steve is really "playing his own music" now

[u2met86]

It's said that great musicians must start out by emulating styles of the greats of the past before coming into their own sound.

Note: this doesn't at all take away from the quality of their early emulation, but it is true that their later stuff tends to be more innovative.

---

U2's 1st 3 albums sounded like "post-punk, college anthem rock." They were a great band within a well-defined genre.

In 1984 they changed directions and released The Unforgettable Fire. From then on U2 sounded like, well, uh... U2. They no longer fit into a genre because they were stepping into uncharted territory. The sound became synonymous with the band, because nobody else could have possibly created The Unforgettable Fire (or for that matter, Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, Zooropa or Pop ).

---

Or for a personal development example, Tony Robbins started out by using existing tools (including lots of NLP). Then he came out with Personal Power II / Six Human Needs and all of a sudden he owned his own style. UPW & Mastery University (Date With Destiny especially) all have Tony's own stamp on them.

---

Now, it's true that Steve has stood out from day one with "Personal Development for Smart People" (i.e., not for 99% "drones" in the population) and levels of consciousness. It's fair to say, though, that he's written a ton of great articles on areas that are already widely discussed (yes even the "new-agey stuff" ) , including:
-beliefs, values (Tony Robbins & NLP)
-law of attraction (Jack Canfield & Joe Vitale)
-personal effectiveness (Brian Tracy)
-principles & courage (Stephen Covey)

With polarization, polarity, lightworkers & darkworkers, Steve seems to be stepping into uncharted "Pavlina territory" if you will.

In other words, Steve Pavlina is really starting to sound like Steve Pavlina.

Way to go, Steve!

---

PS: 3 years after The Unforgettable Fire, U2 released the landmark album, The Joshua Tree. If my career trajectory analogy is any indication, Steve will be touring the world to perform in sold-out arenas and stadiums by 2010.

[yossarian]

I really enjoy your analysis but the polarity stuff is not totally original Steve.

In fact I'm sure the polarity stuff is older than everything else on that list.

Polarity in the "lightworker / darkworker" terminology is basically the New Age take on this incredibly old mystical concept.

As far as I know calling this specific thing "polarity" has been around since at least the 70s, showing up in channeled material and probably elsewhere as well.

Steve seems to add a few twists of his own to it though, of course.

If you want to "read ahead" of where Steve is going there is this famous tome of channeled info called The Law of One (aka The Ra Material) that deals heavily with polarity in a very very similar way to the way Steve deals with it. It was channeled in 1981.

[John Wesley]

I don't really believe in originality. At least, complete originality in the creative sense. Einstein said creative people are best at hiding their sources and I think this is particularly true for writers. Steve's blog is great, not because his ideas are "new" but because he does a great job expressing them, making connections between them, and bonding with the reader on a personal level.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

I don't really believe in originality. At least, complete originality in the creative sense. Einstein said creative people are best at hiding their sources and I think this is particularly true for writers. Steve's blog is great, not because his ideas are "new" but because he does a great job expressing them, making connections between them, and bonding with the reader on a personal level.

I think there is wisdom and most if not all wisdom is timeless and has been "known" for many generations. As I learn I give voice to my understanding and perhaps become a teacher of what I believe to another.

I do not believe that I have discovered anything that has not been known before by others. It is only new to me.

Einstein and John are correct.

[Brutha]

Polarity in the "lightworker / darkworker" terminology is basically the New Age take on this incredibly old mystical concept.

Darkworker has 88 google hits. It is a new term.
In addition most New Age sources would label something like a Darkworker evil, which Steve doesn't.

[Theo77]

do a google search on "left hand path"

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Darkworker has 88 google hits. It is a new term.
In addition most New Age sources would label something like a Darkworker evil, which Steve doesn't.

well darkworker is just the inverse of lightworker

occult darkworkers dont call themselves darkworkers, since "darkwork" is a disparaging term

it's also been called negative polarity vs. positive polarity, service to self polarity vs. service to others polarity, and probably lots of others

but i agree that good and evil are the simple terms. if society has attached a stigma to the word "evil" that is society's problem

[takkaria]

If the normal use of the word "evil" is one with tones of judgement or wrongdoing, then it's not the right term to use if you want to be value-free. You can't go and rally at society for it, because society is a nonentity -- individuals are the ones with the association of stigma. By choosing a new word or phrase, you can avoid that.

Language, fundamentally, is defined by those who use it, so using a word how people don't use it makes communication difficult.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by takkaria

If the normal use of the word "evil" is one with tones of judgement or wrongdoing, then it's not the right term to use if you want to be value-free. You can't go and rally at society for it, because society is a nonentity -- individuals are the ones with the association of stigma. By choosing a new word or phrase, you can avoid that.

Language, fundamentally, is defined by those who use it, so using a word how people don't use it makes communication difficult.

Let's say there is this thing called an Apple.

Some people attach a stigma to Apples of them being tasty, some people attach a stigma that they taste gross.

Since the stigmas are different, should we change the word Apple? Should people who like Apples now call them Oranges?

Will changing the word for Apple make people like them again?

Or will it just confuse things?

You can't control people's opinions by changing language.

Darkwork* will always have a negative stigma to the uneducated no matter what you call it. Society has always considered it immoral to put your own interests above the interests of society.

*aka evil, sinful, bad, wrong, narcissitic, egotistical, ungenerous, immoral, wicked, devilry, satanic, left-hand-path, vamachara, selfwork, selfishness, negative polarity, service-to-self orientation

[Brutha]

Darkwork* will always have a negative stigma to the uneducated no matter what you call it. Society has always considered it immoral to put your own interests above the interests of society.

But Steve doesn't use those society norms, that makes it new.

You say you basically understand the same under Darkworker as under evil person, and for that reason "Darkworker" is no new concept.
But Steve doesn't understand the same thing under his Darkworker concept, it is something different. Sure it shares features with the term you list, but at the same time their are differences between term.
The term satanic includes for example occultismn. But people who don't do anything occult can be Darkworker.

Someone how is highly conscious and a darkworker would pass as good, if you judge him by his actions.

You will always have some similar ideas, but innovation is adding a bunch of old idea together and adding a bit on your own.

[Bitsy]

I am thoroughly convinced that no one on this site even accurately understands what Steve really means with "polarity," "polarizing," "lightworker" and "darkworker." Some seem to think they understand it, but the more posts I read about it, the more certain I am that no one understands it .

[takkaria]

Originally Posted by yossarian

You can't control people's opinions by changing language.

Darkwork* will always have a negative stigma to the uneducated no matter what you call it. Society has always considered it immoral to put your own interests above the interests of society.

*aka evil, sinful, bad, wrong, narcissitic, egotistical, ungenerous, immoral, wicked, devilry, satanic, left-hand-path, vamachara, selfwork, selfishness, negative polarity, service-to-self orientation

You make a good point; if you just said the arrangement of letters that makes up "negative" had its position swapped with "positive", there would still be some stigma attached.

However, "darkworking" is a new word. To say darkworkers are evil gives a false impression: evil has connotations of objective morality, that somehow it's "wrong", etc. To use the term "evil" without further qualification then communicates those connotations. "Darkworking" is a new term, and so is free of such associations.

What I'm trying to get at here: the concepts of lightworking and darkworking are tightly bound. To understand one, you have to have an idea of its opposite. If you just used the word "good" and "evil", it would be far too easy to just dismiss the ideas without understanding them: we all know what evil is, right? I want to be good! By using the term darkwork as an opposite and equal word to lightwork, we challenge such perceptions. Sure, conscious people will already understand the nature of evil, but using the term "darkwork" means that less-than-conscious people (i.e. the vast majority of us) will not just be able to dismiss the concept out-of-hand.

The words themselves challenge our perceptions. I think the entire post could have been condensed to that last sentence.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by takkaria

Sure, conscious people will already understand the nature of evil, but using the term "darkwork" means that less-than-conscious people (i.e. the vast majority of us) will not just be able to dismiss the concept out-of-hand.

The words themselves challenge our perceptions. I think the entire post could have been condensed to that last sentence.

Fair point, although I doubt the effectiveness of this method.

So I might say to someone, "Here I have an Orange. It is red, has a thin edible skin, has seeds in the middle, and grows on an Apple tree. It tastes like an Apple and when you juice it it makes Apple juice. But it's an Orange and not an Apple. Throw away your preconceived notions about Apples, because this is an Orange."

Is that gonna work? I doubt it.

However!

It seems that darkwork is fundamentally different from pure selfishness, or at least some people are saying that. I'm not totally sure on Steve's official line at the moment actually, although I'm hoping to find a definitive answer in this thread.

So in that case it is really important to use a new word since it isn't the same thing. Although I'm still not sure that it's actually different I'll have to wait and see.