If Steve Pavlina was a darkworker...

[dissident]

Do you think he would then tell you that he is one [darkworker] ?

[Xanafax]

Probably. but he'd charge us to know.

[RuiFig]

Nice one!

Well, given the amount of free and valuable articles we have from him, I seriously doubt it! Unless he has some evil plan, and all his free articles have subliminal messages.

[Savage]

It depends on what my goals as a darkworker would be. If I felt that deceiving everyone into thinking I was a lightworker would help, I would certainly have no qualms about doing that. How could I leverage that kind of deception? Possibly I could use it to form a cult and build something like the Church of Scientology. So posing as a lightworker while secretly working as a darkworker would certainly be possible. However, this would also be very risky. If I were ever exposed, this whole strategy could crumble overnight. Consider how many other faux-lightworkers have fallen from grace this way.

Strategically I don't think this is the best approach for darkworking; it's a very risky gamble. If I were to go this route, I would NOT use personal branding. I'd brand all of my work in the name of a corporation, so it could take the heat if I screwed up. Then if the corp went down, I could wash my hands of it and start anew. This is what lots of the MLM scammers do. They keep starting new pyramid schemes while keeping a low personal profile. When their business implodes, they take the money and run. Then they start again with a new company name and repeat the scam.

My experience with darkworkers suggests that this approach wouldn't be as successful as simply being more open about my true values, such as greed. Be a Gordon Gecko in business and with the people close to me, but use charitable donations and marketing to buff up my personal branding, similar to Donald Trump. Then I'd be more likely to attract compatible partners, henchmen, etc. who could help me. Attracting more lightworkers into my life wouldn't really serve me if I was a darkworker, so maintaining a public lightworker profile could become a real nuissance.

Also, if I went darkworker, I'd drop the raw vegan diet and return to eating animal foods. I'd want that fear energy coursing through my body again. To date I've never met a raw vegan with darkworker tendencies -- the diet opens your heart way too much. Can't be having that if you want to be a successful darkworker. A conscience would only get in the way.

If I became a darkworker, I would have to make significant changes to my business model as well as my personal life. I'm not even sure where to begin. I would have to tear down so much of what I've built -- it would be like starting over from scratch. It would certainly make a mess of my life if I were to try to switch polarities now. I've simply gone too far down the lightworker path. I'm not saying it's impossible, but if I'm happy and fulfilled as a lightworker, I can't see any reason for wanting to switch polarities.

It really is true that polarizing increases your power dramatically. You can gain a lot of power either way you polarize though. Polarizing helps you get your career, relationships, and beiefs focused in the same direction. Lots of inner conflicts are resolved, so your creativity finally opens up.

[Claradonna]

I'm surprised that Steve defines both lightworker and darkworker, but does not seem to promote one over the other?

It seems like showing two swords, very powerful tools,
but not pointing to which is the best one to use?

Why be so distant?

He has denounced protein in diets, microwaves, killing bugs, etc

so why not be clear about something as majorly important to self and humans as this?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Claradonna

I'm surprised that Steve defines both lightworker and darkworker, but does not seem to promote one over the other?

It seems like showing two swords, very powerful tools,
but not pointing to which is the best one to use?

Why be so distant?

He has denounced protein in diets, microwaves, killing bugs, etc

so why not be clear about something as majorly important to self and humans as this?

Because my goal is to teach people to live consciously.

In this case the conscious path is to make a real choice -- to polarize one way or the other -- because either choice can raise consciousness.

[Claradonna]

How can that be? One is clearly aligned with fear, and the other with love.

If you plotted them onto a consciousness hierarchy, along with all the thoughts, actions, motivations, and results, both for self and humanity, associated with both of them, one is clearly closer to true north, or source, than the other?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Claradonna

How can that be? One is clearly aligned with fear, and the other with love.

If you plotted them onto a consciousness hierarchy, along with all the thoughts, actions, motivations, and results, both for self and humanity, associated with both of them, one is clearly closer to true north, or source, than the other?

Fear and love are both valid paths. You can choose to align with either. You can either use the energy of fear (channeling it into dominance and control) or the energy of love (channeling it into contribution and service).

Most people waffle back and forth between fear and love and never make a conscious choice to align with one or the other. They change direction so often that forward progress is minimal, and their lives show clear evidence of stagnation. To consciously progress, you must choose a core line of development -- either fear or love but not both.

The energy of love is Source flowing outward. The energy of fear is Source drawing inward.

[Claradonna]

As well, Vegetarianism is closely aligned with love, and closer to source energy,

and carnivorism is closely aligned with fear, farther from source energy.


Its physical equivalent is that most people currently eat both plants and animals, but some people eat mostly plants, and some people eat mostly animals, with strongly defined results. But to be indifferent about which people choose? Clearly one polarization is superior to the other, both for self and all of its outward implications for humanity and the world.

It is easy to see the results of either polarization on a physical level, and that is just about how people feed themselves, on the bottom level of the hierarchy of life, whether their physical energy is derived from love or fear, light or dark energies,

so why not show clearly what is the right polarization, on a higher level? How people think and act, from which pole they derive their mental-spiritual-social energy, and contribute to the world?

[Thomas H]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Fear and love are both valid paths. You can choose to align with either. You can either use the energy of fear (channeling it into dominance and control) or the energy of love (channeling it into contribution and service).

Most people waffle back and forth between fear and love and never make a conscious choice to align with one or the other. They change direction so often that forward progress is minimal, and their lives show clear evidence of stagnation. To consciously progress, you must choose a core line of development -- either fear or love but not both.

The energy of love is Source flowing outward. The energy of fear is Source drawing inward.

I see what Claradonna's getting at and it's the reason I've never understood the practicality of the lightworker/darkworker scenario because while you say both love and fear are valid paths, one is clearly more conscious than the other.

Can you really consciously choose to align with fear?
Aligning with fear isn't a true conscious choice. Someone making a true conscious choice will reject alignment with fear. Fear is a barrier to true conscious choice. It's like saying I snort cocaine consciously...

[Ecce Homo]

Originally Posted by Thomas H

It's like saying I snort cocaine consciously...

Why not? If the person snorting the cocaine clearly understood what the likely effects will be and does it anyway, what makes his choice unconscious? And by conscious, I'm referring to awareness and understanding of the costs/benefits that are associated with one path verses another as well as clarity about one's own motives. If all of that is completely clear to a person and they choose to snort cocaine anyway, what makes that choice unconscious? Wouldn't it be the exact opposite of unconscious?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Claradonna

and carnivorism is ... farther from source energy.

Not if the choice is made consciously and deliberately.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Thomas H

I see what Claradonna's getting at and it's the reason I've never understood the practicality of the lightworker/darkworker scenario because while you say both love and fear are valid paths, one is clearly more conscious than the other.

If you believe that one path is more conscious than the other, it means you don't understand the true nature of the choice yet.

If one path were more or less conscious than the other, there would be less freedom to choose because the correct answer would be dictated. That means you couldn't live 100% consciously because you wouldn't have total freedom to choose.

Conscious living requires understanding your choices and deciding which path to take, without any particular path being dictated. Thus, Source must welcome and accept all alternatives. Otherwise Source would be unconscious, and so would you.

[Brutha]

If you believe that one path is more conscious than the other, it means you don't understand the true nature of the choice yet.

I think that the core issue. You need to understand the choice to be able to debate the concept.
You don't have to agree with the concept, but as long as you don't understand the question discussion about polarity go nowhere.
What do you believe, how much readers of you blog understand the choice? 1%? 0.1%?

[Plato]

Polarity involves caring about something. It seems to me that goes against the status quo of "new age" culture which basically emphasises detachment from everything.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Plato

Polarity involves caring about something. It seems to me that goes against the status quo of "new age" culture which basically emphasises detachment from everything.

You can detach from things in the physical world, but you can't detach from your own awareness/consciousness.

The choice is whether you'll allow your consciousness to flow outward and expand, or if you'll draw it inward and contract.

You don't learn or experience much (and consequently you don't grow very much) if you try to do both at the same time... or neither. It's only through cycles of expansion and contraction that you experience genuine growth, especially if the cycles are prolonged (like a whole human lifetime).

[TimRobinson]

I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to turn darkworker, this blog could be a very powerful control tool

Just look at all the new vegans/raw vegans that have started since reading your blog, you've probably recruited more people than PETA has!

Imagine all the power you could have by getting people to do what you want, you could rule the world!

[dissident]

Steve, you say that fear is not less concious as love,
yet in this article
Levels of Consciousness
you sympathize with the ranking where love is more conscious than fear.

Pretty contradictory...?

[dissident]

Originally Posted by Brutha

What do you believe, how much readers of you blog understand the choice? 1%? 0.1%?

If you weren't a moderator on this forum, with the authority to ban, I would say that this question exudes elitism.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by dissident

Steve, you say that fear is not less concious as love,
yet in this article
Levels of Consciousness
you sympathize with the ranking where love is more conscious than fear.

Pretty contradictory...?

That was an article about David Hawkins' model. It's an interesting model, but far too linear IMO.

[st33med]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

That was an article about David Hawkins' model. It's an interesting model, but far too linear IMO.

True. At the stage of Neutrality is where the pull for you to polarize to either side becomes very strong, and nigh impossible to avoid if you intend to become more conscious. You could technically devote yourselves to being a darkworker or a lightworker before then. For example, you could gain the courage to steal a car while you are still dominately in the Courage stage. The path branches out into two directions.

Also, methinks that if you are a darkworker, you would have to give up all that energy you are piling up, else karma will eventually take it away or anger you to the point of dealing with it. It would be like you have a house where you can barely move around in because of all your trophies you earned, so you either a) sell some, b) trip over and curse at them constantly, c) someone notices your collection of trophies and decides to steal one, or d) you buy a storage house to store them.

But, I digress, I can also see why Steve and most of us are mainly lightwork-biased. Would you want a tyrant controlling people? Would you want to disconnect with your heart and everyone you care about? I wouldn't. And I could not because of the way I was raised to do good over doing bad. Also, Steve would not be a darkworker since darkworkers rarely share their secrets to becoming powerful.

Then again, it would be interesting to have an Emperor Pavlina facing off against Luke Skywalker.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by dissident

Steve, you say that fear is not less concious as love,
yet in this article
Levels of Consciousness
you sympathize with the ranking where love is more conscious than fear.

Pretty contradictory...?

Even though it's not Steve's model, as he said above, perhaps you could reconcile the models this way:

Lightworkers love themselves and want to spread that love to other people as well. Darkworkers love themselves, but use fear to further their own goals and control others when it suits them.

[InterfaceLeader]

I think the point of 'concious' living is deciding explicitly what you want, and moving towards it in a rational fashion. Most people take the path of least resistance, don't make choices, and kind of drift into a career / relationship / hobby. Concious people research their choices, make a decision, and commit to it.

However, whatever you choose is fine, as long as you choose it knowingly.

So a darkworker would say something like: I want to be secure, wealthy and powerful. Other people are either tools to be used or distractions to be ignored. I understand that this will dramtically affect the type of connections I make, the life I live, and the emotions I feel.

A lightworker, on the other hand, might say something like: I want to help people grow conciously and become more fulfilled, creating a 'viral growth' of better living for everyone. I understand that this will dramatically affect the type of connections I make, the life I live, and the emotions I feel.

In each case the person knows what the want, and what they will have to sacrifice to achieve that (in the darkworkers case, the ability to form loving connections with other people, in the lightworkers case the ability to shut off from people and become 'numb'.)

Also both types connect with people / things, they just do it in different ways. A meat eater who is not a dark worker will largely ignore or dislike the side-effect emotions from eating lots of meat, even if they don't make the link between them and the meat itself. A darkworker will exult in the feeling of power, and the sense of pain and fear they detect in the food. Most people don't enjoy the thought of a salughterhouse, but the darkworker will have faced the reality of what's behind his dinner - and will probably like the thought that his needs have set up such an extreme system.

Concious doesn't mean 'good', it just means 'awake'. It means making choices knowing why.

[InterfaceLeader]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think that the core issue. You need to understand the choice to be able to debate the concept.
You don't have to agree with the concept, but as long as you don't understand the question discussion about polarity go nowhere.
What do you believe, how much readers of you blog understand the choice? 1%? 0.1%?

I don't think the question is how many people understand, but how many people care. A lot of people reject the idea of such a black and white, rigid model. Just because it's something Steve said, doesn't mean that everyone in the world will benefit from it. People have different ways of growing, and different things they need in order TO grow. Personally, I find the idea extremely masculine and binary, and it has absolutely zero appeal for me. If you like, I have conciously chosen not to choose to polarise :P

[Claradonna]

I think it's a bit reckless to display these tools here, but not point clearly to which is the right one to use.

There is absolutely a true north, and true self development, that benefits yourself and the world in the long term, is about bringing all the parts of your life towards it. There clarity in depiction of love over fear in thinking, plants over animals in eating, empowerment over apathy in doing, which all draw from the same true north of energy, so why not show clearly the superiority of light over dark in action and motivation?


Steve's illustration of lightworker/darkworker philosophy shows the two paths of directing your energy, but without clearly showing the implications of each, has also spawned a darkworking group based on his description of this philosophy.


It seems that Steve doesn't see the implications of showing these things without clear direction, on both the student and the world, or does not have an accurate view of consciousness and conscience right now.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Claradonna

I think it's a bit reckless to display these tools here, but not point clearly to which is the right one to use.

Which terminal on a battery is superior? The positive or the negative?

Which pole on a magnet is superior? The north or the south?

I think it would be more reckless not to explain both polarities as equally valid.

[dissident]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Which terminal on a battery is superior? The positive or the negative?

I'll be honest here.
I hate these metaphors... they are all over the place in your articles unfortunately and I don't think they improve them.

You cannot always translate a situation into a metaphor, answer that metaphor, and then expect to have an answer to the first question. It doesn't follow from logic...

That is why I don't like
"Your life is a train, there is only one 2 ways to go; forwards or backwards"
"Your mind is like a radio. You need to tune into the right frequency to get the right program"
"Your friends are like the pieces on the chess board. It is your job to get them to work towards a solution. Mate the king !"

.........continue with random metaphors based on subjective ideas
and no real substance behind them to begin with.


(I'm sorry , this came off a bit harsh, but then again, I'm not a native speaker of English and have difficulty finding the correct "mood" in my texts. : ) )

[st33med]

Originally Posted by dissident

I'll be honest here.
I hate these metaphors... they are all over the place in your articles unfortunately and I don't think they improve them.

You cannot always translate a situation into a metaphor, answer that metaphor, and then expect to have an answer to the first question. It doesn't follow from logic...

These aren't metaphors, they are more like analogies. He is turning a seemingly complex subject into an analogy that is easier for the human mind to digest.

I would tell you that a computer processor works by getting input from memory or hard disk by bits and it goes through several gates to produce output for the user or program to interact with and follow with more output, but, most people (including my parents or relatives ) would fall asleep or become unfocused and nod their heads. Better to use a car analogy () and have something the person you are telling relate cars to a processor.

(Unfortunately, I am not good at coming up with car analogies )

[Thomas H]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

If you believe that one path is more conscious than the other, it means you don't understand the true nature of the choice yet.

If one path were more or less conscious than the other, there would be less freedom to choose because the correct answer would be dictated. That means you couldn't live 100% consciously because you wouldn't have total freedom to choose.

Conscious living requires understanding your choices and deciding which path to take, without any particular path being dictated. Thus, Source must welcome and accept all alternatives. Otherwise Source would be unconscious, and so would you.

Is being conscious simply about making choices? Or is it about making optimal choices? When you make any choice you must be prepared to accept the consequences.

A path is dictated. Your law of attraction experiment is a good example of this. When you started applying and understanding LOA it broke your model of reality, dictating to you that your current model needed to be updated. You still had a choice whether or not you would update your model of reality, but after experiencing the results it would've been stupid for you not to change. Your raw food experiment fits the same mold. The choice still remains, but a particular path is dictated by the result.

Assuming just because Source dictates alternatives makes it unconscious is a large jump. Source can dictate a particular path, while still accepting and welcoming alternatives. The proof is in our reality.

Being a darkworker doesn't resonate with the oneness principle, and if you're out of alignment with the principles you're not living a conscious life in all areas.

[Claradonna]

Which is superior, love or fear?

Human consciousness and locus of action is more hierarchical than binary, like these inanimate objects. Your own book shows how aligning with values, like oneness, truth, love, raise the consciousness and the locus of action. This is all pointing towards a true north energy source. Clearly you are going towards something, even if you haven't found it yet, and in your own development, you are going towards source energy in your choices, writing, actions, etc.


You seem to be pointing all in the same direction in all of your teaching, except for this lightworking/darkworking philosophy for some reason.


If pointing due south were really ideal, why don't you also explain how meat eating is okay too? Or selfishness and untruth? Or adopting other lower consciousness models of action?

If lightworking and darkworking were both valid models to teach your students, to walk toward the light, or into the flames, would you leave it at that, and say go ahead and choose either one?


What definition of consciousness are you employing? One as being simply awake, and just seeing both options,

or one that is conscious about the consequences and choosing the optimal path for each line of action?

The classical and philosophical definition of consciousness in living is having an accurate moral compass, and seeing the greater consequences of one's actions.

Most leaders or teachers would employ a model of consciousness that shows the students the optimal path, especially when many of them are young students who grasp the teachings before they can see the big picture.

A truly conscious model sees the consequences of each locus of action, and that clearly a higher consciousness mode of action is best for the student and the world around him, than a lower consciousness mode of action, and shows clearly that path.

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Which terminal on a battery is superior? The positive or the negative?

Which pole on a magnet is superior? The north or the south?

I think it would be more reckless not to explain both polarities as equally valid.