Are Darkworkers Evil? (Blog)

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

Really Steve? I have consciously committed to become a lightworker, and I'm working on myself a lot in order to go this path, but I totally don't feel like one yet. There are so many issues I need to work out first, and so much fear still inside of me. I'm still harming others because of that and I don't contribute much either. Of course I try to make every one of my decisions out of love - but sometimes I think I have made a decision out of love, and when I look a bit more closely at it, I realize it was in fact out of some hidden fear I'm just not ready.

this how these ideas feel like judgments. "it's ok to not be polarized but you won't be motivated properly to be very effective" - is this a motivation or subtle elitism?

Why not instead of trying to figure out what polarity to choose, focus your awareness on whatever level of sense of self you have? if that's with your personal self - then so be it and apply love to that level and disregard the rest until you have yourself situated so you can give outside of current definition of self. Then take what you did with yourself and extend that love to a larger sphere by looking into realizing the oneness of larger spheres of sense of self.

if a DW is focused on what is good for his/her own self - then what's a LW other than someone that's doing the same thing but with a sense of self at gaia level?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Polarity comes from consciously choosing one path or the other, not from your position along either path.

Imagine the flow of electricity through a wire. Which way is the current flowing? In non-polarized people, there's no consistency, so there's virtually no current.

Polarizing brings more decisions to conscious awareness -- you begin to ask, "Which option aligns with my polarity?" This makes it possible to align more of those decisions in a consistent direction (the direction of choice), such that a strong current begins to build.

Before polarizing, people invariably make lots of decisions that cancel each other out. As soon as they start building some momentum, they turn around and erase it. They try to be selfish, but as soon as it starts working, they hold back. They try to be giving, but as soon as that starts working, they pull back again. They live like yo-yos, thinking that balance between the extremes is the correct choice. It isn't. Balance means no current.

Although I have a problem with the labels of Lightworker and Darkworker what you are saying about aligning polarity is sooo true.

This yo-yo behavior really does keep most people from succeeding.

I can see a lot of people knocking your recent posts. Even if you never created another post in your entire life you have already created so much value. I think that we all go through phases in our lives....

The problem that most people have with LW and DW is that its hard to keep the context while discussing the subject. The context of intent versus life course versus specific action... With the intensity that people are for or against the concept you have to know that you are on to something...

I think you are brave and I admire your courage and your ability to deal with the spotlight.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

...The problem that most people have with LW and DW is that its hard to keep the context while discussing the subject. The context of intent versus life course versus specific action... With the intensity that people are for or against the concept you have to know that you are on to something...

I think you are brave and I admire your courage and your ability to deal with the spotlight.

Exactly. The mere fact that people are polarizing over these articles is:

A. Really ironic since polarization is what the articles are about
B. Definitely signifying that Steve has hit a general nerve here, something people need to sort out within themselves.

And I agree with you, Still Growing. I admire his courage too.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Although I have a problem with the labels of Lightworker and Darkworker what you are saying about aligning polarity is sooo true.

This yo-yo behavior really does keep most people from succeeding.

I can see a lot of people knocking your recent posts. Even if you never created another post in your entire life you have already created so much value. I think that we all go through phases in our lives....

The problem that most people have with LW and DW is that its hard to keep the context while discussing the subject. The context of intent versus life course versus specific action... With the intensity that people are for or against the concept you have to know that you are on to something...

intent versus life course versus action?

I'm not sure if I'm for or against the concept except for not being able to fit the ideas together well. something about it seems to not make sense or condradict it's own definition. Especially with the idea that a DW is growing consciously by focusing on the personal self in exclusion of other people/beings. I have thought growing consciously means being able to care about other people/beings. Now maybe DW gets you ahead in life with the societal metrics of aquiering wealth or conquering without really providing, then that's different than having conscious connected to others actions.

If a DW does self gain stuff and is not noticing the planet getting ruined, that is being unconscious about it. If they grow consciously, they see the planet getting ruined and realize they won't be able to even have a place to live if the planet dies. So the DW stops trashing the planet to be able to keep doing self gain stuff. But to save the planet they have to stop doing self gain stuff (hording,poluting,conquering). Now what? The DW is not able to act like a DW because of the growth in consciousness (the realization of self gain causing planet death). Or did the DW turn into a LW? I say,the DW turned into a LW by becoming more conscious. The DW had to care about others and the planet to try to continue ruining it for self gain - but that change also makes the DW care about others - woops not a DW thing at all.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Before polarizing, people invariably make lots of decisions that cancel each other out. As soon as they start building some momentum, they turn around and erase it. They try to be selfish, but as soon as it starts working, they hold back. They try to be giving, but as soon as that starts working, they pull back again. They live like yo-yos, thinking that balance between the extremes is the correct choice. It isn't. Balance means no current.

What's an example decision that is better to make if polarized?

What is a decision that would "cancel" each other out be?

And this yo-yo of giving but then pulling back? What's an example? Like ok I'll cook diner for everybody - oh no that's too much giving. I'll just cook for myself. Is that something that would allways be one or the other if polarized?

DW - I'll always just cook enough for me.
LW - I'll always cook for everybody.

Oh my, what a can of worms. people will say - the DW would cook for everybody out of wanting something from them. so then how does sticking with DW help this decicsion? The DW would have to figure out to cook for self or also for others, and filter that through whats' in it for me.

[MasterD]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

DW - I'll always just cook enough for me.
LW - I'll always cook for everybody.

That's not necessarily the case.

DW - I'll cook enough for everybody, so that on other days people will cook for me too.
LW - I'll cook enough for everybody, because I like to give. [In the process, it turns out that other people will cook for the LW too]

I think that's what Steve means by the fact that it leads eventually to the same path.

[Keith]

IMO, the idea of polarisation makes sense - if you choose to focus all your energies on one target, of course you'll be vastly more effective than if you dither back and forth.

However, the idea that there's only two ways to polarise - lightworking or darkworking - seems unnecessarily limiting (see Steve's podcast on finding third alternative options).

It seems to me that 'sending energy out to help others' and 'drawing energy in to help yourself' are only two possible high level goals that you could have. What if my polarisation is towards creating great art? Say I want this not for my own benefit or to benefit others, but for it's own sake.

Alternately, what if my polarisation is towards making the world safe so I and everyone else can live in peace? Doesn't that make lightworking/darkworking congruent?

Steve's posts on living congruently make a lot of sense to me. The idea that it's necessary to polarise in a non-congruent way to be effective seems inelegant to me.

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by Keith

IMO, the idea of polarisation makes sense - if you choose to focus all your energies on one target, of course you'll be vastly more effective than if you dither back and forth.

However, the idea that there's only two ways to polarise - lightworking or darkworking - seems unnecessarily limiting (see Steve's podcast on finding third alternative options).

It seems to me that 'sending energy out to help others' and 'drawing energy in to help yourself' are only two possible high level goals that you could have. What if my polarisation is towards creating great art? Say I want this not for my own benefit or to benefit others, but for it's own sake.

Alternately, what if my polarisation is towards making the world safe so I and everyone else can live in peace? Doesn't that make lightworking/darkworking congruent?

Steve's posts on living congruently make a lot of sense to me. The idea that it's necessary to polarise in a non-congruent way to be effective seems inelegant to me.

I don't think that there's another valid polarity. I mean, we either do things, ultimately, for ourselves or for others. If your goal is to pursuit art, then why are you pursuing it? To be recognized as a great artist, to become famous, to bring joy to other people, to make money, and so on. In your case, it probably brings you joy/happiness; so you're doing it for your own pleasure, and you're getting a personal benefit out of it, which means that it's more towards DW motivation because you care only about the pleasure you're getting. You get the point? There's no "for it's own sake" in my opinion. Everything has a higher motivation behind it than "for it's own sake".

[Cael]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

The DW could be a LW at different levels. a DW could be really unselfish about his immediate family (being LW here) but totally not interesting in the community (DW to what is considered "other") well being.

What I would like to point out is that, that is not DW being a LW at different levels, it is just DW including selective others as part of his greater self, and hence loving them just like how he loves himself.

Perhaps as a DW grows in power and expands his greater self, it will eventually end up just like a LW... uniting with everyone else.

[shnu]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Its Steve's quote that said 1% are Lightworkers or Darkworkers not me...

Right. Here, I was trying to justify Steve's account against your objection.

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Also, how many people say "Its my life's purpose to be a Darkworker" and then commit to it?

Judging from this forum, at least some try to. It's kind of a thin purpose, one that is hard to maintain one's commitment to. How does it help to make decisions about what matters most? Does one ask "what would Ghenghis Khan do?" It sounds a bit humble for a darkworker purpose, to submit to some exemplary figure like this...

From The Meaning of Life: Discover Your Purpose Steve said he arrived at

Originally Posted by Steve

to live consciously and courageously, to resonate with love and compassion, to awaken the great spirits within others, and to leave this world in peace.

as his life purpose. This is looks like a pretty outflow dominated purpose, and if there are parts that are not obviously outflow in nature [1], it coheres. It's easy to see why someone who successfully commits to such a purpose would be a lightworker; easy for me at least.


[1]: "to live consciously and courageously" could also begin a darkworker life purpose that went on "to dominate with strength and cunning, to surpass in power the great spirits that I find, and to carve a place in this world as a monument to my glory."

[shnu]

Originally Posted by MasterD

That's not necessarily the case.

DW - I'll cook enough for everybody, so that on other days people will cook for me too.
LW - I'll cook enough for everybody, because I like to give. [In the process, it turns out that other people will cook for the LW too]

I think that's what Steve means by the fact that it leads eventually to the same path.

Claiming the two approaches lead to the same place strikes me as rather strange. Why would the DW cook for people he/she knows will never return the favour? It seems to me that there's a big difference to how DWs and LWs treat the weak that higher awareness isn't going to eradicate.

[shnu]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Polarity comes from consciously choosing one path or the other, not from your position along either path.

Imagine the flow of electricity through a wire. Which way is the current flowing? In non-polarized people, there's no consistency, so there's virtually no current.

Polarizing brings more decisions to conscious awareness -- you begin to ask, "Which option aligns with my polarity?" This makes it possible to align more of those decisions in a consistent direction (the direction of choice), such that a strong current begins to build.

Before polarizing, people invariably make lots of decisions that cancel each other out. As soon as they start building some momentum, they turn around and erase it. They try to be selfish, but as soon as it starts working, they hold back. They try to be giving, but as soon as that starts working, they pull back again. They live like yo-yos, thinking that balance between the extremes is the correct choice. It isn't. Balance means no current.

This is my big sticking point about polarity. I feel fine about the concepts of life purpose, commitment and the dynamic nature of that commitment in terms of inflow and outflow. But as to why the commitment can only be free of internal conflicts if it is a commitment to a strong consistent flow in one or other direction, I do not see it, and many other forum participants do not see either. It does not help that you use two analogies that do not justify this conclusion [1][2].

I think that if the general level of understanding on this point is to improve, Steve, or someone here who sees what he is getting at better than the rest of us, should come up with a better analogy or explanation of this point.

[1]: The electrical analogy: strong charges are consistent with little flow, or flows that change in time. Cf. what I said in On the "Polarity" and "Polarization" articles (linked to now, I note with some embarsassment, for the 3rd time)

[2]: The momentum analogy: momentum can be cyclical, eg. that of a weight bouncing on a spring, or a planet revolving on its axis.

[MasterD]

Originally Posted by shnu

Claiming the two approaches lead to the same place strikes me as rather strange. Why would the DW cook for people he/she knows will never return the favour? It seems to me that there's a big difference to how DWs and LWs treat the weak that higher awareness isn't going to eradicate.

That's absolutely true and there may be many different effects and it does not have to work out this way all the time. Especially not at this point in time. For the DW the intention is always selfish and for the LW the intention is always to serve the greater good. However, at some point the DW will realize by being overly selfish he destroys his environment and therefore he destroys himself with it. Therefore it becomes in his own self interest to serve the greater good. For the LW the story is vice versa. He realizes that he has to be 'selfish' in order to better to serve the greater good.

You are right about a DW not willing to cook for people who will never return the favour; but can you see that both the LW path and DW path COULD lead to the same place?

[MasterD]

Originally Posted by shnu

This is my big sticking point about polarity. I feel fine about the concepts of life purpose, commitment and the dynamic nature of that commitment in terms of inflow and outflow. But as to why the commitment can only be free of internal conflicts if it is a commitment to a strong consistent flow in one or other direction, I do not see it, and many other forum participants do not see either. It does not help that you use two analogies that do not justify this conclusion [1][2].

I would say; get conscious of it. I definitely see myself losing momentum when I switch constantly between the two polarities. I think this is really about experiencing it in real life; not much about understanding it intellectually. Have you ever tried to live with one polarity for 30 days? I am on a darkworker path for the next 30 days; to see how it affects my life.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by MasterD

You are right about a DW not willing to cook for people who will never return the favour

I believe a DW can very well be willing to cook for people who will never return the favor: in order for other (useful) people around to think he's such a generous nice guy, for instance, or that he's so fun to be around. They think in more complicated ways than just "will they give something back?".

It's like a company giving you something for free during a PR action. They don't care whether exactly you will buy something from them afterwards, it's more that it just generally looks good and draws attention to them, so that even people who got no present will end up buying something.

[MasterD]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

I believe a DW can very well be willing to cook for people who will never return the favor: in order for other (useful) people around to think he's such a generous nice guy, for instance, or that he's so fun to be around. They think in more complicated ways than just "will they give something back?".

I totally agree. What I meant is they are not willing to cook for other people if they do not see a personal benefit in any way whatsoever.

[shnu]

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

I believe a DW can very well be willing to cook for people who will never return the favor: in order for other (useful) people around to think he's such a generous nice guy, for instance, or that he's so fun to be around. They think in more complicated ways than just "will they give something back?".

Yes, the DW may act generously, if the political environment is right, but won't they resent it?

Won't DWs try to push the political environment in a direction where it is seen that the weak deserve nothing, and that to give to the undeserving promotes weakness? One that fits their dispositions better, and where LWs will reap only criticism for trying to do good?

It still doesn't look to me that the LWs and DWs are following paths that lead to the same destination.

Originally Posted by MasterD

However, at some point the DW will realize by being overly selfish he destroys his environment and therefore he destroys himself with it. Therefore it becomes in his own self interest to serve the greater good. For the LW the story is vice versa. He realizes that he has to be 'selfish' in order to better to serve the greater good.

So both LWs see that certain kinds of inflow commitments and DWs see that certain kinds of outflow commitments are necessary to best pursue their life purpose. I still don't see where the DW starts to act in the best interests of the weakest. In fact, won't DWs prefer a much harsher world than the one we live in now? They might not want to destroy the world, but they might like climate change, with its scary stormy weather and the fight for less unflooded land. It would help them argue that there's not enough to go round, and that looking just after one's own is simple good sense.

Originally Posted by MasterD

You are right about a DW not willing to cook for people who will never return the favour; but can you see that both the LW path and DW path COULD lead to the same place?

Well, surely I see that I could be wrong, but to the extent that maturity brings some convergence between the LW and DW, I still think it leaves gulf between them, in what they want and how they go about getting it.

[MasterD]

Originally Posted by shnu

So both LWs see that certain kinds of inflow commitments and DWs see that certain kinds of outflow commitments are necessary to best pursue their life purpose. I still don't see where the DW starts to act in the best interests of the weakest. In fact, won't DWs prefer a much harsher world than the one we live in now? They might not want to destroy the world, but they might like climate change, with its scary stormy weather and the fight for less unflooded land.

A DW certainly doesn't like his tax money being used by a (e.g. disabled) person who can't work and doesn't do a thing. However the disabled person still can provide enough value in order to be an added value to the whole body (and I think virtually everybody can, no matter in what situation you are in, certainly when you have the right tools) and thus to the darkworker. A LW wouldn't encourage a disabled person to sit around all day and do nothing either, that's not of benefit to the greater good and ultimately not of benefit to the disabled person either.

Originally Posted by shnu

Well, surely I see that I could be wrong, but to the extent that maturity brings some convergence between the LW and DW, I still think it leaves gulf between them, in what they want and how they go about getting it.

Could be. I don't see the final picture either. Would love to hear some more clarifications from people who can see beyond as well. If the convergence would be 100% ultimately then one could not deduce the intention out of the effect anymore and so one could not distinguish between a LW or a DW (only by asking). For instance is Bill Gates a LW or a DW? Steve Jobs? The guys from google? I can't tell for certain (out of the results, I am sure if you read biographies or interviews with them you can tell).

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

again with an analogy to a direction of some sort of "energy"?

what is this energy?

Consciousness Units

Also called Torsion Fields by the Russian scientists. It is the energy that underlies all current forms of energy - it is more basic than EM for instance.

The amazing thing about this energy is that it can be manipulated by conscious thought

for millenia humans have been talking about this vague "energy". Jesus references it when the woman touches the hem of his garment - he calls it virtue. he feels his virtue pass into her - that is his energy.

there is a whole science behind it and today we have instruments which can detect it, but since it is such a radical departure from the mainstream, and also since the rulers of our society specifically dont want the public to realize the power of their minds, it is repressed by the media structures.

of course you can read all about it and read the specific scientific studies done by major scientists just by googling torsion fields

a physics dean at MIT called it the most important discovery in the history of science or something lke that, and then he was fired... now he works independently. just google torsion fields or consciousness units