Polarization (Blog)

[Velorien]

*blink blink*

Lightworkers shun receiving? Wouldn't we eventually die of hunger or some such?

As I understand it, lightworkers can receive as much as they like. If we didn't, what would happen to the return flow from the universe? Rather, it is that we use whatever creative power we have to give to others, and let the receiving take care of itself (which, if we get the process right, it does - as Steve mentions in accounting for his phenomenal success).

By "spiritually conscious", I mean no more than the words imply - people who pursue growth deliberately, rather than purely as a byproduct of natural inclinations and accumulation of experiences. As for being down to Earth, I think it's a matter of balance - on the one hand, personal development is only valuable insofar as it is applied to actual life, but on the other, "down to Earth" can often mean simply rejection of the unmeasurable and the spiritual aspects of life.

Originally Posted by Narz

If lightworkers and darkworkers are truly opposites then they need each other like the day needs the night.

Elegant, but what do you actually mean? I can easily see a world of just lightworkers and unpolarised people, or just darkworkers and unpolarised people. Equally, if we accept that being a lightworker is not a ban on receiving, a world of lightworkers could just give to each other continuously to support a society of art and creativity, and a world of darkworkers isn't that far from any number of dystopian novels (the strong live in high towers and scheme against each other while using the weak as tools).

OK, scary number of generalisations, but my point stands. When you generate outflow, you get inflow automatically, and vice versa (just like day has to follow night). To extend the metaphor, an individual can have their own day/night cycle, and doesn't need a reversed counterpart anymore than a planet does.

Oh, and in regard to me asking for experiences, that's also exactly what I mean. We can sit here and theoretise all day, but I wondered if any lightworkers had actually met conscious darkworkers in daily life, or vice versa, and what they learned from the encounter.

[ku'el]

Hi Gang,

Steve, I'm a big fan of your show and loved to read your expression of these ideas.

These have been very helpful to me and have sparked some remembering/integration of ideas and thoughts I have been internalizing.

From my studies in Huna as per Serge K. King, I see feel a synthesis towards a slightly different idea on polarity.

+ Expansion of self, Adventurer, explore and harmonise with challenges.
- Conquering of self, Warrior, externalise and defeat challenges

Perhaps at the mastery level of either path, polarized, there is no observable difference because,

The more loving you are the more the LoA brings you the feedback that increases your confidence in your effectiveness

The more powerful you are the more the LoA brings you the feedback that increases your happiness with your situation.

Very interested to hear the groups thoughts.

Love to you,
ku'el.

[Narz]

Originally Posted by Velorien

*blink blink*

Lightworkers shun receiving? Wouldn't we eventually die of hunger or some such?

Yep, if you were completely "polarized" you would.

Originally Posted by Velorien

As I understand it, lightworkers can receive as much as they like.

You just can't want it?

Originally Posted by Velorien

Elegant, but what do you actually mean? I can easily see a world of just lightworkers and unpolarised people, or just darkworkers and unpolarised people. Equally, if we accept that being a lightworker is not a ban on receiving, a world of lightworkers could just give to each other continuously to support a society of art and creativity, and a world of darkworkers isn't that far from any number of dystopian novels (the strong live in high towers and scheme against each other while using the weak as tools).

OK, scary number of generalisations, but my point stands. When you generate outflow, you get inflow automatically, and vice versa (just like day has to follow night). To extend the metaphor, an individual can have their own day/night cycle, and doesn't need a reversed counterpart anymore than a planet does.

If inflow automatically results from outflow (and vice versa) why are "light workers" morally superior to "darkworkers"?

Originally Posted by Velorien

Oh, and in regard to me asking for experiences, that's also exactly what I mean. We can sit here and theoretise all day, but I wondered if any lightworkers had actually met conscious darkworkers in daily life, or vice versa, and what they learned from the encounter.

I've never applied such limiting and demeaning labels on anyone and I doubt I ever will.

[Velorien]

Narz, I'm not entirely happy with "lightworker" and "darkworker" as labels either, but I presently have no better terminology for the concepts I'm trying to express. If you don't want to use them, then you have to propose functional alternatives. I don't think we can maintain a debate if we're not even using the same language.

I never said that lightworkers are morally superior. In fact, I'm a moral relativist - I want to create a world based on love and conscious unity, but I have never claimed, and will never claim, that there is some absolute principle that makes me right in doing so. I can't help feeling that you're projecting your own issues with other people onto me.

And just to finalise a key point (which Steve has made already in the articles): those who polarise with outflow (since you don't like "lightworkers") can want the exact same things as their opposites - just for different reasons. I want to follow in Steve's footsteps by finding a way of making money which leaves me with plenty of free time. I can want this because I'm lazy, because I'm afraid of screwing up in a full-time job, because I'm really ambitious and need time and energy to hone skills etc., or because it'll give me more time to write, paint, do volunteer work etc.. The polarity is determined, as far as I can tell, by why you want your ultimate end, not what you do to get there.

Of course I want abundance. I'd have to be self-destructive not to. Polarising completely with outflow is a leap of faith in a way - you have to trust that the return flow will work and you won't end up penniless on the street. Maybe that's why the adjustment process has to be gradual. The difference is between wanting money, success and the rest because they'll help you fulfil a love-based goal (which is hard to do if you do end up penniless on the street) and wanting them because they'll make you stronger/happier/more secure.

When you live for giving rather than taking, even with complete polarisation, you still look for the most effective way to give. And in the modern world, being rich and/or powerful greatly enhances your ability to do that. If you claim to be completely polarised to giving, and die of starvation, then you've betrayed your life's purpose - just like if you're completely polarised to taking, and declare pleasure as your goal, you'd be an idiot to kill yourself through drug abuse instead of living a long hedonistic life.

[ku'el]

Originally Posted by Velorien

The difference is between wanting money, success and the rest because they'll help you fulfil a love-based goal (which is hard to do if you do end up penniless on the street) and wanting them because they'll make you stronger/happier/more secure.

Hi Velorien,

I have a challenge for you, define "Love". :-)

Love to you,
ku'el.

[ku'el]

Originally Posted by Narz

If inflow automatically results from outflow (and vice versa) why are "light workers" morally superior to "darkworkers"?

Hi Narz,

I think this whole lightworker/darkworker idea is a dead end. I think the issue here is that the alternate path has been ascribed to a shadow - fear.
I think fear is the absence of confidence.

Love to you,
ku'el.

[ku'el]

Originally Posted by Velorien

I'm not entirely clear on whether lightworkers and darkworkers can encounter each other consistently without conflict. It's true that giving and receiving naturally go together. But at the same time, aren't we trying to create two different worlds? After a point, isn't it a lightworker's duty to create a world of sharing and selflessness (or some equivalent sentiment), and isn't it in a darkworker's best interests to create a world where success is achieved by competition?

Of course, I am rather new to the polarisation experience, and sadly have not yet encountered many spiritually conscious people in real life. Has anyone had experiences which can shed light (no pun intended) on this question?

Hi again,

I think if we think about this in terms of subjectively creating our reality, then I don't see how there would be any conflict. i.e. Each of us creates the reality that we live in, our hypothetical fully polarised lightworker simply is not going to be fighting with anyone. It will never come up.

Love to you.
ku'el.

[Narz]

Originally Posted by ku'el

Hi Narz,

I think this whole lightworker/darkworker idea is a dead end. I think the issue here is that the alternate path has been ascribed to a shadow - fear.
I think fear is the absence of confidence.

Love to you,
ku'el.

If you don't fear there is no confidence. If you're sure (no doubts, no fear) you don't need confidence (because you're sure).

[ku'el]

Originally Posted by Narz

If you don't fear there is no confidence. If you're sure (no doubts, no fear) you don't need confidence (because you're sure).

Hee hee,

love it :-)

If your very sure of yourself, I'm pretty sure that your right about not needing confidence :-)

Love to you,
ku'el

[Lallymac]

Originally Posted by sirkinm

Seeing that I seem to be selfishly-oriented, I wonder if I'm destined for the dark side. The thought of joining the light side and morphing into a complete altruist strikes fear in me right now, because I have the illusion that my material being is of ultimate importance and that there is only so much of life's comforts and necessities to go around. But I don't want the karmic debt from joining the dark side (more fear)... Where's Master Yoda when I need him?

I'm struggling with this choosing sides concept. It kind of reeks of the Christian concept of good versus evil which I've never been able to buy. I thought love was letting go of fear. Gerald Jampolsky wrote a book about it called 'Love is Letting Go of Fear' in relation to 'A Course in Miracles'.

As humans we spend much of lives standing in our physical bodies looking out at the world through our eyes, so stands to reason we are going to be able to see someone else's fears before our own. We can spend a lot of time critiquing other people's motives but if we want to begin to make significant shifts in our own lives, we need begin to look more closely at our own love and fear programs. Our fears often lurk in the shadows behind us making them less apparent.

In relation to IM, if we are looking at the frequencies we are vibrating at and looking at shifting to a frequency closer to our desired lifestyle, then we need to observe the love and fear motivations behind our intentions.
Lallymac

[nownow]

Hi Steve and all,

The idea of Polarity has got me confused. Why is giving and receiving being equated with values or meaning. Giving or receiving is not automatically related to selfishness or motive...or is it. It's the intention or motive that matters not the words so why is the focus put on direction instead of on the motive.

[Velorien]

@ku'el: I don't claim to be able to define love. It's an irreducible concept, like anger - if you've ever experienced it, you know what it is. If you haven't, no amount of definition will be sufficient.

But that would be dodging the challenge. If you held me over a laser-equipped shark tank and told me to define love or else, I would call it both the movement of consciousness towards integration and removal of illusory barriers between entities (i.e. "we are all one"), and the positive experience which results when this is perceived and the limited ego is at least partially or temporarily transcended.

Insofar as subjective reality applies, I guess there is no need for lightworker/darkworker encounters to take place. But there's also the issue of how we affect others. When our auras or whatever are powerful, we tend to drag weaker ones with us - being in the presence of a very peaceful person makes us feel more peaceful, being in the presence of a highly evolved person can accelerate our own growth. When I spend a lot of time near strongly fear-based people, and listen to them rant angrily or feel them radiate fear or hatred (not to generalise - those are merely the ones I've met), I start to feel the pressure of similar feelings, and the lowering of my own consciousness. So I think the more polarised you are, the more you polarise your environment.

Besides, to boil it down to the simplest level, if you have a "lightworker" political candidate and a "darkworker" political candidate on the same platform, there will be conflict, and if one is much more powerful than the other and the audience, they will take control. Witness Hitler.

I don't pretend to understand just where objective and subjective reality meet, but I think that stronger people who are aligned with any given principle will impose their reality on weaker ones who are undecided (though neutrality, of course, can also be a principle when pursued deliberately).


@Narz and ku'el: if the opposite of fear is confidence, or if you have no fear, what is your motivation?

When my motivation is to find happiness through external things and events, I always find some sort of fear at the core - fear of being insufficient, fear of annihilation, basically fear that without them I shall not be happy or complete or valuable. When I do not have this motivation, I believe that I am already all those things merely by virtue of existing, and I associate this with love, because that is what I experience. My motivation is then purely giving and creative (because I don't feel that I need to take to be happy).

Also, if lightworker/darkworker are unhelpful terms, someone needs to devise clearer ones. I just use "lightworker", in this context, as shorthand for "I'm using Steve's polarisation model, and referring to those who polarise towards love/outflow".


@nownow: Aren't motive and direction the same thing in this model? If your motive is giving, your direction is outflow. If your motive is personal gain, your direction is inflow. You can give selfishly (e.g. for recognition), but then your motive is personal gain, and therefore your direction is inflow and it's not "giving" in polarisation terms. You can take unselfishly (e.g. a charity accepting donations), but then your motive is to benefit others, and therefore your direction is outflow and it's not "taking" in polarisation terms.

[Larrious]

Hi all!

Caught a thread which asked about fear and its opposite so thought i'd chip in a little
From what i've learnt from "Goldman Method", Fear is defined as
"an expectation that something will turn out bad"
and therefore the opposite is, "an expectation that something will turn out good" which == "faith"

So anyway, i have a question regarding light/darkworkers.

My character is such that i'd love to have peace as much as possible. However this peace seems to me to only be attainable(concluded from my own experience of living with myself for 24 years) when everyone accepts my word as the truth and does them. So when i feel like i'm being "overpowered" or that there is someone with a stronger presence than myself, i get upset.

Typical darkworker. As i'd say myself. I'd want to have as much power as i can get, so the less chance i'd find someone who can have as much power as i do.

I do sometimes, try to overpower others in areas like speech, presence, by acting like i'm supremely confident. Which sometimes i do feel. However it is more often the confidence of a darkworker, that nothing can best me more than the knowledge than nothing can hurt me if i don't allow it too.

I did sales actively for a period of time. And i must say that although i was sometimes good at it, i find myself emotionally exhausted after that. Almost always, a surge of wanting to be "better" than the prospects dictated the way i speak, carry myself. Like i spent so much energy putting up a front of confidence such that i can overpower them. Does that mean i'm subconsciously a darkworker while my conscious mind keeps telling me that i'm a lightworker?

I can see the power of a darkworker.
In Love and Light
Larrious

[Larrious]

Hi Velorien,

From my understanding, fear-based(les go with steve's definition of darkworkers ) people may not be people who rant angrily or anything. In fact, as mentioned in some earlier posts, many strong and good leaders are/were darkworkers. Darkworker, the word, seemingly has a negative connotation to it. However it probably is not meant to be that way. It just happens that the kind of motive(i hope no one gets hung up on this word ), which they have in doing certain things, is different from that of a lightworker. Lightworkers who are not of as high a consciousness level may even turn out to be more "angry" than a higher conscious darkworker. Example, a caregiver who expects everyone else to have the same perspective as them versus a paid social worker who gets paid to do his/her job.

I would like to see myself as a lightworker too. However, as mentioned in the previous post, i see quite a bit of darkworker traits in myself.

[ku'el]

Hi Velorien,

I love people who rise to a challenge, also I like your definition of love. I think your version, as a concept to be kept very closely at mind at all times, is a little wordy for me. However I wont be holding you over any fricken laser equipped shark tank anytime soon :-)

For me thinking about love as energy flow then I like to use this definition.

"To love is to be happy with".

Some ideas contained in this statement are that of connection and the idea of flow.. i.e. If you love <x> then yourself and <x> are connected and there is a flow of happiness between you.

Besides, to boil it down to the simplest level, if you have a "lightworker" political candidate and a "darkworker" political candidate on the same platform, there will be conflict, and if one is much more powerful than the other and the audience, they will take control. Witness Hitler.

I disagree.

@Narz and ku'el: if the opposite of fear is confidence, or if you have no fear, what is your motivation?

I'm afraid this doesn't compute for me. Your motivation is your motivation. I like to define my motivation in terms of what would make me happy or at least what I think would make me happy.... see above :-)

When my motivation is to find happiness through external things and events, I always find some sort of fear at the core - fear of being insufficient, fear of annihilation, basically fear that without them I shall not be happy or complete or valuable. When I do not have this motivation, I believe that I am already all those things merely by virtue of existing, and I associate this with love, because that is what I experience. My motivation is then purely giving and creative (because I don't feel that I need to take to be happy).

I'll tell you a true story. Some years ago my younger brother, who was an amateur sculpter made an object of art. He showed the piece to me and I praised it enthusiastically. The truth is I really was very impressed and I really thought his piece a wonderful object. He said to me "I want you to have it". I felt, it would be wrong of me to take it. That the right thing was for my brother keep his wonderful piece to enjoy and to be able to show it to others. Sadly my brother later died in tragic circumstances. After his death I found out that he had been very very upset by my refusal of his gift.

Today looking back on this as a lesson, I feel I blocked the flow of love between us by not accepting the gift.

Love to you,
ku'el.

[nownow]

@Velorien

I guess its the way my mind works. Direction is relative and ultimately unreal and so it must lead to its opposite... which ever direction you head in you will end up in the same spot. In my mind, a darksider is anyone who operates from a dualistic perspective; pain will lead to joy and joy to pain, they give and must take,they are trying to get somewhere. A lightsider is one who is not focusing on giving or taking since giver and receiver are one, the motivation is oneness not giving. So why even consider polarity since this is a concept from objective reality. To focus on sides is to debunk everything the LoA is based on. I may not be making sense

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by nownow

@Velorien

I guess its the way my mind works. Direction is relative and ultimately unreal and so it must lead to its opposite... which ever direction you head in you will end up in the same spot. In my mind, a darksider is anyone who operates from a dualistic perspective; pain will lead to joy and joy to pain, they give and must take,they are trying to get somewhere. A lightsider is one who is not focusing on giving or taking since giver and receiver are one, the motivation is oneness not giving. So why even consider polarity since this is a concept from objective reality. To focus on sides is to debunk everything the LoA is based on. I may not be making sense

Makes sense to me. I waslistening to a Hale Dwoskin mp3. I think he was in the Secret. They were talking about the Sedona Method were the technique helps release attachment to feelings - all kinds of feelings (in/out good/bad). That it's not the feeling that is the limiting behaviour, its' the resistance to allowing the feeilng to come and go in a natural way. And that once one is not holding on to feelings of anykind or having resistence to them, one can be in the state of love (the love of the kind that transends duality).

But then the LoA stuff says you have to be jazzed about the goal to have it kick in - so maybe once one gets clear and out of the duality of god/bad feelings the love that shows up is exciting such that the LoA kicks in because - (like you said) oneness is the motivation.

[Velorien]

ku'el, I like your definition of love. But if you have to be happy with x to love, does that mean you need an x? What about feeling love as a basic state of being, with no object?

@nownow and wolfgang: In reality, I agree with what you say. Have you read The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle? He says the same thing, about releasing dualistic feelings to reach a pure state of love and inner peace, and I've found his methods highly effective.

It's just that I'm still trying to figure out how to relate that state (which I am in the chaotic process of trying to anchor) to the LoA. It's not really something Steve's articles account for - the essence of Tolle's teachings is passive in that you learn to accept whatever comes without judgment (including your feelings, thereby releasing them), and yet what I know of intention-manifestation presupposes a very active desire to manifest something.

Wolfgang, you seem to be thinking along very similar lines to me. Are you going through an analogous process?

[nownow]

Thanks wolfgang and Velorien

Very good points, they have me thinking.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Velorien

@nownow and wolfgang: In reality, I agree with what you say. Have you read The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle?

Yes, I have read Tolle (or more like listened to CDs)

It's just that I'm still trying to figure out how to relate that state (which I am in the chaotic process of trying to anchor) to the LoA. It's not really something Steve's articles account for - the essence of Tolle's teachings is passive in that you learn to accept whatever comes without judgment (including your feelings, thereby releasing them), and yet what I know of intention-manifestation presupposes a very active desire to manifest something.

Wolfgang, you seem to be thinking along very similar lines to me. Are you going through an analogous process?

When I first heard about LoA it seemed to go against ideas that attachement to desire is a path to suffering. LoA says to get really excited about your desire. That the more passion you generate the better LoA kicks in.

Although, a lot of the LoA stuff also says there's the allowing step - which is the detachment from the desire or worry that things won't work out. So then I felt more reconciled. That LoA says to not be attached to it coming about. "We'd instantly manifset if we had infinte patience" or "You can have what ever you want as long as you don't want it" - are some quote from some free mp3 LoA material I probably got from some posts from here.

How to generate the feelings of the desire without feeling the wanting of it coming about is the stumble for me. I get that it's vibe and the stronger your vibe the clearer the LoA kicks in. OK, so I can sit and be quiet and bring to mind and feelings about a desire - how is that different than wanting it to happen?

I can only think that being jazzed and expecting that something will work out is much different than our usual excitment that is really a form of attachement - that has bunches of nerveousness in it not panning out. For example wanting to have a girl go out with you - how exciting it is to feel that but a lot of the excitment can be a nerveousness of rejection or really hoping you hit it off. So, there must be another state that is above duality that feels great too and doesn't have worries, fears nor the wanting more good feelings too.

[Kingston]

I agree, Lightworkers CAN receive or take, like darkworkers CAN give or pay; As a consequence of their polarized intentions.

Originally Posted by Velorien

We can sit here and theoretise all day, but I wondered if any lightworkers had actually met conscious darkworkers in daily life, or vice versa, and what they learned from the encounter.

I will share some of my experiences with both highly conscious light- and darkworkers the last 10 years or so.

The first one that comes to mind is a "shaman" I met a few years ago. He organized Jurema rituals, and I went to two of them. This kind of ceremony comes from the natives of South-America. You meditate, sing and ingest a certain root with hallucinatory properties. Only the combination of all three works to create extremely deep sense of communion, love and heavenly consciousness. The people there all radiate a loving disposition, and the money the shaman makes mostly goes to the natives of South-America. Being there with these people was a profound experience to me.

Another strong lightworker was a collegue of mine, an older woman who had cared for her troubled children for years and had a great capacity for healing. She helped me with my conflicts about the work I did and the people I worked with. She could almost read my thoughts, and use what she knew about me to comfort me.

The first highly consciouss darkworker I met in the same workplace and we were friends for short while. He had real style. Girls gravitated towards his beaming smile. He could almost magically extract all meaning from your words and actions, so after a few hours or so he knew all my hopes and fears. He could play me like a violin. At that time I didn't have much to offer, so we parted after some time. But through his vanity I could extract a few valuable lessons about the beauty of the dark side. I was refreshed by the expanding possibilities it promised, but was still afraid of the consequences of 'playing' people.

Later that year I became friends with another darkworker. I was eager to throw myself in the nightlife, and he had years of experience hitting nightclubs, drinking, networking and seducing women. He was just new in town, and our relationship started when I offered him to stay with me until he had his own space. We had a profitable relationship for a few month, he helping me have fun and sex while living in my house. If I had not known him, I would have had less "cool" friends.

But he had some troubles with paying his karmic and financial debts, so I threw him out of the house after a final warning to pay me back. I got the money back, but way late. One time I said I would be finished with him if he didn't pay me by next week. His responded with glee: "Hahahh... Then we will become enemies..!" And so it was: we have been conscious adversaries ever since. I meet him about twice a year at some party or something. First I hated him, but not anymore because I become smarter when I'm forced to deal with him. He is the first person I met without a conscience. He is all social strategy. I probably only hated him because I projected my own dark side on him. Now I have accepted it, I feel only gratitude for knowing him.

[Narz]

Originally Posted by Velorien

@Narz and ku'el: if the opposite of fear is confidence, or if you have no fear, what is your motivation?

Curiosity.

[Frans]

If you have a "giving" (love) polarization, you don't need to apply I-M, you can do that right away.

The principle of Intention-Manifestation is "get what you want", so one cannot deny that I-M is meant for people who want to "receive" (fear polarization).

I-M is based on fear.
A person who has no fear for the future, has no need to apply I-M.

Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?
Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
(Matthew 6:25-26)

[Hammad]

Hey all,

I have been following the articles on polarity the last few weeks, and it has been a fascinating experience. I myself have harbored such ideas at times in the past, but never to this degree of clarity and depth. Anyway, I have a question to anyone who might be willing to answer, maybe even Steve himself. I understand how these tools can be used, and how one might cancel out the other. But can these be used in different areas? For instance, can I use love energy when trying to find a stable relationship, and fear energy to get ahead at work? It would be sort of like using one frequency for newscasts, and another for say radio commercials. Would they still interfere?

Hammad

[Velorien]

@wolfgang and Kingston: Thank you very much. This has helped me clarify my thinking. As regards LoA, I think my best option at the moment is try to walk the path of nonattachment to the end and see whether I can still use IM when I'm done. Otherwise balancing desire and detachment without losing the latter becomes tricky.

@Narz: Curiosity is a position I hadn't considered. Could you elaborate?

@Frans: That would seem to be the obvious solution. But then we have people like Steve, who seem to apply IM to love-based goals and succeed. (Steve, if you're reading this, could you tell us what you think about Eckhart Tolle and IM?). It's the inner/outer purpose distinction. Even as the inner purpose is simply enlightenment, and thus loss of fear-based desires, can't we have specific goals for any given outer purpose?

@Hammad: I think that basically amounts to a choice not to polarise. Polarity doesn't just determine what the universe does in response to you - it also means you shape who you are. You'd be trying to become loving and selfish at the same time. The distinction between different areas of one's life is fairly arbitrary anyway - you can try to compartmentalise, but that's like being spiritual for twenty minutes a day while you meditate and then going back to "normal" afterwards. Many people do it, but it's not what I would call personal development, and it's a highly inefficient way to get results.

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by Hammad

can I use love energy when trying to find a stable relationship, and fear energy to get ahead at work?
Hammad

Reread all three posts and don't get hung up on analogies. He says is like 5 times: one polarization is best. And tells why. Then click my name and read "Love combinations of Light and Darkness".

Some good feedback about it would be appreciated.

[Hammad]

Thanks to both of you for taking time to respond to my thoughts. I myself reached a similar conclusion, but wanted to know what others think of the matter.

@ Kingston: Your post was interesting. But I think at some point you are confusing being a lightworker with being naive. Lightworkers need not be naive. They might be able to see fully through other people's games, but simply choose to give these people a chance to embrace their own light nature. Similarly, a darkworker need not be pure evil. He might simply find that this is what works best for him, and thus embrace the path. He does not HAVE to fashion himself an emperor.

[Kingston]

Originally Posted by Hammad

@ Kingston: Your post was interesting. But I think at some point you are confusing being a lightworker with being naive.

Thanks. Only low polarity lightworkers, meaning with a low level consciousness, are structurally naive. Same goes for "lower" darkworkers. I have been naive in both ways, like arguing in a positive environment, simply because I didn't realize there was never a problem in the first place. Or telling negative people about my dreams! Never do that...

BTW, I never said anything positive about the Emperor.. Right?

[scottdblog]

[QUOTE=Steve Pavlina;44813]I'll address the practical applications in other articles, but first I had to lay some extensive groundwork. While the concept of polarity may seem very abstract, I find it immensely practical to apply across all areas of life.

I'd love an example from someone on exactly what affirmation would be thought, by a lightworker, to get an increase in income. From my grasp of the many fascination polarity articles and forum threads, I am thoroughly lost on how to do this.

Steve has mentioned this is coming in his article tomorrow, but if for some reason he does not address it, i thought I'd put this out there. From my understanding, it seems like the affirmation for the million dollar experiment is asking for money to inflow, so that means by using that information I am dark-working.

Scott
Scott Desgrosseilliers

[alpineboarder]

I find the whole concept of polarity to be an absolute intriguing modern tie-in to good vs. evil, light/dark, etc., but , at the same time, is it not true that from a higher perspective, that whatever we know in our minds to be true becomes so? If we believe that on some deep level our intentions will not work if they are somehow mixed with inflowing and outflowing purposes, doesn't that also make it a truth?

Polarity is highly inspired and an excellent game for the mind, and it will help an enormous amount of people because it resonates within their "belief field" just enough to stretch themselves to see better results. Like everything, it will serve it's purpose as is intended. But is it not at the same time just another limiting belief that tells the mind that if you mix the two it will produce undesirable results? Another judging outcome?

Everyone always seems to be looking for new techniques and theories on manifestation because they subconsciously feel they don't know the best way to bring about their intentions (be it faster, more easily, for the good of a certain group...). And it is in that where the very answer is to what they're seeking! If you feel you can't do it the best, then you won't! They are looking for new and better concepts from others, because they doubt in themselves, they have yet to realize that its within their own minds they dream their dreams, and it is with that very same mind that they bring those dreams to life. Why look outside yourself for what takes place entirely within?? Polarity perhaps is the absolute truth for Steve, because it came from his heart, and he is the master of that tool, he is discovering himself, as we all are except he is looking internally and we are looking externally. Just know what is right for you, never limit yourself and you will in return never be limited in your thinking. Unlimited thinking is what creates a great mind, and a wonderful view of everything in this world.

You are a fascinating individual Steve, you search for what many never open their eyes to see. In showing them your windows to the outside world, it serves as a light for everyone else to realize that they've had their own windows all along. Just as it did for me

Keep up these awesome vantage points, they are inspiring! And don't mind me, dark/light workers, keep up the practice. I'm simply pulling the out-of-the box thinking even further out of it's very own box. The wise ones know it never ends

Okay now a question to ponder: was what I just conveyed yet another limited thought?