Darkworkers, Lightworkers, and Levels of Consciousness (Blog)

[Sam988]

We are here to take our own conclusions, the ones that fit best for us, and not to get to a definite conclusion. Thats why we keep discussing it, so we can get as many conclusions as we want.

[Theo77]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

@Theo77:

You said what I meant in words I could never muster. Here Here!

"Here, Here!" good expression, sounds British!

[Akashic_Librarian]

Yoru damn right it is!

[yossarian]

it's actually "Hear, Hear!"

[Theo77]

eye, eye, cap'n

[Michael Chui]

At the risk of formenting further discussion,

"Therefore the good man should be a lover of self (for he will both himself profit by doing noble acts, and will benefit his fellows), but the wicked man should not; for he will hurt both himself and his neighbours, following as he does evil passions."

-- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 9, Chapter 8.

[shant121]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

At the risk of formenting further discussion,

"Therefore the good man should be a lover of self (for he will both himself profit by doing noble acts, and will benefit his fellows), but the wicked man should not; for he will hurt both himself and his neighbours, following as he does evil passions."

-- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 9, Chapter 8.

conscious darkworker and not-so-conscious darkworker (darkworker's syndrome type)

wicked:Morally bad in principle or practice
darkworkers (who are conscious and do not exibit the syndrome) are not bad people with bad morals, they probably have stronger morals than people with mixed polarities.

[Andrew Brunelle]

I believe, and this is just me, that you must first work on yourself to build up a competency in order to effectively help other people. If you are broke and in debt, an emotional mess, you are not in a position to help anyone. I did not take the time to read this entire thread, but I did read about the first half of it, and there was something somewhere about how the first 500 levels of consciousness are about the self, and beyond that it goes towards helping others get to where you are. It is an evolutionary process. You cannot help someone if you cannot help yourself. Case in point.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

I believe, and this is just me, that you must first work on yourself to build up a competency in order to effectively help other people. If you are broke and in debt, an emotional mess, you are not in a position to help anyone. I did not take the time to read this entire thread, but I did read about the first half of it, and there was something somewhere about how the first 500 levels of consciousness are about the self, and beyond that it goes towards helping others get to where you are. It is an evolutionary process. You cannot help someone if you cannot help yourself. Case in point.

It's not just you thinking this way. But, in order to put the polarity idea to work, even this that you say can have a spin.

For instance one's motivation to help themselves first may be juiced by thinking how wonderful it will be to help others (outflow) and to do that he/she has to work on being wealthy and healthy. Or it could be motivated by thinking how much more people will like them (inflow).

Just the goal of working on one's self is not enough to pin down the polarity. The goal to work on one's self can be motivated by either polarity.

However, I do agree someone who is not doing very well, can not help others too well.

[ethereal]

This can all be explained by karma, LOC, and free will.

Karma determines the range of "options" we have in any particular situation. Given the LOC we are at, we have a certain range to choose from, with free will. The higher the LOC, the more karma has been cleared and the more options we have. "Lightworking" is just choosing the "highest" option available, the one that increases Love and raises LOC. "Darkworking" is choosing the "lower" options available, even when you have the option to "lightwork".

For someone who is still having problems with Fear / Desire / Apathy, what we call "darkworking" is actually a positive beneficial thing. I would actually call that lightworking, because he is doing his best out of the possible range of options that he has, i.e. getting out of his rut, improving himself, fulfilling his desires and potential, raising his own personal power.

But for someone who is already in Reason or Love, "darkworking" is just darkworking, fulfilling the ego's desires at the cost of Love, because you have the option for Love and didn't choose it. Out of the range of possible options, you chose the lower ones, even though you could have chosen higher ones. That actually tends to lower your LOC, as the more you choose these options the more karma accrues, and the more the upper range of options becomes restricted.

So as has been said, working for oneself does not mean either "lightworking" or "darkworking", it means which side of the range of options are you consistently choosing. It's all relative.

Saying a certain action is "lightworking" or "darkworking" does not mean anything, because actions and goals and thoughts are only content. When you provide the scale (context) to measure that content by, then you know whether you're raising LOC or not.

[Sam988]

Seems like some people haven't read much on light/darkworking....


I tought the subject of raising/downgrading our levels of LOC by choosing to light/darkwork had already been widely covered and with a general agreement that one has nothing to do with the other.

[Theo77]

...some people haven't owned their darkside yet...

JMHO

[Blaiserboy]

In post 912, Sam makes a valid point.....

This discussion is great in that it allows people to see different aspects of dark and light.... and ultimately enlightens them as to their own world...

Each time I look in here, I find another little chunk of me that needs some adjustment....

I think this is a fantastic thread.......!!!!!!!

[Sam988]

You mean post #331 of this topic?

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

At the risk of formenting further discussion,

"Therefore the good man should be a lover of self (for he will both himself profit by doing noble acts, and will benefit his fellows), but the wicked man should not; for he will hurt both himself and his neighbours, following as he does evil passions."

-- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 9, Chapter 8.

Yup, there's nothing new in the world of philosophy, just new ways of expressing it.

It should be noted that the word "wicked" did NOT mean "morally bad" to Aristotle as somebody said up there ^. It was meant as a person who does not possess virtuous characteristic and that is a whole different kettle of fish to the modern concept of morally bad.

[Blaiserboy]

Sam

sorry, I mistyped the number

yes you are correct re 331, I thought you had spelled it out well.....

Thanks