of dark, selfish enlightenment (assuming you’re not like most people, who will never really polarize in either direction), a kind of individual sense of Godhood, or personal bliss, if you will. This polarizing concept is like a ring, and the two paths come together in enlightenment.

It shouldn't feel draining to love yourself, and it shouldn't feel negative to love yourself. I really don't believe one can truly love the world to it's fullest without first fully loving oneself to the fullest. Many have tried though.

Steve wasn’t saying that your being a darkworker was draining for you, he said it was draining for him!(lol) Being a darkworker is great for the person who’s actually doing it! And a side note: I certainly hope that Steve doesn’t think that your post are any more draining than mine are. I’d be jealous.

My point here is that what you’re saying is completely true. You said it yourself- “I really don't believe one can truly love the world to it's fullest without first fully loving oneself to the fullest.” And it’s the exact opposite of Steve’s lightworker path. Two directions leading to the same ends, this is the essence of Steve’s polarity concept.

Congratulations, you’re a darkworker! Enjoy.

[impaul99]

@Bruce: I found your post interesting and I now understand the subtle difference you mentioned between "draining" and "drawing me in". It's hard to explain, but I totally know what you mean. It's almost like I'm "leading", kind of like an attorney might "lead" a witness or a jury towards seeing things a certain way. I'll definitely give this distinction some thought.

@John Prophet: I went through like a month of discussions trying to figure out if I'm a "darkworker" or a "lightworker" when Steve first came out with the concepts and I have absolutely no problem admitting that I act like a darkworker sometimes and I am proud of it. I do also act like a lightworker sometimes and I am proud of that too.

In fact, I got so confused about the whole concept that after much discussions I realized that who I am doesn't fit into either of Steve's definitions but does fit into something just slightly different which I wrote about and illustrated on my old blog. You can find it here:

SelfWorkers, WorldWorkers and Polarizing with Love or Fear | Self Help Wisdom . com

I don't call the two paths "Lightworker" and "Darkworker". I call them SELFWorker and WORLDWorker. The big difference in my thinking is that the true path towards enlightenment is a balance of doing both SELFWorking and WORLDWorking, essentially expressing LOVE towards both.

In my diagrams, what Steve describes as a "Lightworker" I would classify as "WORLDWorker Syndrome" which I don't believe is healthy. I do not believe it is enlightening to only care about the world and not yourself, nor do I believe it is enlightening to only care about yourself and not the world.

The reason that I won't label myself a "Darkworker" under Steve's definition is because his "Darkworker" is my "SELFWorker Syndrome" and I don't suffer from that.

Under my definition, I believe that I am balanced between SELFWorker and WORLDWorker, although slightly more biased towards SELFWorker. I believe Steve is also balanced between the two paths although slightly biased towards WORLDWorking.

However, there is a BIG difference between being both with a "slight" bias and having "SELFWorker Syndrome" or "WORLDWorker Syndrome".

[Frans]

Steve, I'm very surprised to hear you say that in order to make money, you have to provide value to others.

How do you incorporate that thought in your subjective reality model?

[ZeHa]

Hey there,

I'm new and I thought that I might be able to share little examples with you that really show how important the "value" in your product/service/work is.



I know people who own a restaurant. They moved now, and of course took their business with them, and got into a restaurant that was formerly owned by someone, let's call him Hubert. Hubert had to give it up because it wasn't too lucrative for him. Well, but the one and only reason for this was simply the missing value!
The new owners have employed him as a waiter, and they're able to see the reasons for his failure every day. He's got a very different mindset compared to theirs. And it's fatal to have a mindset like Hubert if you want to make good business.

The first thing is that they're providing a better food. Okay, you could assume that Hubert was just bad at cooking, but the following happening will prove that it's just his "special kind" of providing value that led him to failure:
One day we were there, and there also were about eight guests from Japan, and they all ordered something with meat. A minute after the order had been taken, one of them asked if it would be possible to take a vegetarian meal instead, since he just decided that he doesn't want to have meat today. Hubert said something like "no, the order has already been taken, we can't change that now" and got into the kitchen. There, he told the boss "one of them wanted to have something without meat now, but I said it's not possible. Well, they're only tourists..."
The boss was totally upset about that and told him that it's no problem at all, and every customer is treated in the best way possible. Actually, he didn't even put the meat into the pan so far, so a "problem" of changing the order doesn't even exist. But even if it was already, would it matter? It's about your customers! So, of course, he told him to chang the order and give the customers what they wanted.
Now, before they were leaving, they directly ordered a table for the next day, too. And the tourist's guide said that he's doing regular visits to this town and he will of course remember the restaurant for the next times.

So that's a real benefit, or not? Treating your customers like you would like to be treated is providing value at its best. Now imagine what could have happened if the boss of the reastaurant had the same mind as Hubert... of course, you can't say that they would definitely not come there again, but it's more likely.

Some people just think that making business is easy and you can mess around with your customers. Some just think "the least bit will do, I don't have to be nice". But the word of mouth is very important, as you can see in that story. In fact, word of mouth has brought the restaurant loads of customers already, and they have just opened this summer. You just can't compare it to the way it was like in the old days, when Hubert was the boss

So, my thoughts about that are that you really have to provide value and just do the best you can, that way you'll find lots of people loving it. Don't assume that all your customers are just "stupid customers", "stupid tourists", or whatever. If you carry that attitude, it's no wonder that you'll only get a small percentage of customers that you might otherwise get. And some people really think they'll meet every customer only once. But it's easier to get money from your regular customers, and they're the ones who recommend your business to whoever might be interested.



Another thing that comes to my mind: I was in an online marketing forum once, and there was some guy who asked why his Google adsense isn't making money for him. His website... well... it was just a link collection to one specific topic. A totally anonymous thing, only a page filled with some links. Similar to those sites that appear when a domain doesn't exist anymore. Who would really bookmark something like that and come back? Whenever I see that, I just leave. It's also the mind of "hehehe, I don't want to do anything, I just want to receive money, well a few links should do for you, silly visitors..." -> basically the same thing as above.



And a third thing, since I'm in a writing mood at the moment I hate the following thing: Let's say, I go to a pizzeria, look at the card, order a pizza and ask "can I also have some pepperonis on this and extra cheese?" Now the waiter/waitress either says something like "I have to ask if that's possible" or something like "No, that's not possible, but you can take a Pizza XYZ, it might fit your wish"
WHY? They're making the pizza in house, don't they? Why can't they just put anything on it that I, the customer, want? Or do they use frozen pizzas from the supermarket?! That's really ridiculous and the perfect example for not caring about your customers, or better, not providing value.
My new favourite pizzeria has a different approach, they have a base price for the base pizza and only offer a list of additional ingredients in their card. This is explicitely the other way. And that's perfect. But I expect this way of being dynamic to your customer's wishes from all the other pizzerias, too! And if a pizzeria doesn't serve my needs, I'm sure that I won't show up there a second time.



And now for the final thing... it's also about restaurants I know a restaurant where my working colleagues randomly go to at lunch time. A few years back, they went there more frequently, almost every day. Here's why that changed: There was one of them who ordered a salad, and ate about the half of it, when she suddenly discovered some dead bug inside. Of course, she didn't want to eat it anymore - but the restaurant staff wanted that she paid half the price, because she also ate half of the salad. Now tell me, how stupid is this? If I was a restaurant owner, I'd say "dear lady, I'm so sorry, this won't happen again and you'll get a new big salad immediately. And, would you also like to have something to drink?" and certainly not something like "sorry 'bout the bug, but you have eaten the half of it, so you have to pay half of the price."
Well, my other colleagues were shocked by this kind of customer service and stopped going there. That should have been at least 5 - 10 lost customers. Regular customers.



I think these are all perfect examples for providing value being the key element in your business. You might still fail for other reasons, but you can't really succeed if you got a "lick my a$$" attitude towards your customers (of course, if you happen to become a big, big corporation, it's possible again, as we all can see in lots of cases ).

[Acting Like Godot]

I suppose there is some kind of correlation between money and value, but it is definitely not very clear-cut.

Suppose you had taken your USD at the start of 2007, converted them into EUR or AUD and placed them in a EUR or AUD account.

You'd be richer now than you would have been, if you had simply kept your USD in a USD account. It wouldn't be obvious to most people though, that you had provided any value to anyone.

(Actually, you have, but i shall not elaborate on that one).

[codefreeze]

Originally Posted by ZeHa

Hey there,

I'm new and I thought that I might be able to share little examples with you that really show how important the "value" in your product/service/work is.

I know people who own a restaurant.....

I really LOVED this post because it is so TRUE.

Restaurants are a good example. The business model is proven - it's not some radical new idea. Like a shop it just works. That is if you are "executing" correctly. With something like a restaurant, if it's failing, and there is not some external reason for that failure, it's usually because of poor execution. Poorly trained staff, poorly judged menu, failure of owners to set business vision and objectives, poor financial management, inflexibility, poor emphasis on hygiene...etc..etc..

These sorts of businesses are ripe for purchase and turn around...with the right execution they can become very profitable.

Yes, you are right - it IS about creating value and that requires hard work, smarts and a little luck (but yes, I agree with the earlier poster, you do create your own luck to a certain extent). I forget who said "the harder I work, the luckier I get" - there is a lot of truth in that.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Frans

Steve, I'm very surprised to hear you say that in order to make money, you have to provide value to others.

How do you incorporate that thought in your subjective reality model?

I don't believe that you have to provide value in order to make money. I used to be a thief, remember. As previously mentioned, this series is about career fulfillment. Please see comment #10.

To answer your question...

In the subjective reality model, creative and sharing value through your avatar is a natural consequence of being aligned with your deepest self. The creative energy flows outward as a manifestation, as an expression, of that self.

From the objective perspective, this takes the form of creating and sharing value with others and, if desired, being paid for it in some way.

From the subjective perspective, this alignment manifests as increased abundance in the physical world.

Since abundance-orientation is an aspect of fulfillment, I would say that one will never be fulfilled in one's career without being aligned with one's inner truth. If that alignment is present, it cannot help but manifest, which (objectively speaking) shows up as the sharing of value with others.

If I am fully aligned with my truest, deepest self, I can't help but express it because truth is itself creative.

Even an objective-minded scientist should be able to agree that as we deepen our understanding of truth, our creative expression (both in terms of the power to create and the actual creative process) increases massively. Hence all the cool inventions we have to play with.