Rise of the Lightworker (Blog)

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Do you know any darkworkers? I don't believe the existence of darkworkers, assuming there are any, is an issue worth giving much thought. I'm worried all this darkworker talk borders on doomsday conspiracy garbage. There might be a few unpleasant, powerful people who are effective manipulators but they can't get away with anything truly heinous without revealing themselves as such. No need for a lightworker defense league in other words.

I think you're not getting what's the definition of a real darkworker. DWs aren't the "evil masterminds planning on ending the world", they're just self oriented people that don't give much of a damn about others, unless what happens to others affects them in some way.

[seeker5]

Jeez Steve, I finally got around to reading your blog post. I thought I was going to feel revolted by your treatment of darkworkers from what I had read here in this thread, but instead, it's making me want to be a lightworker. I'd so love to be a lightworker to help out.

The idea of being a lightworker to help the country appeals to me much more then the idea of being a lightworker simply to live a better life.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by PrimaryErn

if in order to do service it has to be something you want to do anyway, or feel is right, I'd question how much is service and how much is just you gratifying your own sense of ego/accomplishment.

Not that I have anything against that, at all - but making it something its not (i.e. pure selflessness) - isn't entirely correct.

If someone needs you to do something and its something you personally dislike, but you do it, that's definitely not selfish (unless you are doing it for other reasons, like gonig to heaven).

I could argue, based on the quote above, that a lot of darkworkers are engaging in proper service because they are engaging in service that benefits others but that aligns with their own self. My losing weight benefits others (I'm eating less food; taking up less space;costing less to the shared health system). If I do it out of 'darkworker' reasons (because I want to be hot and get sex) that's selfish; if I do it out of 'lightworker' reasons (because I want to consume less, want to cost less to the system) but I am actually motivated by an agenda (want to feel good that I'm doing the right thing for ther planet; want to think I'm improving the lives of others which makes me feel good) then I'm doing it for just as selfish a reason - to make me feel good aboout myself. The end result is the same to the collective, and both are selfish.



Wow -so if someone desperately needed to die for a reason that was very important TO THEM but not important enough TO YOU - you wouldn't do it?

Very selfish, you darkworker!

You're not really listening to what I'm saying. I get the feeling you're hearing what you want to hear.

I suppose I'll point out exactly what I mean:

I could argue, based on the quote above, that a lot of darkworkers are engaging in proper service because they are engaging in service that benefits others but that aligns with their own self.

No, you couldn't argue that. Because "based on the quote above" you have to intend to serve the exact wants and needs of a person.

My losing weight benefits others

But they didn't ask for you to lose weight for them, nor did you intend to serve them by losing weight.

Therefore, it's not my conception of service-to-others.

Wow -so if someone desperately needed to die for a reason that was very important TO THEM but not important enough TO YOU - you wouldn't do it?

Like I said in my post that you apparently didn't read - abstaining from service isn't selfish.

You can disagree with my definition if you want, and I won't argue with that, but so far you haven't done that, you've just made a very feeble attempt at finding a logical inconsistency.

[PrimaryErn]

Just because I disagree with your point of view, doesn't mean that I'm choosing to be deaf to your point or that I didn't read your post. You assume that your point or argument is so perfect that anybody who takes the time to read it or think about it would have to agree (which I think is a rule about internet debating someplace). I thought about it, and I don't agree with it due to what I think are logical consistancy factors. Saying I'm choosing to be deaf or not reading is a very slight passive-agressive ad-hominem sort of response, and unworthy of this place. Feeble - I thought we were all just discussing what we read? Wow, someone's defensive! But, just in case it wasn't, you can rest assured I both read it and carefully thought about (the way I did about the original blog entry) and still came to my conclusions.

Anyway: your definition of service seems narrowly defined enough that yeah, if you believe it exactly as you wrote it, it works out well with the whole x-worker conceit. Service is very specific to the needs and wants of the other; service is only doing what you resonate with.

Of course needs is subjective, not objective - someone may really want to die, and may give some very tangible arguments why they NEED to die. Maybe they are terminally ill and in pain; maybe they want to spare loved ones a long and costly hospital stay for no good reason. And of course you may not agree with the needs or wants, but that doesn't make them any less real to the other person.

As for abstaining from service isn't selfish - that all depends on the reason for abstention, doesn't it? You've defined service as something that resonates with you, so you've side stepped the issue of whether or not people should be called to do those things they don't want to. If service A resonates with you and service B doesn't, but both are things people want and need, and you choose to not do B, that is a selfish act. You are not doing something because of a concern of SELF. How else can you possibly define a selfish act? It's an act someone does out of self-based reasons.

As for the x-worker angle, I fail to see what's the difference if two x-workers engage in actions that benefit the collective in some fashion, but x-worker #1 does it for selfish reason "I want to benefit myself" and x-worker #2 does it for "I want to benefit others". Just because someone didn't ask #1 for it nor #1 did it to intend to serve people, the fact remains that the benefits have happened; sometimes the exact same benefits as x-worker #2. In fact, that's what (bear with me now) I think Steve was talking about when he said that both paths ultimately lead to the same place. Maybe?

Anyway, I can't beat this horse any more so I'll let you others get the last word in. Hopefuly a new blog post will clear up my muddled thinking. I still can't reconcile the post and the previous ones about "love of evil" and so forth. Well, I can, if I assume that the darkworker in the new post got an evil-redesign and isn't the one from the older posts.

I hope Steve takes my questions in the proper light - I love the blog and think it's very useful and recommend it to folks - hell I even donated once. I just don't understand this last bit, yet, Sensei. I suppose it's because I loved the concept of darkworker 1.0 and was actually polarizing towards that to address some self-issues, and now I find that darkworker 2.0 says I'm an evil hitlerean vampire. Ouch.

[impaul99]

I STILL think all the confusion arises from the fact that Steve is equating two completely different things into one thing.

I like to look at things a bit differently. Here's how I look at the formula.

There are two directions that energy flows:
(1) Towards the WORLD.
(2) Towards the SELF.

Then, there are also two TYPES of energy that flows:
(A) Love Energy.
(B) Fear Energy.

From my point of view a LIGHTWORKER is someone who does 1A and/or 2A, meaning they express LOVE Energy towards the World or towards the SELF or BOTH.

From my point of view a DARKWORKER is someone who does 1B and/or 2B, meaning they express FEAR Energy towards the World or towards the SELF or BOTH.

From Steve's point of view, however, the only possibilites are 1A (Lightworker) and 2B (Darkworker). Meaning, if you're focusing on yourself, that MUST mean that you're automatically living out of fear energy.

From my point of view, the true path is to love yourself and the world.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by impaul99

From my point of view, the true path is to love yourself and the world.

Good for you





I don't completely agree with either steve or you. I'm more inclined to steve's concept, but i disagree with a few points there too. I'll explain it more some other time when i can.

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by PrimaryErn

If service A resonates with you and service B doesn't, but both are things people want and need, and you choose to not do B, that is a selfish act. You are not doing something because of a concern of SELF. How else can you possibly define a selfish act? It's an act someone does out of self-based reasons.

Not true. You can't know why "I" might refuse to do service B. If I suck at service B and I might end up damaging someone if I try to do it, I won't do it. Doesn't doing a service that "resonates with you" mean that you have a special talent for it? And in such a case, you would only perform services that you can do well and decline to do services that you suck at and let others who have a talent for those do those.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by PrimaryErn

if in order to do service it has to be something you want to do anyway, or feel is right, I'd question how much is service and how much is just you gratifying your own sense of ego/accomplishment.

Not that I have anything against that, at all - but making it something its not (i.e. pure selflessness) - isn't entirely correct.

If someone needs you to do something and its something you personally dislike, but you do it, that's definitely not selfish (unless you are doing it for other reasons, like gonig to heaven).

This reminds me of what I've heard of people following religions as the "outer path". They belong to some sort of belief system that they think as long as they follow the rules (even when they don't even understand why they follow them) then when they die they get into heaven. The true path is an inner path that connects one to heaven right now. And it may not be entirely a path of complete helpful actions to everybody. That is like tough love or real love is not a door mat kind of thing. Also I think there is too much focus on the outside world of trying to fix things when if we could be put back in touch with nature we'd naturally know what's best.

Most of the too much darkworker stuff in the world is just from being out of touch with nature and thinking we are separate from nature and smarter and can control it, instead of feeling connected and letting nature take it's coarse and letting it provide for us.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Sam988

I think you're not getting what's the definition of a real darkworker. DWs aren't the "evil masterminds planning on ending the world", they're just self oriented people that don't give much of a damn about others, unless what happens to others affects them in some way.

Darkworkers and unconscious and go about thinking nothing is connected. If they are affected by others then that is letting the connection in - which is what ultimate darkworkers won't have any of. They go about being separate, trying hard to pretend there are no connections to them.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by PrimaryErn

As for the x-worker angle, I fail to see what's the difference if two x-workers engage in actions that benefit the collective in some fashion, but x-worker #1 does it for selfish reason "I want to benefit myself" and x-worker #2 does it for "I want to benefit others". Just because someone didn't ask #1 for it nor #1 did it to intend to serve people, the fact remains that the benefits have happened; sometimes the exact same benefits as x-worker #2. In fact, that's what (bear with me now) I think Steve was talking about when he said that both paths ultimately lead to the same place. Maybe?

Anyway, I can't beat this horse any more so I'll let you others get the last word in. Hopefuly a new blog post will clear up my muddled thinking. I still can't reconcile the post and the previous ones about "love of evil" and so forth. Well, I can, if I assume that the darkworker in the new post got an evil-redesign and isn't the one from the older posts.

Your thinking is clear. The idea of doing something as service to other or for yourself is not just one or the other. Everyone is trying to fit into what Steve says, which, imho, is not how it is. A lightworker of a fully awakened being will be in line with the will of the divine and find motivation that feels like something the individual wants to to, really wants, and it just so happens to benefit others greatly. It's a matter of bring your spirit into your individuality and having the light shine through you. It's not about trying to figure out if you are motivated to better yourself or to better others - because that distinction does not exists for someone that's awakened. There is no sense of self that is exclusive. It used to be before modern society gave us money and cell phones and email, that the sense of self included the whole village. If someone in the village was sick they didn't think, oh that's ok because I'm not sick - they just didn't think that way. They were ligthworkers because their sense of self was not exclusive.

I hope Steve takes my questions in the proper light - I love the blog and think it's very useful and recommend it to folks - hell I even donated once. I just don't understand this last bit, yet, Sensei. I suppose it's because I loved the concept of darkworker 1.0 and was actually polarizing towards that to address some self-issues, and now I find that darkworker 2.0 says I'm an evil hitlerean vampire. Ouch.

There's other ways to look at it that make more sense to me. darkworkers are part of lightworkers. It's not a balancing act swinging from one to the other. a darkworker is the seed for lightworkers. This is the same conclusions I had the other time. It you don't take care of yourself you can't give. a darkworker just is learning to give at the level of what they think the self is. Once the concept of self becomes more aware the giving happen to the old small self and others naturally. No need to figure out if the service is to self or others because at that level it's all Self.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I STILL think all the confusion arises from the fact that Steve is equating two completely different things into one thing.

I like to look at things a bit differently. Here's how I look at the formula.

There are two directions that energy flows:
(1) Towards the WORLD.
(2) Towards the SELF.

Then, there are also two TYPES of energy that flows:
(A) Love Energy.
(B) Fear Energy.

deja vu, ha? were you the one that made fancy charts after steve's 1.0 version of polarity and light/darkworkers?

I would debate that love energy does not have a direction, it spreads out and benefits the giver and the receiver - however the concept of a giver and receiver is gone too with love.

Fear energy makes the self show up. Thats the energy that creates the feeling of being separate. Of if one fells separate then there is fear and the need to horde and not give or make gifts.

From my point of view a LIGHTWORKER is someone who does 1A and/or 2A, meaning they express LOVE Energy towards the World or towards the SELF or BOTH.

love does not know bounds.

From my point of view a DARKWORKER is someone who does 1B and/or 2B, meaning they express FEAR Energy towards the World or towards the SELF or BOTH.

fear generates us/them and even if the act looks like it's towards the world it is out of the sense of the world being "other" than self.

From Steve's point of view, however, the only possibilites are 1A (Lightworker) and 2B (Darkworker). Meaning, if you're focusing on yourself, that MUST mean that you're automatically living out of fear energy.

fear creates the little self - but also service to the self that is part of that fear may actually continue when the sense of self is expanded to include others. the fear goes away but the giving to what was the old self that is necessary will continue. or you won't sustain your being. the seed of the darkworker will remain when one becomes a lightworker. the seed is not fear, it is sense of self. however the sense of a little self is generated by fear and that begets separation. oh, maybe I don't know...

From my point of view, the true path is to love yourself and the world.

loving yourself is part of what a darkworker does, but to do it without fear and without concern that you have to be sure to give service outwards too is the flip out of the fear and into an expanded sense of self that then makes it easier to not have to think of all these complicated definitions of what service to so and so is going to help or not.

Once you love yourself as the world there is no need for all this defining of giving to self or to others.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by PrimaryErn

Just because I disagree with your point of view, doesn't mean that I'm choosing to be deaf to your point or that I didn't read your post. You assume that your point or argument is so perfect that anybody who takes the time to read it or think about it would have to agree (which I think is a rule about internet debating someplace). I thought about it, and I don't agree with it due to what I think are logical consistancy factors.

If you think my definitions are flawed I completely understand - I'm not surprised that different people have different definitions.

But the logical inconsistencies you brought up in your post don't really apply to my definitions.

Are my definitions tailor-made to be a cop out, and not true or valid, perhaps just simply wrong? Very possible.

Are my definitions logically inconsistent in the way you stated? No.. they have caveats and catches and clauses :P Maybe this makes them wrong but it doesn't make them inconsistent with each other.

I don't have any beef here, I'm just being honest.

I appreciate that you're willing to take the time to read my stuff and reply, it helps me to think through my own ideas.

[wolfgang]

I found a writing that uses the cell analogy that is cool!

Perhaps what we are seeing on Planet Earth is not a disease but a metamorphisis. Humanity is poised at the edge of a phase-shift that will transform us from a bunch of competing separate beings into a multicellular meta-organism. The requisite communication media, analogous to a body’s hormonal and electromagnetic systems, are almost fully in place. The crises that are converging in our lifetimes signify a pupation, a transformation of the Gaian body. Perhaps instead of a tumor, what we are seeing is the growth of a new organ, an organ whose emergence was prefigured in ancient DNA and waited billions of years until the time was ripe. To grow this new organ indeed demands every resource of the Gaian body; perhaps there is a danger indeed that the metamorphisis will fail, that the new organ will turn cancerous, that it will kill the host or be eliminated by the immune system until the time is ripe again.

from: The Multicellular Metahuman

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by impaul99

I hear'ya man, and I agree....

Are you a lightworker? Have you heard the call of the lightworker? Maybe it's time for you to polarize. If you haven't heard the call, keep doing what you're doing until you hear the call."

I'd say I'm a mixture of Lightworker and Darkworker and its my theory that all sinning humans are a mixture. Some have more light and some have more dark.

Who among us don't occasionally act out of fear, greed, etc ?

In a previous post Steve made about Lightworkers versus Darkworkers he stated that less than 1% of the people are truly Lightworkers or Darkworkers but that by polarizing to one that you could utilize that power for your success. He contended that by being shades of gray like the masses that it is harder to get the full affect of polarization.

Now with this blog he is speaking as if he is a Lightworker. Its my contention that he is mostly Light but sometimes takes Dark actions.

His argument back was that his ultimate intentions were Light and then proceeded justifying self benefitting moves as being for the greater good and therefor serving the Light....Under that condition it is so easy to become and maintain the title of Lightworker...

Its my contention that you can generally be a Lightworker or Darkworker but that ultimately its your independent action that is judgable. People are also dynamic and will slide their scale of what is right and wrong based upon the situation. What people are willing to do is often based upon the situation. Take a self proclaimed Lightworker and give them a decision based upon right and wrong or based upon fear or love ; then put the right amount of pain or reward and watch those principles bend. Pose a question to a Lightworker that if they could save the life of their spouse but would have to push a button to kill 1,000 people in another country and see which button they push. View Maslow's heiarchy of needs and notice that this upper level of Self Actuatualization is on a sliding up and down scale and not special for those proclaiming to be a Lightworker.

I called this subject "crap" and a waste of Steve's brainpower based upon my disagreement with the label of Light or Dark. Now seeing that we are page 6 and that there is evidence that people do care about this subject. Now if Steve is operating out of Fear/Greed he will keep discussing it because its profitable even if the the ultimate value has already been delivered to his viewers. If he is make a decision based upon Love/Giving he will realize that moving on to a new and enlighting subject will serve the greater good.... LOL I'm just joking here but you get the point; Steve is mainly Lovebased and a Lightworker but individual decisions can be Dark based when self contained and analyzed.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

If we can summarize people as being above 80% love based actions or put some quantitative number to it then I'll conceed but to simply state that someone IS a Lightworker all the time is simply not possible.

Maybe it's like tough love. A lightworker "knows" somehow what the divine plan is and is able to follow through. But that may not mean always doing what looks "right" to everybody but it is what Life wanted from the individual.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

A lightworker "knows" somehow what the divine plan is and is able to follow through. But that may not mean always doing what looks "right" to everybody but it is what Life wanted from the individual.

Yes if the person proclaiming to be a Lightworker chose a Love based solution rather than a fear based solution at the specific decision making event....

By giving the label Lightworker then each decision can be twisted to somehow inadvertinently be for the greater good. It may not even look "right" or maybe even "be right" but as long as the labeled Lightworker is doing it then its OK...

See where I'm going with my point...

[John Prophet]

By giving the label Lightworker then each decision can be twisted to somehow inadvertinently be for the greater good. It may not even look "right" or maybe even "be right" but as long as the labeled Lightworker is doing it then its OK...

You’re right, but for a darkworker there’s no need for such self justification. You don’t have any of the morale hypocrisy that you (could) find when dealing with some lightworkers, because a darkworker makes no claims of trying to be “good” anyway. No conflict between what’s best for self and what’s best for others. I find this to be a much more simplistic and pragmatic view.

[Ron Stoppable]

Originally Posted by yossarian

because killing people is not a service I'm willing to give

Originally Posted by PrimaryErn

Wow -so if someone desperately needed to die for a reason that was very important TO THEM but not important enough TO YOU - you wouldn't do it?

Very selfish, you darkworker!

You're seeing it as:
darkwork = for you | lightwork = for someone else.

Imagine the paradigm as:
darkwork = for one/few individual(s) | lightwork = for greatest good of all

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by John Prophet

You’re right, but for a darkworker there’s no need for such self justification. You don’t have any of the morale hypocrisy that you (could) find when dealing with some lightworkers, because a darkworker makes no claims of trying to be “good” anyway. No conflict between what’s best for self and what’s best for others. I find this to be a much more simplistic and pragmatic view.

Since you are agreeing with me I should keep quiet but....

Most fear based, darker shades of gray people wouldn't label themselves as a Darkworker. So therefore most darker gray people would also have morale hypocrisy in most cases.

If you were what we're calling a Darkworker, it would be in your interest to appear to be a Lightworker and then hide your secret and devious intentions. True fear based people also fear reprisal and fear non acceptance.

Its hard for me to discuss this subject when the very foundation of labels is what I disagree with.