Are Darkworkers Evil? (Blog)

[Steve Pavlina]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Are Darkworkers Evil?

[demk]

Its all One Mind.

Its all your Mind.

If you hurt someone else, even to give to yourself, you are hurting your Self.

If you give to yourself you are giving to your (small) self and giving to your (Big) Self at the same time by giving to another (small) self that is inside the one Mind (Big Self).

The choice to be a lightworker seems an obvious one.

Are you really saying its OK for people to polarize and be sociopathic darkworkers? How can that ever lead to anything but suffering when you are just hurting your Self every time you gain? I'm not sure if these so-called darkworkers could even get anything done like you say. Even the ones who appear to be selfish probably provide masses of service, like the businessman who appears totally narcisistic and egotistical on a personal level yet creates businesses that serve many people on a global level.

How can darkworking ever get you anywhere when you are just hurting your Self to give to your self? What you are describing iare pathological people called psychopaths, not a spiritual path. Darkworking does not end up at the same place as a life of service.

Doesn't this philosophy encourage hatred and legitimise selfishness? Are you saying it a good spiritual path to take to be totally self serving? Is this your attempt at a contribution to the spiritual/self-help world? New ideas do occur in spirituality but I'm not sure this is a helpful one if people out there decide to devote themselves to themselves thinking it will lead them to the same place service does...

[ogrekilleat]

To some people eating animals is viewed as a completely immoral act....To other people eating animals is viewed as something completely natural. Animals are a lower species, so their needs are of no real consequence. Man is smarter and can easily turn animals into food, so therefore he might as well enjoy it. If a few billion animals suffer every year as a result, who cares?

So what about people who view eating animals as something completely natural, not because "their needs are of no real consequence", but because we are all eventually consumed? Which are they: Lightworkers, darkworkers, or hypocrites (since those are apparently the only options)?

As much as like to think that our embalming chemicals and our sturdy, expensive coffins will forever shield us from being consumed (by something as "lowly" as worms, no less), we are part of the circle of consumption.

So tell me; I'm waiting with baited breath to find out which I am.

[Mr.Mustache]

1. I think you make a good point about the fact that most people (including myself) do not have a consistent moral philosophy and having a consistent moral philosophy is probably very empowering in a self-aware sense.

2. I don't believe darkworkerism is a consistent moral philosophy and that the only consistent view is something closer to a lightworker but I'm not sure about that, I haven't given it much thought.

3. However, I have given the buddhist doctrine of no-self a lot of thought and it makes a lot of sense to me, which is what makes me doubt the consistency of darkworker thinking. Trying to please the "I" only perpetuates the "I"'s suffering ( in this case the suffering might be subtle but its still there). Its not a complete philosophy because its only concern is for an illusion, reality will come back to bite.

4. The lightworker philosophy is also incomplete for the same reason. The main concern for the lightworker is for the good of all but there is no "all" and so the lightworker drama is also only a drama. I'm not saying compassionate action should not be done, just that the motivation is wrong.

5. I believe that the only consistent line of moral thinking cannot be found through intellectual analysis and while intellectual analysis is an important step it cannot bring a person to perfect self-awareness.

6. I do, however, believe that being an NPC is a sorry option, so I appreciate that point.

[demk]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

4. The lightworker philosophy is also incomplete for the same reason. The main concern for the lightworker is for the good of all but there is no "all" and so the lightworker drama is also only a drama. I'm not saying compassionate action should not be done, just that the motivation is wrong.

Yeah, the correct motivation is to be of service is to give to yourself. You give to give to your Self. And for the same selfish reasons I choose not to to hurt other people becasue I hurt myself when I do that. To be a darkworker just wouldnt work. You would be trying to give to yourself by hurting yourself. It just doesnt work. Selfishness doesnt work unless you are giving selfishly.

[yossarian]

I think you're right on the ball, Steve.

My previous criticisms are basically evaporated by your most recent posts. I still think you have slightly tweaked your understanding since last year, though

[Erin Pavlina]

Originally Posted by ogrekilleat

As much as like to think that our embalming chemicals and our sturdy, expensive coffins will forever shield us from being consumed (by something as "lowly" as worms, no less), we are part of the circle of consumption.

The difference is, in your example, that we have lived our lives and died of natural causes and then the worms feast on us. The animals raised as food live in tortuous situations and then their lives are prematurely ended in order to be packaged and sold at market for consumption. Don't the animals deserve to live out their lives in peaceful co-existence with humans? When they have died naturally, consume their shell if you must to satisfy your hunger.

[Bitsy]

Ugh, I don't want meat anymore...the comparison drove the point right home so well...and even drove home another point, human life = animal life...combined into the context of "To a true darkworker, the life of another human being is as inconsequential as the life of a food animal" and suddenly I'm thinking oh my God, I don't want to eat meat anymore.

This was so helpful and I liked it and it clarified at lot of my confusion. I still don't like the terms, but at least I understand better.

I liked this description, it's helpful:

"Most people aren’t polarized when it comes to human beings either. They’ll be kind to some people and apathetic towards others. They’ll verbally support one ideal while contributing to its opposite through their actions. They’ll claim to believe something is wrong (lying, cheating, hurting people, etc) and then do it anyway. They’ve never taken the time to push through to a consistent philosophy about how other human beings should be treated, or if they’ve tried, they don’t believe it strongly enough to actually implement it."

I don't feel like I had a choice between the two, however, in the sense that I feel like I was born this way and I have always been like this as far back as I can remember.

I'd like to know, what kinds of things can a "lightworker" person do to help an "NPC"?

[wolfgang]

is this dark/light workers so black and white? ok, there's the NPC ground but lots of NPCs are sliding into lightworking. is it that all of sudden you are one or the other by deciding? I"m just saying - like being more holy or being more mature or more kind or more aware - there's no end to it, we can always do better and to say - ok, I'm a lightworker now is to rest on your lurals instead of growing more or fine tunning your awareness.

also how does one go about this change of being more of a lightworker? is it not natural and the key is to be more conscious that brings awareness that others are also you in the grand schema? that it's not about trying to do the right thing, but to have the clear awareness from inside and the right things become what you do. inner then outer - not outer actions then inner.

[ogrekilleat]

I don't know, the last chicken I ate looked pretty happy running around in the grass eating bugs and whatnot. Didn't take care of its eggs very diligently, though, so its lucky we were eating them instead of just leaving them to rot, unfertilized.

If I'm eaten by a huge lion, my life will be "prematurely ended", just like everything else the lion ate, and who cares? Life isn't prematurely ended, things just move on.

So who's to say that chicken's higher self didn't sign up to have a particular experience that would include running around in the grass, eating bugs, and then eventually being eaten itself by me, who might eventually be eaten by that lion?

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

I'd like to know, what kinds of things can a "lightworker" person do to help an "NPC"?

First, figure out in what ways you're still living as an NPC (we all have a bit of social conditioning in us), and decide what you'd like to change. Work on yourself first.

Secondly, use what you've learned about yourself to shed light on other NPCs' situations, challenging them to consider whether they agree with their current programming and whether they'd like to make any conscious changes.

As a lightworker you don't try to control NPCs or darkworkers. You just keep shedding light on what they're doing, helping to make them more consciously aware of their actions.

Initially, NPCs will usually react negatively. It's just part of the social conditioning to resist information that raises awareness (such as the awareness of where your food comes from). That's okay. Just keep compassionately bringing light to situations where people are lowering their awareness, and let them work through it at their own pace.

Being a lightworker or a darkworker is a path, not a destination. You polarize when you fully commit yourself to follow one path or the other. Being committed to a path doesn't mean being perfect. It does, however, provide a clear direction for conscious growth.

[PrimaryErn]

That helped a little. Thanks Steve.

In the "are Darkworkers evil?" section, two possibilities were discussed as the perspectives of a darkworker.

1. Considers themself expedient and efficient, but not 'evil' - if running over people is the best way to get stuff done, so be it. Running over people = harm if that's required to run them down or get past them.
2. Considers themself evil, but basically engages in all the same behavior.

What about the person who is very self-oriented in terms of service to self, and understanding the nature of competition for resources...and while they may not HELP others, they also try their utmost not to HARM others?

There are plenty of examples like that in both nature and human social interaction, but I don't see it fitting in the narrow definition of above.

I would imagine that most nature is like this third catagory. Most living things (in nature - not humans) don't needlessly hurt other animals, but recognize that when they get hungry they have to eat and that usually means harming something. They engage in activities to gain them the best possible mate, at the expense of other animals, but it's not done out of cruelty to the other animals - its done to ensure the best mate for the animal.

Say I'm interviewing for a job that I know has another candidate also interviewing. I can be totally selfless, and say "you know, the other candidate needs the job more - give it to them". I can be totally selfish, evil darkworker, and say "I am the best candidate for the job," (could be a lie) " and I brought proof " (probably fabricated) "that the other candidate is bad".
But if I say nothing bad about the other candidate, especially if asked - "i'm sure they are a good worker" and not lying if they are better, but simply try to compete for the job...that's still harming the other guy. It's a selfish act (I'm trying to get something for me) and I'm taking money from the other candidate. Is that the same as the regular darkworker?

I guess this new post has clarified my confusion a little. How can one compete in a competitive world (part of competitive nature) and yet not be an evil darkworker?

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by PrimaryErn

How can one compete in a competitive world (part of competitive nature) and yet not be an evil darkworker?

Maybe the whole idea of competition comes from a scarcity mindset?

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

First, figure out in what ways you're still living as an NPC (we all have a bit of social conditioning in us), and decide what you'd like to change. Work on yourself first.

This I know. It's my next project.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Secondly, use what you've learned about yourself to shed light on other NPCs' situations, challenging them to consider whether they agree with their current programming and whether they'd like to make any conscious changes.

Would an example of shedding light like this be the way you always write about animals having to suffer so that people can eat them?

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Being a lightworker or a darkworker is a path, not a destination. You polarize when you fully commit yourself to follow one path or the other. Being committed to a path doesn't mean being perfect. It does, however, provide a clear direction for conscious growth.

Ok, that was my next question, if you had to be 100% lightworker to help others, because now that I know more how this lightworker/darkworker/NPC behavior is manifest in practical life and human relations, it's hard for me to imagine that I could become 100% lightworker even in a lifetime.

So all I have to do is decide and commit? Which I think I did decades ago, but not committed with any knowledge about it or about the existence of polarization...I mean, one always strives to be good and honest all the time and goes out of one's way not to hurt others (and instead ends up getting hurt by them), but without a certain knowledge or awareness, one may be more vulnerable to the dark side and I have been. I've hurt myself, not so much others.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by PrimaryErn

What about the person who is very self-oriented in terms of service to self, and understanding the nature of competition for resources...and while they may not HELP others, they also try their utmost not to HARM others?

It depends on the motivation. Why would such a person choose not to harm others?

If it's due to some genuine concern for the well-being of others, then such a person isn't polarized.

A darkworker would avoid harming others to the degree it makes sense from a purely selfish point of view, such as by avoiding a backlash or because he needs people's cooperation, but he really doesn't care about their well-being as individuals. If a darkworker found it most expedient to harm someone and felt it could be done w/o serious consequences, he'd have no qualms about doing so. He wouldn't feel held back by his conscience because his conscience tells him that his own good is the highest good there is.

Darkworkers don't seek to harm people as an end in itself. They aren't intentionally sadistic or cruel. They only consider harming someone when that person is seen as an obstacle and there isn't a more efficient solution available.

Do you think Stalin felt guilty about all the people he sentenced to die? Unlikely. Anyone who was a perceived threat to his power had to go.

[demk]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Do you think Stalin felt guilty about all the people he sentenced to die? Unlikely. Anyone who was a perceived threat to his power had to go.

Is Stalin really a good role model? He may have got some things done but it is generally agreed that being an evil dictator isn't a good spiritual path. He died lonely, paranoid and insane you know...

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

It depends on the motivation. Why would such a person choose not to harm others?

If it's due to some genuine concern for the well-being of others, then such a person isn't polarized.

A darkworker would avoid harming others to the degree it makes sense from a purely selfish point of view, such as by avoiding a backlash or because he needs people's cooperation, but he really doesn't care about their well-being as individuals. If a darkworker found it most expedient to harm someone and felt it could be done w/o serious consequences, he'd have no qualms about doing so. He wouldn't feel held back by his conscience because his conscience tells him that his own good is the highest good there is.

Darkworkers don't seek to harm people as an end in itself. They aren't intentionally sadistic or cruel. They only consider harming someone when that person is seen as an obstacle and there isn't a more efficient solution available.

Do you think Stalin felt guilty about all the people he sentenced to die? Unlikely. Anyone who was a perceived threat to his power had to go.

it occurs to me that a darkworker is a deluded lightworker. Stalin only did what he did out of thinking he was doing what would help his "people". darkworkers think they are doing what's best just as a lightworker does. the difference is that the darkworker thinks of being separate from everyone else, or their group is, and that what makes that separate self better or achieve something is best. The lightworker does not see people/animals as separate and doesn't even make a distinction of little self versus other people/animals.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by demk

Is Stalin really a good role model? He may have got some things done but it is generally agreed that being an evil dictator isn't a good spiritual path. He died lonely, paranoid and insane you know...

How about Genghis Khan? Ruled the largest and most powerful empire to ever exist on the Earth, died at the ripe age of 80 in the loving company of his family.

Genghis Khan is the guy who, after conquering a city, would kill EVERY SINGLE MALE over 12. No exceptions.

If you look for them, there are clear examples of evil people who were successes in their own eyes and who worked consciously for the betterment of themselves and none others. IMO Genghis Khan is the greatest darkworker to exist on Earth. BTW - you know the Blitzkrieg? It was actually based on battle tactics that Genghis Khan himself invented, and then rediscovered by Guderian to use for the Nazis.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by yossarian

How about Genghis Khan? Ruled the largest and most powerful empire to ever exist on the Earth, died at the ripe age of 80 in the loving company of his family.

Genghis Khan is the guy who, after conquering a city, would kill EVERY SINGLE MALE over 12. No exceptions.

If you look for them, there are clear examples of evil people who were successes in their own eyes and who worked consciously for the betterment of themselves and none others. IMO Genghis Khan is the greatest darkworker to exist on Earth. BTW - you know the Blitzkrieg? It was actually based on battle tactics that Genghis Khan himself invented, and then rediscovered by Guderian to use for the Nazis.

Genghis was not in it just for himself. He was in it for his clan. A darkworker can have a sense of self that includes a group of people that makes everyone else the "others".

Just like Steve makes an analogy of people on earth being like cells of a body, we can also make a group of people be like a cell. It's the sense of self that drives where the line of "other" is and where the boundary goes.

Like if a meat eater looks at animals as something "other", there's no issue chomping on meat. But if we sense animals as self, we may not do that chomping. Or we might think animals to be a part of our selves that provides a food source. That could be. I mean, what do we think of vegies? Aren't they also part of the gaia self but we consume that part of gaia?

But then why do animals chomp each other in nature? Are animals darkworkers because of that?

Animals probably are lightworkers - they are more natural than humans. Humans are so into waste that we forget to honor the animal food like Native Americans did in the past.

[ogrekilleat]

Animals probably are lightworkers - they are more natural than humans.

(Except chimps, who make brutal war on each other and eat infant chimps. And those female spiders who bite the heads off of male spiders.)

Anyway, this is a common misconception. Humans are actually part of nature, using the natural advantage that helped us survive without the strength of chimps or the bladed weapons of the mighty lion.

[yossarian]

Genghis was not in it just for himself. He was in it for his clan.

This just isn't true. Genghis Khan didn't even have a clan - his father was executed by his clan when Genghis Khan was 9 years old, and then Genghis and his mother were exiled and sent into the wild to literally die. This was how the Mongolia area tribes killed off families. They didn't just murder the families, they sent them into the wild to die of exposure.

Of course Genghis Khan decided that instead of dying of exposure, he would survive, travel to a new land, gather warriors, return to his former clan and murder them all. Which he did. When he was 13.

He then went on a killing spree and conquered Asia, Russia, Middle East, India and parts of Europe and Africa.

This is a guy who literally murdered his own brother because his brother wouldn't give him a fish.

And in the end he died happy and peaceful at 80 years old, with thousands of highly dedicated servants who would do his every bidding, the Greatest Emperor in history. Greater than Augustus, greater than Alexander, even greater than Bush and Stalin and Mao.

How did he do this so well, so effectively? How did he not only rule for 70 years, but have his empire continue on for centuries after him?

It was through his pure unrelenting selfishness. He didn't waste 2 seconds to think about the humanity of others. It was a simple calculation for him. Does killing this person increase my power and influence? Yes. Ok, slice away!

He had no loyalty whatsoever to family. He would execute his own family members and promote foreigners into positions of power if he tho