On second thought....

[Theo77]

I am thinking that I might want to work on polarizing various seperate intentions, for a while, instead of trying to jump right into trying to polarize my entire being one way or the other. This is what Steve himself said he did for a number of years.

For the past few years I have been into esoteric subjects. I've learned a few things. I haven't been following Steve Pavlina's blog for very long, but I am familiar with different models from different writers of many of the same subjects he deals with.

He talks about outflow and inflow and that outflow is associated with creativity. Well I am a creative person.

Now let me illustrate somthing about creative people and how the world works.

Darkworkers in this world, often end up taking control of creative people. Now Take an actor or a musician, each is a creative person. They give. But they end up having various mediators come between them and the rest of humanity. Often these mediators are darkworkers. Agents, studio executives.

A creative person might start a bussiness and take out a loan. The bank is in a sense a darkworker. It seems to give money away, yet it is with the intention of taking.

It might seem like successful actors, writers, musicians, entrepreneurs, and other creative people, make lots of money, but the people who make more money are the Publishing companies, banks, record companies, studio executives.

The darkworkers organize all this energy. They are the puppet masters behind the scenes making things happen. They are powerful people yet they don't really make a direct contribution to the world like creative people do. They need creative people more than creative people need them.

Dark workers aren't really that creative. They just manipulate what others make, channel the flow of other's energies.

So these are some issues weighing heavily on me. As a creative person, I kind of resent people having power over me, yet I really enjoy being creative.

Also the tendency for darkworkers is to shape things into hierarchies and pyramids with energy being concentrated at the top.

That bothers my egalitarian and democratic leanings. Plus even if I chose to polarize as a darkworker, I most likely wouldn't be totally at the top. Maybe I could be in a certian area, but only one person can be number one.

I think not being number one would bother me a lot more as a darkworker.

I'm Just looking at the other side of the coin.

[wolfgang]

Funny you should mention being creative as not darkworker stuff since I had a bit of understanding what darkworker motivation was when I thought of being a rock star and the feeling, for me, was to be able to strut my stuff and be admired - big time darkworker inflow energy! I have that feeling as motivation - it can make my hairs stand on end. I also used to view this feeling as "look at me, I'm great" and is a shadow belief from childhood, being raised in such a way that I got praise for being creative or that's how I got attention (inflow). As such, I tend to discount that motivation becuase of the selfcenteredness of it. I'd probably play a lot better if I was palying to just get into the zone, instead of thinking people will love me.

Now if one is playing music to think it's a way to deliver a message or you are exicited that it helps people - like healing music or something. That's not darkworkering.

[starlet]

It depends. I'm an actress, I'm a comedian, I am very creative. My 'penance' for the large amount of inflow of energy to make it big is my creative gifts. I want to be Nicole Kidman famous. I pay for that by my acting and going on talk shows the movie's producers want me to go on to promote the movie, getting hounded by photographers, etc.

Wait...darn it, now I'm questioning this! I love to act, but I want to have fame and glory too. Can I go lightworker and still have fame and glory?

[Theo77]

creativity is still outflow anyway you look at it, and for every artist creating kind of dark art, there is a darkworker somewhere making money off it with contributing anything creative.

Let me give you an example, there is this artist I admire, that is a hollywood concept artist. He invents monsters and stuff for big block busters.

For many years he slaved away, didn't retain the rights to most of his stuff. You probably would recognize his work immediately, but I bet you never heard of him.

I mean he's not broke or anything, has a really hot looking wife. But really though he is not a star and for all his outflow a lot of other people above him got a really big inflow. They got a much bigger chunk of the profits than he did.

And what have these people created? Warner Brothers executives and so forth? I guess you can say they make movies, but mainly they organize creative types and make money.

[wolfgang]

I'm starting to think it's a very personal thing, what a certain goal has as polarity motivation. To each their own, everyone will have a different spin on what a certain goal would feel like to be motivated to action for that goal.

It's in that why of having the thought of wanting to be inspired where this polarity might be.

Creativity itself is not polarized. What's polarized is what motivates the individual to be creative. I think.

My hair stands on ends when I think how someone else will admire my musical creativity. So I could amp that up and have a strong feeling that will motivate me to be creative. I chould choose to do that.

The creative output is of the nature that other's take it in, but that doesn't have to mean that I was motivated to be creative so that other's would benefit from listening to what I create.

[impaul99]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Creativity itself is not polarized. What's polarized is what motivates the individual to be creative. I think.

You are correct. People are still confusing darkworker (IN) energy with Evil/Fear/SELFWorker.

You can absolutely be a creative darkworker.
You can be a darkworker and focus the majority of your time helping the world (WORLDworker). You can even wear white clothes! Darkworker (IN Energy) does NOT mean you start wearing black, paint your fingernails black, get into the goth scene, piss people off, run people over on your way to the top, and never contribute anything to society.

Don't mistake FEAR and low self esteem with darkworker (IN) energy.

[starlet]

I'm glad about not having to dress goth-like, as my entire wardrobe is Hawaiian shirts, bright and clashing shoes and orange fingernail polish. I think it was the lack of sunlight that started me doubting for a second. Fixed now! Back to darkworker mode

[shant121]

that is if I understand polarization correctly. Ayn Rand's novels had highly polarized darkworkers being verrrry creative. their actions helped humanity, it was just a side effect of fulfilling their own interests.

[impaul99]

My bad. Last night I realized I'm polarized. Unfortunately because I see my source of power as INFLOW from "source" I thought that meant Darkworker, but now I realize that's the definition of Lightworker.

Therefore, I retract my previous statement. I am actually Lightoworker polarized, not Darkworker.

Darkworkers, may in fact, wear goth.

[Jenny]

I don't think it is so easy to "choose" to be a darkworker or lightworker unless you have a solid history to base that choice upon. I remember one of Steve's old posts that really hit home with me as I've read the lightworker/darkworker discussions called Show Me Your Battle Scars.

Seems more important to just do something - whatever your magnificent obsession, biggest dream is - to take it on and watch yourself as you succeed, don't succeed and maybe even fail in a huge dramatic way. Who knows, maybe you won't even like it all that much once you get started, or you'll find (as I did) that I loved the core of the dream but the games I played with myself as to motivations (I would of imagined myself a lightworker) caused me a whole lot of pain. I had success right at my fingertips and then, woops - tripped, and failed very publicly.

It really hurt at the time but after I got over the embarrassment and looked at the situation I realized I still loved my dream but was no longer willing to compromise it. So, I've started over and everything feels completely differently. Does that make me a darkworker? I don't think so, but maybe. I still don't think I have enough information to know.

[yossarian]

I, for one, agree with you theo.

True artistic creation, creating art that is new and meaningful and useful, is very rare for a darkworker because art is naturally something that is shared. Why is a darkworker going to slave away to make a piece of music that is just going to be ripped off by the record company and pirated by fans, though it might be loved. When the artist is old and no longer produces as well as he used to, all he has to live off of are royalties and money gets tight. Meanwhile the record execs who managed his work, since they spent 100% of their effort on themselves, are sitting pretty with the benefits of his labor.

I do believe there exist the Dark Arts however. These are creations that are kept secret because they benefit only specific individuals, especially the people who come up with them. Dark oriented mystics have their various dark arts that they come up with and either don't share or only share with a select few, a select few who are willing to become their slaves.

Creativity itself is not confined to lightworkers, since darkworkers can be very creative in finding ways to screw people over for their own gain. There is that evil kind of "heh heh heh" laugh you get when you figure out a very clever way to screw someone over. I've often experienced this in video games - finding some really clever trick that totally butchers my opponent and gives him no chance at all to beat me. There is this sick pleasure which I identify with darkworker energy. It's definitely creative but it's not giving.

Art in general is a giving enterprise.

Rockstars are rarely artists, they tend to be performers. The same goes for pop music. I wouldn't call Gwen Stefani creative, she just steals other people's stuff and mixes it together to boost her own image and popularity. The people who she stole (although technically she didnt steal it, but that's another story) from are the real creators who make the beautiful songs she samples that benefit humanity, and those people did not benefit materially nearly as much as she has from their work.

So the rockstar instinct can be dark oriented like wolfgang is explaining, but IMO that kind of rockstar is not an artist. He doesn't dump his soul into his work, and his work will not be remembered.

Bach was a giving artist, John Lennon was a giving artist, Gene Simmons was a taking performer.

I've thought about this dynamic in the past a lot and the conclusion I came to was that despite the drawbacks I would rather be Mozart and die in poverty than be Gene Simmons and die in a gold encrusted bathtub.

[Theo77]

I definitely am a creative person, I love to create.

If you can't be a drakworker and be creative then I guess I am not a darkworker.

Artists are often considered self centered and hard to get along with though.

But in terms of inflow and outflow, artists definately flow out and the money people definately draw the creative energy inward.

Seems like cult leaders, gurus and religious leaders are also inward energetically also.

A lot of these people would be considered lightworkers.

[Michael Chui]

Can you not create yourself?

[gijsbert2002]

Originally Posted by yossarian

I, for one, agree with you theo.

True artistic creation, creating art that is new and meaningful and useful, is very rare for a darkworker because art is naturally something that is shared. Why is a darkworker going to slave away to make a piece of music that is just going to be ripped off by the record company and pirated by fans, though it might be loved. When the artist is old and no longer produces as well as he used to, all he has to live off of are royalties and money gets tight. Meanwhile the record execs who managed his work, since they spent 100% of their effort on themselves, are sitting pretty with the benefits of his labor.

I do believe there exist the Dark Arts however. These are creations that are kept secret because they benefit only specific individuals, especially the people who come up with them. Dark oriented mystics have their various dark arts that they come up with and either don't share or only share with a select few, a select few who are willing to become their slaves.

Creativity itself is not confined to lightworkers, since darkworkers can be very creative in finding ways to screw people over for their own gain. There is that evil kind of "heh heh heh" laugh you get when you figure out a very clever way to screw someone over. I've often experienced this in video games - finding some really clever trick that totally butchers my opponent and gives him no chance at all to beat me. There is this sick pleasure which I identify with darkworker energy. It's definitely creative but it's not giving.

Art in general is a giving enterprise.

Rockstars are rarely artists, they tend to be performers. The same goes for pop music. I wouldn't call Gwen Stefani creative, she just steals other people's stuff and mixes it together to boost her own image and popularity. The people who she stole (although technically she didnt steal it, but that's another story) from are the real creators who make the beautiful songs she samples that benefit humanity, and those people did not benefit materially nearly as much as she has from their work.

So the rockstar instinct can be dark oriented like wolfgang is explaining, but IMO that kind of rockstar is not an artist. He doesn't dump his soul into his work, and his work will not be remembered.

Bach was a giving artist, John Lennon was a giving artist, Gene Simmons was a taking performer.

I've thought about this dynamic in the past a lot and the conclusion I came to was that despite the drawbacks I would rather be Mozart and die in poverty than be Gene Simmons and die in a gold encrusted bathtub.

You are however only considering money in this. what is also very much possible is that a darkworker doe something only for his own feeling. Say he wants to be on stage, because he likes the power over the auience that gives him. he will only have that power if he makes music the audience will like. That will give you the same situation a lightworker has.

Similarly a darkworker might give lots of money to charity, because it makes him feel good, this will make him look like a lightworker, but he isn't, he's literally buying a good feeling, never giving away money for others, just for himself.

[MichaelJWilliams]

Originally Posted by gijsbert2002

Similarly a darkworker might give lots of money to charity, because it makes him feel good, this will make him look like a lightworker, but he isn't, he's literally buying a good feeling, never giving away money for others, just for himself.

If someone wants to feel good and knows that buying a new TV (say) would make him feel about as happy as giving the same amount to charity, but chooses to give to charity so as to help other people as well, does that make him a darkworker?

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by gijsbert2002

Say he wants to be on stage, because he likes the power over the auience that gives him. he will only have that power if he makes music the audience will like.

This isn't factually correct.

It's very easy to steal, buy, or otherwise acquire good music that someone else made and use it as your own to get that power.

You can do it either overtly or covertly, whatever best fits your situation.

Most modern "rockstars" don't write their own music at all, it's mostly bought from behind-the-scenes composers. With pop stars this is overt, and you can find out who actually wrote the music - so people like Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera. Then with other rockstars it's more covert where the true composers are kept secret as part of the deal.

Most popular music is not written and performed by the same person.

The way I see it, there is a lot of reason for a darkworker to perform, but fewer reasons to create, just because a darkworker who only cares about fame has no need to focus all his effort on creation. He could outsource his creation. Creation is the hardest part.

Similarly a darkworker might give lots of money to charity, because it makes him feel good, this will make him look like a lightworker, but he isn't, he's literally buying a good feeling, never giving away money for others, just for himself.

I think this can happen but it just depends on what feeling he is getting. If he gives to charity to feel superior or elite or something like that, that would be darkworker intentions. If he gives because he just wants to see them be happy or cared for or whatever, then that would be lightworker.

So I agree to an extent, however I also think most darkworkers will quickly find more efficient ways to dominate others than charity. But charity to feel superior is definitely one tool in the toolbox. Nothing wrong with that.

[wolfgang]

It seems like any goal we talk about can have a spin on it and be motivated in either polarity. It is individualistic. One can not take a goal and say - well that goal must have this polarity.

All I was identifying with was the feeling of inflow with my feeling of wanting to be admired for playing music. And I didn't feel that feeling as selling out or trying to create something atrificial that would produce fans. It was more like, I'll create some kick ass music that I want to create because I like my own expression - and the fans will digg it because it's an authentic expression. I don't see the inflow energy as wanting to generate fans based on trying to target what they want to hear - I feel it as enthusiasm and that would naturally get people involved in a way that they will turn into fans because they want to feel excited too - a vicarious attraction. Or, damn, he's good, I wish I was that good.

Again, everyone can spin a goal into what ever polarity they'd like. I don't think we can identify polarity motivations by what the goal is or by the outcome of someone's actions.

Saying creativity is inherently lightworkers work doesn't make sense. Creativity can be motivated by either polarity, is what I'm saying and it's individualistic. Each one of you will have your own spin on how creativity is motivated.

[wolfgang]

This isn't factually correct.

Making music only the audience likes is not quite the aim of many muscians. We are more into finding expression and exposing that such that the audience recognizes good stuff. It, in my mind, should never be about targetting an audience or you're just turning into an actor and not really digging into true expression. I venture to say, anyone that can get to true expression is going to have an audience.

It's very easy to steal, buy, or otherwise acquire good music that someone else made and use it as your own to get that power.

You can do it either overtly or covertly, whatever best fits your situation.

Most modern "rockstars" don't write their own music at all, it's mostly bought from behind-the-scenes composers. With pop stars this is overt, and you can find out who actually wrote the music - so people like Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera. Then with other rockstars it's more covert where the true composers are kept secret as part of the deal.

PLaying someone else's music can work, as long as you can play it with gusto and actually enjoy what you are playing people will be interested.

Most popular music is not written and performed by the same person.

The way I see it, there is a lot of reason for a darkworker to perform, but fewer reasons to create, just because a darkworker who only cares about fame has no need to focus all his effort on creation. He could outsource his creation. Creation is the hardest part.

I'm not sure about the reasoning here. Motivation to create something can not be pinned down to dark or light. Creating something is not going to be motivated only with lightworkers feelings - it can be either, depending on the individual. Sure a darkworker could outsource, so could a lightworker - a lightworker may look for music that would sooth the masses, a darkworker would try to play stuff to be admired.

A darkworker looking for fame can be insanely motivated to create great works. And the fame seeking feeling doesn't have to be a sell out. Wanting to be admired does not imdediatly mean sell out and non-creativeness.

And just as powerfull would be a lightworker creating out of the feeling that people will benefit and the lightworker would be most interested in making people feel great because of their creative music.


Being creative is not going to be one or the other polarity. But also this polarity idea is kind of nuts anyway. Why I spent so much time thinking about it, who knows. I'm still no better off than before this polarity idea.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

any goal we talk about can have a spin on it and be motivated in either polarity. It is individualistic. One can not take a goal and say - well that goal must have this polarity.

That's correct. Unless you are disagreeing with Steve.

[Shaden]

That's correct. Unless you are disagreeing with Steve.

Micheal, I'm surprised at you :O

I hope you were joking there. I really do.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

That's correct. Unless you are disagreeing with Steve.

I've been trying to keep to what Steve is saying to try and understand his idea and not confuse more people trying to understand polarity.

If Steve actually put together a list of things that must be true for his polarity idea, then perhaps there'd be less to be confused about.

But I think Steve has said that polarity only applies to the motivation of the goal. It doesn't apply to what the goal's results or to what achieveing the goal produces.

So if there was a set of rules that Steve put out and we all saw that list, we could run through it to test what we are saying and be pretty clear and accurate to his idea.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Shaden

Micheal, I'm surprised at you :O

I hope you were joking there. I really do.

I wasn't. Polarity, as I understand how Steve has described it, has nothing to do with goals; it is a matter of how your intentions are oriented.

A goal is not an intention. A goal may be the result of an intention, but there is no absolute link between the intention and the goal. Thus, a goal cannot indicate an intention, and an intention is the only indicator of polarity. Thus, a goal cannot indicate a polarity.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Michael, I like your explanation. A goal has no polarity, it is the intention, or the energy of the intention that gives rise to polarity and the goal is a result or all of that, an effect if you will. The cause is more the energy behind it. Simply put, if you are creative and you are creative in a giving way, and you hook up with an agent who is a darkworker, someone who has no real talent himself, at least artistically, who will allow you to make money as well, albeit not as much, but if you can support yourself alone without the help of a darkworker agent, then so be it. If not, it may be necessary.