Rise of the Lightworker (Blog)

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

To put it simply, darkworkers have a very Machiavellian approach; sometimes brutal, but always pragmatic.

Yes, Machiavellian is a word I often think of with respect to darkworkers.

[yossarian]

impaul - for myself I don't think fighting darkworkers is necessary at all. I do think the work to do is inside work, and I also think forgiving darkworkers is important work.

You are constantly taking extremely analytical approaches to this topic and it really doesn't and won't get you anywhere. You need to ease off the pure rational analysis and let some right-brained metaphor in there. Steve is throwing out metaphors and analogies that he thinks can be useful, and you are extending them to levels which I doubt he intended them to be taken too.

Every metaphor can be pushed too far and thereby made meaningless. If this concept could be described simply and logically and be 100% internally consistent, we wouldn't have to use metaphor.

[JeromeX]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Lightworkers can become quite powerful and achieve positions of influence over others. A good example is the Dalai Lama.

How do you feel about China’s decision to systematically wipe out the Tibetan culture?

Would you consider a CIA's puppet a lightworker?

Would you consider brutal feudal theocracy and slavery system a culture that should be maintained and worshipped?

Read this article before make shallow claim:

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

[Kingston]

This is a new direction for Steve's blogging. He has never before taken such a open stance on international politics, and framed it in his models of lightworking and consciousness. I knew he was Vegan and was not inspired by any political candidate, and he was critical of liers before. Now he has a clear stance, congratz for that! He will have government surveillance on his back pretty soon now

I think that someone is me.

[DanielBrenton]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I realize that some members just aren't aware of what it means to be a darkworker and find it preposterous that someone would choose this path intentionally. Your personal objections, however, do not prevent everyone from choosing that path.

Other people, however, are well aware that some on this planet have chosen the darkworker path intentionally, and committed darkworkers are not dissuaded by what others think of them. Ignorance is advantageous to them. Cancer cells do not advertise themselves as such.

Yes, that's exactly it. People who are darkness-centered don't give a rat's ass about those silly little things like laws, morals, and ethical considerations, and they hide their agenda because to do otherwise would undermine themselves. It seems clear to me Clinical Psychology has identified this kind of behavior -- what we are describing here fits closely with the definition of a Sociopath, which is someone who holds nothing sacred beyond his or her own interests.

Trying to make others aware of individuals who express these characteristics has, from my experience, been met with derision, because most ethical people are simply too naive -- or their world-view too narrow -- to accept the possibility that darkness-centered people exist, or the really successful darkness-centered individuals are very skilled at masking what they truly are.

[JeromeX]

What is personal development all about? Compassion or hatred? Perception or truth? Peace or conflict? Understanding or judgement? Deep or shallow? Inner-towards or out-towards? Trust or Conspiracy?

Steve, you are heading in the wrong direction. No offence, just disappointed.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by JeromeX

Steve, you are heading in the wrong direction. No offence, just disappointed.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that.

Oh wait... I do.

What is the wrong direction for a few people has always been the perfect/ideal direction for another group. In your case, feel free to assume I'm exercising my right to be wrong.

[Anna Conlan]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Other people, however, are well aware that some on this planet have chosen the darkworker path intentionally, and committed darkworkers are not dissuaded by what others think of them. Ignorance is advantageous to them. Cancer cells do not advertise themselves as such.

Despite the objections from the choir, cancer cells can and do arise in the body of humanity.

I agree.

Darkworker souls are very good at pretending to be Lightworkers. It makes them even more effective.

The best approach a Darkworker can take to steal your energy and create negativity in you is by making you think he’s just like you – a Lightworker.
The most effective Darkworkers are the ones who claim to be Lightworkers and claim to be against evil – just look at George Bush.

'I'm against evil, evil is everywhere, everyone had better panic and be scared but the government will try to protect you' - what a wonderful distraction. Darkworkers excel at creating fear in people because it gives them control.

And another reason Darkworkers can be so successful is because Lightworkers like to think the best of people. Unless they see it first hand, they just assume that everyone is aligned with positive energies, like they are.

And of course there are people who seem to be dealing in negative energies and who are in fact positive souls getting bogged down in negativity but doing the best they can.

If anyone’s interested in reading more about Darkworker souls, there are some good articles about this subject on Andrea Hess’s blog:

Empowered Soul Blog » Who are Negative Souls?

Empowered Soul Blog » What is Negative Energy?

[PrimaryErn]

The polarity challenge is to consciously decide whether or not to be a cancer cell. When you're ignorant of the decision, you end up taking many cancerous actions by default because you aren't aware of what you're doing.

So....by consciously choosing to be a darkworker, and being aware of what I'm doing, I won't be taking cancerous actions by default? I will be journeying down a path of enlightenment - albeit a different path then lightworkers?

That doesn't match the "kill the darkworkers" attitude I seem to get from the new polarity postings - and from the mob-response here about the evil darkworkers.

You say that you encourage people to be darkworkers because people have free will and a right to exercise it? That makes no sense to me.

Look - I know I must not be getting it and I don't seem to be getting a direct answer, so I'll ask more directly:

Put bluntly - in a previous post you said being a consciously-choosing-to-be-darkworker was a different path but still a path to enlightenment. That you encouraged people to follow the path - not that you encouraged people to 'exercise their free will even if it is a destrucitve choice'. You specifically said: "I also want to encourage those who choose to pursue the darkworker path because as long as they keep growing in awareness, all of us will ultimately benefit from it. "

Now you are saying being a darkworker is bad, and darkworkers are bad for society as a whole. And I don't see how you can reconcile those two beliefs.

So I guess my question would be:

Do you still encourage people to pursue the darkworker path, because as long as they follow that path and keep growing all of us will ultimately benefit?
and
What sort of ultimate benefits will humanity get that you envisioned in the original post?

For the mob of readers yelling for the death/cessation of darkworkers (and pinning the 'darkworker' label on every cause they personally dislike), if a darkworkers approached you, and you were about to...let's say 'convince' them to stop being a darkworker, and they said "but Steve said HE encouraged me to pursue this path because all of YOU" -and then he points at you - " would ultimately BENEFIT FROM IT", how would you respond? Would you still demand they cease being a darkworker?

I'm sorry - there's a logical inconsistancy here and it's like trying to digest a piece of metal - I'm choking on it and its not going down.

I truly wonder if its just terminology. The original definition of light and dark worker were more like "self- and other-worker". Now the definition is "self-which-leads-to-evil worker and others-which-leads-to-good worker". And everyone is like, "Ooohh, i want the second one, I'm a good guy!" Where originally it was "well, I'm not sure what path I should take. Hmm. Both lead to enlightenment, according to Steve, so maybe its just a question of commiting to a style and discipline, since neither path is evil".

[Fullcrum]

Interesting Steve...has learning about American politics made you more aware of things going on in the world?

[PrimaryErn]

And this one - am I the only who remembers:

Some religious teachings embrace the lightworker path while shunning the darkworker path, which at the very least is incredibly misguided. That approach only lowers our awareness. Labeling parts of ourselves as bad or evil isn’t helpful. In every one of us, there is the potential for both polarities. What we label “evil” is merely a temporary condition while we’re growing through the experience of duality, and when we resist that phase, we merely prolong it. However, if we can commit to one of these paths and take it far enough, accepting even the seemingly negative experiences as they come, we eventually reach the other side where both paths converge.

this doesn't sound like the path of a cancer cell, vampire, etc.

[Anna Conlan]

Originally Posted by impaul99

So the point of "lightworkers" rising up and forming a gang is to go out and wipe out the "darkworker" gang that's been rising up? Meanwhile the "normal" people that are undecided in the middle go on about their lives unaware of what's going on?

Sounds like an "X-Men" movie to me. Do the lightworkers get cool constumes to wear with like a big L on the front of their chest?

If you’re someone who understands how negative energy operates, you’re never going to advocate “fighting” negative energy or Darkworkers.

When you’re focusing on something, whether it’s something you want or something you don’t want, you’re adding to its power – energy flows where attention goes (as I think they put it in the Secret)

It’s more constructive to acknowledge that negative energy exists in the world and to understand how it works – it has no power source except you. That way, you can choose not to engage with it if you come across it and not add to its power.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by DanielBrenton

Yes, that's exactly it. People who are darkness-centered don't give a rat's ass about those silly little things like laws, morals, and ethical considerations, and they hide their agenda because to do otherwise would undermine themselves. It seems clear to me Clinical Psychology has identified this kind of behavior -- what we are describing here fits closely with the definition of a Sociopath, which is someone who holds nothing sacred beyond his or her own interests.

Trying to make others aware of individuals who express these characteristics has, from my experience, been met with derision, because most ethical people are simply too naive -- or their world-view too narrow -- to accept the possibility that darkness-centered people exist, or the really successful darkness-centered individuals are very skilled at masking what they truly are.

Sociopaths and darkworkers don't have so much in common.

For starters, sociopaths don't measure the consequences of their acts, leading them to do things by sheer impulse. A DW would never do that, DWs calculate their actions beforehand and analyze the possible good and bad consequences and then decide if doing whatever they're planning to do is worth it or not.

Sociopaths can't control themselves and even the lesser provocation could send them into a rage attack, losing their reason.


Sociopaths are the ones who are the more prone to murder; a DW would almost never do that, only under some special circumstances. He realizes that the chances of there being negative outcomes are just too big for him to take the risk, and there is also the risk that he may feel guilty about it later. DWs do have feelings too, just so you know it; although to a lesser extent, and they can control it very well.



There are also many other striking differences between DWs and sociopaths, but i think you get the picture. The main difference between both is that DWs are healthy mentally (their brains, anatomically, are no different than, say, a lightworker's brain), they just chose to have different moral values, while sociopaths didn't choose anything; they were mostly born with some brain problems (the environment also helps of course, but sociopaths do have genetic predispositions to become that).

[BrnLng]

I think this post was about dark/light-work syndrome, maybe?

For myself, I do care about namings and conventions as they benefit my though-patterns and make them clear to understand and modify.

[DanielBrenton]

Originally Posted by Sam988

Sociopaths and darkworkers don't have so much in common.

For starters, sociopaths don't measure the consequences of their acts, leading them to do things by sheer impulse. A DW would never do that, DWs calculate their actions beforehand and analyze the possible good and bad consequences and then decide if doing whatever they're planning to do is worth it or not.

I will concede that the psychiatric community has outpaced the definition I used for a sociopath.

The term is now "Antisocial Personality Disorder" and I've linked here to the definition of that on MedTerms.com. This is a very different thing than a DarkWorker, as I'm understanding it.

And I will concede that the term "sociopath" is a loaded one emotionally.

I suspect that many of those who suffer from Antisocial Personality Disorder do in fact understand the ramifications of their actions. Their objective is naturally what benefit they derive from it. Having been victimized by one such individual, I will tell you this is true.

To go back to the definition, "someone who holds nothing sacred beyond his or her own interests," this still fits what's being called a "DarkWorker."

I don't think it take a lot of imagination to understand that at least in portions of a DarkWorker's evolution, ethical structures are actually obstacles to their ends.

I don't have a lot of respect for that, and I'm entitled to be wrong.

(If Steve had a nickel for every time I've been told I'm going in the wrong direction, he'd be twice as rich.)

[John Prophet]

I don't think it take a lot of imagination to understand that at least in portions of a DarkWorker's evolution, ethical structures are actually obstacles to their ends.

I think that a lot of people get too hung up on this idea of morality and ethics (keeping in mind that these are ultimately subjective concepts anyway). Individuals, who are too concerned with right and wrong, often fail to see that there is a big difference between immorality and amorality. They seem to think that being “good” is all that matters and that not being good = being bad. In my mind, right and wrong are abstract concepts, created by human idealists and all that really matters is doing what works (keeping in mind that anything which is ultimately self destructive, doesn’t work).

My motto is “practicality over principle”. If you live by this, than you should be OK regardless of what “evil” you might do. Of course, if Steve’s Metaphor about the body and cells is true, that that would mean that my standards of practicality might be flawed. This leads to a whole other set of debatable issues; but it is a debate about what is practical and should not be concerned with what is ethical or moral.


There is no sin except stupidity
- Oscar Wilde

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by Anna Conlan

If you’re someone who understands how negative energy operates, you’re never going to advocate “fighting” negative energy or Darkworkers.

When you’re focusing on something, whether it’s something you want or something you don’t want, you’re adding to its power – energy flows where attention goes (as I think they put it in the Secret)

It’s more constructive to acknowledge that negative energy exists in the world and to understand how it works – it has no power source except you. That way, you can choose not to engage with it if you come across it and not add to its power.

Absolutely. I agree.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by yossarian

impaul - for myself I don't think fighting darkworkers is necessary at all. I do think the work to do is inside work, and I also think forgiving darkworkers is important work.

I agree. I don't thinking fighting anyone is the answer. I believe the only "competition" or "fighting" that's really important is between yourself and your ego.

You are constantly taking extremely analytical approaches to this topic and it really doesn't and won't get you anywhere. You need to ease off the pure rational analysis and let some right-brained metaphor in there. Steve is throwing out metaphors and analogies that he thinks can be useful, and you are extending them to levels which I doubt he intended them to be taken too.

You're probably right and I'm just trying to understand what Steve is trying to communicate. I have a lot of respect for Steve and most of what he talks about makes total sense to me, but when it comes to all this Darkworker / Lightworker "stuff" it's like he totally loses me.

Not because I don't understand the words that he is saying or the metaphors that he's presenting, but because this whole Lightworker/Darkworker thing seems totally inconsistent with everything he's said up until now.

It's kind of like if Deepak Chopra and Eckhart Tolle all of a sudden decided to work together with Donald Trump to build the worlds largest Casino in Vegas. I have a lot of respect for Chopra and Tolle, but if they made that move it would seem out of character for me. It would be ok for Trump to open a casino, as that's his thing.

Anyway, whatever... maybe I should just listen to a spiritual coach of mine and ignore Steve's Darkworker / Lightworker thing.




Every metaphor can be pushed too far and thereby made meaningless. If this concept could be described simply and logically and be 100% internally consistent, we wouldn't have to use metaphor.[/quote]

[JeromeX]

Wow, seems I need to see a psychiatrist to help me to figure out this darkworker and lightworker thing.

Here is another nagative energy that will make your positive energy stronger:

Tell me why?

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

I think that a lot of people get too hung up on this idea of morality and ethics (keeping in mind that these are ultimately subjective concepts anyway). Individuals, who are too concerned with right and wrong, often fail to see that there is a big difference between immorality and amorality. They seem to think that being “good” is all that matters and that not being good = being bad. In my mind, right and wrong are abstract concepts, created by human idealists and all that really matters is doing what works (keeping in mind that anything which is ultimately self destructive, doesn’t work).

My motto is “practicality over principle”. If you live by this, than you should be OK regardless of what “evil” you might do. Of course, if Steve’s Metaphor about the body and cells is true, that that would mean that my standards of practicality might be flawed. This leads to a whole other set of debatable issues; but it is a debate about what is practical and should not be concerned with what is ethical or moral.

"Morality" is not merely a word, nor is "evil", ok? Call these concepts "sh*t" if you want, but it looks like you and some others are just trying to convince yourselves there is no such thing as wrong or evil in order to justify what you want and how you want to get it and for some reason you are in denial about how it really is and don't just want to say it like it is, however that may be.

The fact of the matter is, as an example, if you lie to someone who you know loves you and you use and take advantage of their love to tell some lie and play on their compassion in order that they will give you money, or if you continuously make your girlfriend or wife believe that you love her, while all the while you are screwing someone else, or maybe you are doing it with your best friend's wife (the sky is the limit), you can refrain from labeling that act if you want, but figure out that not labeling it doesn't change what you've done to others or make it right.

It is what it is and what determines that it is WRONG is that it HURTS other people--it doesn't hurt you, but it hurts everyone else! That is why we got these words "evil" and "right and wrong" and "morality". A rose smells just as sweet by any other name, and immoral behavior still hurts whether you decide to label it or not! You can't take away the word and think that that will take away the nasty reality and consequences of your acts and that you never do anything wrong. Words and labels don't matter! It bloody hurts someone else and that is all the matters.

And morality is not subjective either. For example, there are laws in all countries dictating certain moral behaviors and most crimes are similar in all countries. It is universal knowledge among humans that you hurt your spouse and you betray their trust when you sleep with someone else and that is wrong. In fact, most of the morality a person possesses probably comes from them being able to think and feel and put themselves in the position of others and say "God, I would hate if someone did that to me, so I'm not going to do that to anyone else."

The saying used to be "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but people, thinking they were witty and clever, began to replace it with "Do unto others before they do unto you."