If selfishness isn't evil, then what is evil?

[yossarian]

Darkwork = selfishness

Evil = ?

I readily admit that someone who is acting selfishly can end up benefitting the greater good. But they are still selfish aren't they? Over the long run, someone who is selfish will certainly benefit the greater good and eventually realise englightenment. This I believe to be true. But I don't see how this makes it not-evil.

What is evil if not selfishness, if not darkwork?

[Akashic_Librarian]

Ok Evil is a perception. there is no force called Evil. Or Good. There is only energy. Static Energy. When a mind enters the universe it starts to move this energy. The consciousness of the mind percieves the energy movements. Thus Good and Evil are born.

Now Darkworkers arn't selfish. I can attest to this as I am beginning my Polarization into a Darkworker. I don't believe I am evil. I believe that the best way to help others is by first helping myself. I.E/ Darkworking. Ultimately both Light/Darkworkers head for the same goal. Peace. Both help others. Both help themselves. Its like Steve says, Its a paradox, you have to experience duality before you can achieve Nonduality. Dark is not evil, but Light is not good either. It is all about perception. never forget that. Laws are just rules. Perceptions of the time. Did you know its apparently Illegal to walk into Alabama with a Chicken on your head, yeah. Stupid right? But at the time it was percieved as a horrible crime. Just as it may seem selfish when I focus on helping myself rather than others. But ultimately I am helping everyone as well.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Ok Evil is a perception. there is no force called Evil. Or Good. There is only energy. Static Energy. When a mind enters the universe it starts to move this energy. The consciousness of the mind percieves the energy movements. Thus Good and Evil are born.

Agreed. Polarities are born. Duality is born. Good and evil are born from nonduality.

Now Darkworkers arn't selfish. I can attest to this as I am beginning my Polarization into a Darkworker. I don't believe I am evil. I believe that the best way to help others is by first helping myself.

When you help yourself, are you willing to help yourself at other's expense? Are you willing to hurt me in order to help yourself?

I.E/ Darkworking. Ultimately both Light/Darkworkers head for the same goal. Peace. Both help others.

Doesn't that just mean that evil helps others as well as it helps itself? The cencept that we call "selfishness" certainly helps others because nonduality is fact. But that doesn't mean it isn't selfishness.

If darkwork isn't selfishness, what is selfishness?

Isn't the definition of selfish working only to benefit yourself?

Isn't the definition of darkwork working only to benefit yourself?

therefore, darkwork=selfishness?

[Akashic_Librarian]

Ok selfishness would be taking something from someone else. Darkworking would be letting them have it. Hopefully making the person happier and thus more able to help you. And Help themselves.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Ok selfishness would be taking something from someone else. Darkworking would be letting them have it. Hopefully making the person happier and thus more able to help you. And Help themselves.

thats really confusing... by "letting them have it" what do you mean exactly?

[munish]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Darkwork = selfishness

Evil = ?

I readily admit that someone who is acting selfishly can end up benefitting the greater good. But they are still selfish aren't they? Over the long run, someone who is selfish will certainly benefit the greater good and eventually realise englightenment. This I believe to be true. But I don't see how this makes it not-evil.

What is evil if not selfishness, if not darkwork?

Darkworker is not the problem,darkworker syndrome is.

yossarian-

If darkworker is a bad one,then Is a Lightworker good one?Motive is there behind it.Demand for the pleasure of experience.
Polarity is only a tool for making decisions .You are not using the right words.(Y)

[yossarian]

I didn't say it's a problem

I don't see any problem with evil

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Jon

I want to make the world a better place because at this point in time, I am living in this world. This is a purely selfish motive, and doing good is more likely to complete that objective than doing evil.

How exactly is that evil?

I'm not saying that's evil, I'm just asking what evil is since it's not selfishness.

I guess I've always thought that evil is basically selfishness taken to the extreme. But now that this forum tells me I'm wrong, I'm curious what other people think evil actually is.

I'm willing to accept that you aren't evil, only selfish. But if selfishness isn't evil, what is evil?

[Erin Pavlina]

To me evil is when you willfully harm another for your own gains or for your own pleasure. In other words, when you get pleasure from hurting others.

Being selfish is not evil, in my opinion.

[JHL]

The continuum of spiritual growth ranges from absolute seperation (pure self-centredness) to absolute connectedness (pure love).

"Evil" would best describe someone lower on the continuum who exhibits a lack of love to the degree that they would cause harm to others in the pursuit of their self-centredness. They do so because they are ignorant of the connected nature of things and do not realise that by harming others they simultaneously harm themselves.

Enlightement is the progressive realisation and integration of this concept.

So "evil" typically describes a lack of love to the degree that it is overt and we can recognise it as self-centred behavior and harmful.

We all suffer from a lack of love to some degree, therefore we are all "evil" to some degree...if you will.

"Evil" is not really a useful term to use. "Lack of love" is better, because it also defines the problem at the same time as it describes it.

[Sam988]

For a darkworker, helping himself makes him feel better than if he helps others.


For a lightworker, helping others makes him feel better than if he helps himself.


So its not really a matter of selfishness but a matter of priorities. One feels better helping himself while the other feels better helping others. Everyone is born with either one of these two traits, so, as i said before, its not a matter of selfishness but a matter of doing what makes you feel better.


And, after the affirmations above, i would definitely not consider selfishness = evil. "Selfishness" is just doing what makes you feel the best. For some its helping others, and for some is helping themselves.

[yossarian]

What does a darkworker do when helping himself can be achieved by hurting others?

There are times in life where a person can benefit themselves but in the process they will hurt others. Does a darkworker seize these opportunities, or does he abstain from them?

If you look at the most powerful people in history - take for instance Genghis Khan - he had no problem with killing others if it would benefit him. But ONLY if it would benefit him. He didn't kill for fun or for pleasure, he killed for his own good. He wanted to help himself and in order to give himself the greatest help he found that he could kill others and gain power, wealth, and freedom.

So my question is, under Pavlina Polarity (if I may call it that ), will darkworkers hurt others to benefit themselves?

If the answer is no, then they abstain from hurting others but also won't help them. And apparently the explanation for this is that they too realise that duality is an illusion.

So let's say someone has orgasmic pleasure from killing people because it gives him huge orange chakra activation. He does it because of the energy it allows him to absorb - killing is the ultimate act of domination. He's doing it to feel good and to become powerful. There were SS Officers in the Nazi party that reportedly had orgasms from mass executions. These guys did it to feel good, to feel superior, to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

Under Pavlina Polarity their actions were not actually polarized strongly towards self-service, they were just something else, something we'd call "evil" that isn't related to polarity?

I guess I'm finally getting the picture. (But I don't agree with it )

If someone is "benefitting themself in order to benefit humanity" then IMO they are actually polarized with positive intentions, but I doubt these intentions are effectively accomplished through through cultivating inward energy flow, and even worse through cultivating fearful emotions. Seems like a dangerous path.

Anyway thanks for the answers.

[Sam988]

The point here is that those darkworkers who kill others because they feel pleasure are very very low-aware darkworkers, and they end up being victims of the "darkworker syndrome".


http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/200...consciousness/


Read carefully the part where steve talks about the cells of the body and the body and you will have a better understanding of this subject.

[Theo77]

Read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzche.

Basically if you are a slave or a peasant, rulers are evil. If you are a ruler, there is no good or evil, just things that work out well for you or work out not so well.

Being hung up on evil is what Nietzche calls the "servant morality"

At its heart its passive aggressive.

[Truefire]

Nevermind....

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Theo77

Read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzche.

Basically if you are a slave or a peasant, rulers are evil. If you are a ruler, there is no good or evil, just things that work out well for you or work out not so well.

So to be clear, these people weren't evil, they were just rulers who transcended good and evil?:

- Hitler
- Himmler
- Goebbels
- Stalin
- Genghis Khan
- Attila the Hun
- Pol Pot
- Milosevic
- Saddam Hussein
- Kim Jong-Il
- Edward I
- Alexander
- Nero
- Caligula

They were all totally selfish, but they were low-awareness selfish, because if they were high-awareness selfish they would have seen that being selfish is best achieved by helping others.

So darkworkers intentionally and directly help others because they know that by helping others, their own life will be improved.

Lightworkers intentionally and directly help others because they want others to be happy.

Evil either doesn't exist, or is only applied to low-awareness people who enjoy feeding off red and orange chakra energy. Even though they do it for selfish reasons, their methods prove that they are "low awareness". This isn't offered as a viable path because of the judgement that they will give up their harmful energy-sapping tendencies once they achieve higher awareness.

Evil isn't judged by intentions then, it's judged by awareness+polarity. Evil is defined as a low-awareness darkworker.

[Theo77]

Well, you listed all the leaders we have been conditioned to hate. If you were to look into it, you may find they share many common characteristics with the leaders we;ve been conditioned to think are The "good Guys" If you are happy with your conditioning, though, that's fine. Its working for you I won't try to disabuse you of it.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Theo77

Well, you listed all the leaders we have been conditioned to hate. If you were to look into it, you may find they share many common characteristics with the leaders we;ve been conditioned to think are The "good Guys" If you are happy with your conditioning, though, that's fine. Its working for you I won't try to disabuse you of it.

thats true, Hitler wasn't such a bad guy really when you think about. I mean when it comes down to it, he did basically the exact same stuff as Martin Luther King Jr. or Mohandas Gandhi.

I guess subjective reality is just never going to jive with me. I mean do people's actions mean ANYTHING at all? I, for one, think they do.

[JHL]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Evil isn't judged by intentions then, it's judged by awareness+polarity. Evil is defined as a low-awareness darkworker.

If I've understood you correctly, I think your definition of evil is very limited. Lets take the other extreme: is a high-awareness lightworker also not capable of "evil"? Or do we rule the fact that they are capable of evil by virtue of the fact that they happen to be "high-awareness lightworkers"?

Everyone is human and flawed. "Evil" is merely the manifestation of those flaws (or lack of love in terms of how I see it).

In your example of Hitler, for example - let just say he suffered from an vast inferiority complex. He compensated for own feelings of inferiority by projecting them onto other certain cultures. He felt powerless so he compensated by exercising power over them. A clear overt example of "evil".

If you move towards the other end of the scale you have things like gossiping. People feel somewhat insecure in themselves and so disparage other people behind their backs to make themselves feel better.

These are expressions of the same things, just on very different scales. Its irrelevant whether the person is "darkworker" or "lightworker". The way I see it, both manifestations are "evil". But again, I prefer to look at it as both are symptoms of a lack of love. The solution is the same - they need to love themselves more.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by JHL

If I've understood you correctly, I think your definition of evil is very limited. Lets take the other extreme: is a high-awareness lightworker also not capable of "evil"? Or do we rule the fact that they are capable of evil by virtue of the fact that they happen to be "high-awareness lightworkers"?

Everyone is human and flawed. "Evil" is merely the manifestation of those flaws (or lack of love in terms of how I see it).

In your example of Hitler, for example - let just say he suffered from an vast inferiority complex. He compensated for own feelings of inferiority by projecting them onto other certain cultures. He felt powerless so he compensated by exercising power over them. A clear overt example of "evil".

If you move towards the other end of the scale you have things like gossiping. People feel somewhat insecure in themselves and so disparage other people behind their backs to make themselves feel better.

These are expressions of the same things, just on very different scales. Its irrelevant whether the person is "darkworker" or "lightworker". The way I see it, both manifestations are "evil". But again, I prefer to look at it as both are symptoms of a lack of love. The solution is the same - they need to love themselves more.

It wasn't my definition, I'm just trying to understand some of the people on this forum.

My own personal view is that, in a rough sense, each polarity relates to the classical story of good and evil.

Service-to-others ("good") being the type of polarity shown by Jesus. (The greatest lover in history)

Service-to-self ("evil") being the type of polarity shown by Genghis Khan. (The greatest conquerer in history)

Our culture is naturally biased towards the "good" polarity which is why we have such loaded language and cultural stereotypes and such. However, in my mind, it is perfectly OK to select the evil polarity and polarize in that direction. Evil therefore is not a "flaw" it's just another aspect of the one creation.

To me evil is extreme selfishness, and some individuals will polarize towards service-to-self and as a part of this they will sacrifice the happiness of others for their own happiness. That's part of the game for a service-to-self polarized person.

And so this is where my disagreement comes in and I've been trying to get a clear image. Is a "darkworker" ("a new concept") someone who will do this, or not? Some people are saying darkworkers will not hurt others to achieve their goals, some say they will.

From my view what people on this forum have been doing is creating a Rube Goldberg tube of rationalization so that they can simultaneously follow the negative path (which is perfectly legitimate and I would not condemn anyone for doing so) while disassociating themselves from negative acts typified by that path, and also disassociating themselves from classically negative people.

How many lightworkers are going to embrace the teachings of Jesus? Everyone.

But self-proclaimed darkworkers on this forum seem very reluctant to embrace Genghis Khan who is basically the perfect example of a powerful, competant, highly intelligent, service-to-self person. Genghis Khan created the largest and most successful Empire in history, and made himself probably the most powerful single individual in history. He lived a long life full of love and abundance. Is that not something a darkworker would strive for?

Why are they reluctant to learn from his teachings?

That's just my dispassionate take. If someone wants to be evil I think it's for the best, and it's certainly not my place to judge their behaviour, but I'm pretty distraught at how people are going about it. It seems both suboptimal and in some cases dangerous, because their true intentions seem subverted.

Shrug, I'm no expert, take me with a grain of salt.

[JHL]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Service-to-others ("good") being the type of polarity shown by Jesus. (The greatest lover in history)

Service-to-self ("evil") being the type of polarity shown by Genghis Khan. (The greatest conquerer in history)

But Yossarian isnt EVERYONE is engaged in service to self?

Mother Teresa disavowed materialism and her own personal comforts in the service of others. She did this because it ultimately served HER. She wouldnt have been happy being a stock broker or a fashion designer or anything else. She did was SHE loved to do and was most fulfilled doing.

The same goes for people like firemen, doctors or paramedics or policemen - they are all doing what they love to do, and probably wouldnt want to do anything other than that. So in a sense, yes they serve others - but they serve themselves in the first place - just like Genghis Khan, Al Capone or your local postman.

Do you agree with this?

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by JHL

But Yossarian isnt EVERYONE is engaged in service to self?

Mother Teresa disavowed materialism and her own personal comforts in the service of others. She did this because it ultimately served HER. She wouldnt have been happy being a stock broker or a fashion designer or anything else. She did was SHE loved to do and was most fulfilled doing.

The same goes for people like firemen, doctors or paramedics or policemen - they are all doing what they love to do, and probably wouldnt want to do anything other than that. So in a sense, yes they serve others - but they serve themselves in the first place - just like Genghis Khan, Al Capone or your local postman.

Do you agree with this?

1. Polarization doesn't happen overnight. We all start off our incarnations unpolarized. This means we serve ourself a bit, we serve others a bit, we in general try not to hurt others, and we live our life. We live and learn day to day. Some people slowly polarize, some never polarize. All is as it should be.

2. Joy is not something you attain, it's something you are. To feel joy there is nothing you "do". Mother Teresa didn't help people to feel joy, she felt joy and through that joy was able to help people. Joy is something you feel when energy flows freely through your body. The better the energy flow, the better you feel. I totally disagree that, "She wouldnt have been happy being a stock broker." IMO she would have been joyous as ever, and from that joy would have found a way to serve. It doesn't matter where you put her - she will always be smiling.

She would probably have made a terrible stock broker though and been fired or fail to pass the Series 7 exam, since elated people rarely care to grub around for money. Why should they? They are provided for. An elated person would just as soon give all their money away to someone who really wants it, because the money makes no difference to them.

3. People highly positively polarized don't help others to feel good. They help others because they desire to help others. There is no selfish motive. There is no cortisol feedback mechanism. They aren't doing it for the serotonin. They do it because it is their nature. It is their nature because they feel unity, because they feel universal and unconditional love. Love is not a quid pro quo.

4. People highly negatively polarized find peace through separation. They love their own superiority. Instead of giving themselves freely to the world, they hoard their own abilities and use them only in ways that increase their own abilities. They enslave people and put them to work. Domination is the name of the game. They see the Godhood within themselves and as they polarize they come to work more and more for themselves. This includes empowering themselves at the expense of others, as that is a very effective way to love yourself. A negatively oriented person dehumanizes other beings and closes off his heart chakra from them. He masters the usage of yellow and orange to dominate both individuals and society - these are the source of his strength. From yellow chakra they springboard directly to blue and indigo, avoiding an outward expression of the green chakra.

Since negative polarity reject unity, and unity is fact, eventually they are forced to reconcile to continue their spiritual development. This doesn't mean it's a bad path, it just means that both paths eventually lead to positive polarity, however the reconciliation doesn't happen until the 6th dimension. (Which is eons after this Earthly lifetime)

There IS a difference between negative and positive. In intentions AND in eventual effects. A negatively polarizing person will reach a stage in his evolution where he no longer is able to evolve without directly harming others. This is why there are things such as energy vampires on the astral planes - these are thought forms created by negatively polarized entities to harvest energy that they may dominate and put to their selfish usage. You might last a few years as a negatively polarized person who does no harm, but eventually you will be presented with a choice:

A. Do you harm someone to increase your own power?
B. Do you abstain from harming them, miss the opportunity, and therefore depolarize?

Depolarization is generally not something people are eager to do. Once you start down the path, you may not come back. Although you always have free will. But I think it's very naive to think that cultivating selfishness is not going to lead to hurting others. If you feel the call to improve yourself, why not improve yourself to be of greater service? That is a positive intention and is therefore positively polarized. The people on this forum who talk about how they are darkworkers, are, IMO, actually wanting to be service-to-others. They tend to talk about contributing to humanity and stuff, and show a clear aversion to hurting others, so I strongly doubt that negative polarization is truly what they are after. Be careful what you wish for, because you'll always get it.

[Theo77]

Yossarian,

What if we are like beings made of clay? You know, its an analogy that has been made before. So what is so great about being smushed back into the lump?

I never liked "oneness" spirituality. All this talk about "ego death" extinction, nirvana, etc.

I figure why not have fun for a while being a seperate entity, move around, do stuff, go on adventures.

It's almost like some forms of spirituality, are akin to once having been born, desiring to return to the womb.

Forget that. I figure while I am alive I might as well enjoy life, instead of focusing all my energy on what I want to do when I am dead.

If we all came from the same source and we all will eventually return, if you are having fun enjoying seperation, why not keep it up?

I mean what was the point of seperating in the first place?

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by Theo77

I mean what was the point of seperating in the first place?

I actually think that's a really meaningful and important question.

If that's how you feel about it I would say you should definitely follow the feeling and explore that aspect of yourself.

Nothing wrong with separation. I truly believe we're here to enjoy ourselves.

Our consiousness was separated from the oneness eons ago at the formation of the universe. We are given free will and nothing can abridge it.

The point of the separation was to let the creator come to know itself. The super-creator created us sub-creators so we might create things ourselves and by doing so come to know ourselves and also allow the infinite creation in general to enjoy those things.

So I mean, the explanation is that we were put here to do whatever we want, and it's totally our choice what we do, and there are no wrong answers.

Some people seek unity because for whatever reason, that's what they want. Some people prefer separation. That's why they have menus at restaurants - we're all unique.

[Theo77]

right. I talked about this before with someone here. Was it you?

I quoted Jung. He parted company with the Hindus, in these levels of ego development, where they supposedly return to the vast ocean and are just a ripple on the surface.

Before that, there is a level where the ego and the self are aware of each other. That's as high as I want to go. To be Frank, I am suspicious of anything beyond that.

I like the part where we give self awareness to God. So I agree with you.

I think its quite possible that God is an agnostic.

So wether I am truly dark, or wether these spiritual paths that are all gung ho about self anihilation are dark, I don't really know.

All I know is that that path is not for me.

[JHL]

Originally Posted by yossarian

2. Joy is not something you attain, it's something you are. To feel joy there is nothing you "do". Mother Teresa didn't help people to feel joy, she felt joy and through that joy was able to help people.

I disagree with you here, Yossarian. Theoretically at our essence we might all "be" joy. But by default of being a human being, we are seperate from our essence. Our work here is to reconnect with our essence and to increase our feeling of joy. Mother Teresa's way of connecting to her essence was to do the work she did. However, a person cannot do work that is incongruent with their essence and remain in a joyful state. Hence had she become a stock broker she would not have remained joyful. Ask any person in a job thats wrong for them how it makes them feel.

Originally Posted by yossarian

3. People highly positively polarized don't help others to feel good. They help others because they desire to help others. There is no selfish motive. There is no cortisol feedback mechanism. They aren't doing it for the serotonin. They do it because it is their nature. It is their nature because they feel unity, because they feel universal and unconditional love. Love is not a quid pro quo.

But why do people desire to help others? Because it makes them feel good to help others. If it didnt make them feel good, you can be sure they wouldnt do it. Thus, even though it happens to be "for the greater good", they're still really serving themselves. And if it is someones "nature" to serve others, then I give them even less credit for doing so. In kabalah there's a saying [which I'm about to screw up horribly] that says the angels sing loudest not when the good do good, but when those who have strayed from the path of righteousness find their way back - and do good.

Originally Posted by yossarian

4. People highly negatively polarized find peace through separation.

I disagree here too. I feel fairly certain that people like hitler et al felt anything but joy or peace. On the contrary, I suspect they were generally paranoid, lonely and deeply unhappy inside. Hitler used to have to be injected every morning just to get him out of bed. His personal doctor fed him a cocktail of stimulants and other drugs every day just keep him functional. People on that end of the scale do not have the benefit of joy or that "life force" to sustain them. Generally, I would say that peace was a stranger to them.

Originally Posted by yossarian

They see the Godhood within themselves and as they polarize they come to work more and more for themselves.

On the contrary, they are blind to the holiness that resides within themselves. As a result of this disconnection they experience a sense of powerlessness and fear. It is for this reason that they seek external validation to compensate for their feelings of powerlessness by exercising power and control over others.

Originally Posted by yossarian

... I think it's very naive to think that cultivating selfishness is not going to lead to hurting others.

Surely in order to be of help to anyone else, you must first improve yourself, i.e. be selfish? Being selfish does not mean that you hold everyone else in contempt, rather it reflects the understanding that in order to be of service to anyone else, you must first help yourself. You cannot give away what you dont have. It is therefore naive to believe that you help anyone else, unless you are first in a position to do so! There is subtle psychology at play here...lots of people like to rescue other people - ostensibly to serve others - but these are usually people who require rescuing themselves.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by yossarian

1. Polarization doesn't happen overnight. We all start off our incarnations unpolarized. This means we serve ourself a bit, we serve others a bit, we in general try not to hurt others, and we live our life. We live and learn day to day. Some people slowly polarize, some never polarize. All is as it should be.

I've thought most people start off completly inflow polarized by the nature of being totally dependant on others until we are able to feed ourselves.

2. Joy is not something you attain, it's something you are.
.. from that joy would have found a way to serve. It doesn't matter where you put her - she will always be smiling.

Joy is not to be attained - yet joy shows up when there's a willingness to serve.

3. People highly positively polarized don't help others to feel good. They help others because they desire to help others. There is no selfish motive. There is no cortisol feedback mechanism. They aren't doing it for the serotonin. They do it because it is their nature. It is their nature because they feel unity, because they feel universal and unconditional love. Love is not a quid pro quo.

I think the selfish motive in a positively polarized person is still there, in a sense. Just to be able to know what the feeling is like, one must also direct this feeling towards individuality.

4. People highly negatively polarized find peace through separation. They love their own superiority. Instead of giving themselves freely to the world, they hoard their own abilities and use them only in ways that increase their own abilities. They enslave people and put them to work. Domination is the name of the game. They see the Godhood within themselves and as they polarize they come to work more and more for themselves. This includes empowering themselves at the expense of others, as that is a very effective way to love yourself. A negatively oriented person dehumanizes other beings and closes off his heart chakra from them. He masters the usage of yellow and orange to dominate both individuals and society - these are the source of his strength. From yellow chakra they springboard directly to blue and indigo, avoiding an outward expression of the green chakra.

Since negative polarity reject unity, and unity is fact, eventually they are forced to reconcile to continue their spiritual development. This doesn't mean it's a bad path, it just means that both paths eventually lead to positive polarity, however the reconciliation doesn't happen until the 6th dimension. (Which is eons after this Earthly lifetime)

Sounds somewhat like darkworker syndrome. I don't see how the ideas of darkworker, if it can lead to recognizing untiy, can also include "empowering at expence of others", "reject unity", dehumanizing, closes heart, separation. All that just sounds too extreme to be a functional darkworker.

You might last a few years as a negatively polarized person who does no harm, but eventually you will be presented with a choice:

A. Do you harm someone to increase your own power?
B. Do you abstain from harming them, miss the opportunity, and therefore depolarize?

I've lost your train of thought with your use of negatively polarized and depolarizing. I'll assume I got that you are saying, darkworkers that are in the syndrome (negative) will still face sorting out if it's working to harm someone else and if harming someone else actually helps me be more or better or something - and depolarizing means not being so negative but still recognizing an inflow darkworker feeling that doesn't harm anyone.

My reaction to that is, darkworkers of the syndrome kind may hurt others and the way out of that, is probably to let some of the attention that works for you as inflow darkworker engery, to let some of that attention go out to others too. It may be an expansion of attention to include others but not really a change in direction of the motivational energy. Now that I wrote that I'm not sure if I belive that.

If you feel the call to improve yourself, why not improve yourself to be of greater service? That is a positive intention and is therefore positively polarized.

Improving yourself to be of greater service is probably on darkworker's and lightworker's path equally. Or that is a goal that one can take on - to improve yourself to be a greater service.

I state this just from reading Steve's blog and trying to apply the "rules" or "end results" or "boundaries" or "laws" of polarizing. Such as:
1) dark and light both can become enlightened
2) there's a sydrome to both
3) others don't suffer from positive (healthy) dark or light workers
4) polarization is more effective at motivating than not polarizing

[yossarian]

I wasn't talking about darkworkers ("a new concept") I was talking about a classical conception of negative polarity - something that would classically be called evil.

I don't recognize the difference between helping yourself in order to help others, and directly helping others. IMO they both are intentions to help other people. I see no difference. If your motivation for improvement is imagining a time in the future when you can use what you've learned to be of service, then the improvement itself counts as service.

If your motivation for improvement is imagining a time when you can use it to dominate, that's negative polarity.

There are so many different conceptions of polarity being thrown around they seem to be getting confused. That was just my take, which is a more classical take, and it seems I totally disagree with JHL on everything. As far as the Steve take goes, I think in general everything he says is right except for a few specific issues.

Concerning the issue of harm to others, which I think is a central discongruency here, imagine Genghis Khan as a 9 year old being thrown out of his tribe. His father was killed by tribal rivals, and his mother, himself and his brothers were thrown out of the tribe into the wilderness to die on the cold Mongolian Steppe. He had to hunt for the survival of his family, and if they ever crossed the path of that tribe again they would be executed.

The first big step he took down the negative path was to murder his brother because his brother challenged his authority in the family by stealing a fish from him. This solidified him, at 9 years of age, as the solid head of the small family living totally independantly. As time went on he killed and fought himself in more and more positions of power, going from the absolute lowest he could go - literally a dead man in the Mongolian eyes - to taking over the Mongolian region by force and conquering the entire world including Russia, China, India, Middle East, Egypt, and parts of Europe.

Murder was a part of life for him because it benefited him. Does a selfish person want power? Wealth? A big family? A safe family? A healthy family? These things come at costs, and sometimes other humans stand in your way. How you deal with these humans will either depend on your polarity or determine your polarity. Temujin was wise and knew when to murder and when to make alliances. He was truly the most talented general in all of history and his empire was the greatest. He had many friends, admirers, and a loving family who were ever grateful for what he gave them. He gave them power in return for their love and loyalty.

Are you telling me that murder did not benefit this man? There is no single individual who embodies material success more than Genghis Khan. He was a deeply spiritual person who venerated the Eternal Blue Sky, and was also a mystic who connected with the infinite power of the universe.

He didn't derive pleasure from killing, rather everything he did was dispassionately calculated to create the world he wanted to create. The specific world he wanted was one that had freedom of religion - and he gave this to the Muslim and Chinese regions he conquered that were otherwise religiously oppressive. He spread free trade to every corner of the Empire and by doing this spread information and wealth. The merchant roads he built directly led to the renaissance, as Europeans came to know of the immense wealth of the East. The guy had a very positive effect on the world as a whole, a negative effect on a few people who got in his way, and his intentions were purely 100% selfish the entire time.

Some say that darkworker syndrome is hurting others, but maybe the real darkworker syndrome is being adverse to hurting others. A darkworker who is truly dedicated to his own service should not be unwilling to twist, coerce, and dominate other people, as those actions will benefit himself. Some people will certainly be a threat to the darkworker, and sometimes the easiest way to remove these people will be to kill them. Genghis Khan proved the wisdom in this course of action. There has never been a richer individual.

Channeled material which I consider highly reputable suggests that Genghis Khan, upon his death, since he was so spiritually advanced, chose to graduate to the next density and join a service-to-self collective that works to enslave other entities. If this is true he would certainly make a Jesus-like rolemodel for true darkworker type people.

I guess what it comes down to is that I don't buy the idea that entities striving for seperation will abstain from controlling others through force. Controlling others through force, IMO, is practically the entire discipline, and only a low-level negative entity would not engage in this behaviour. Steve as a low-level negative entity showed that he was willing to shoplift. Genghis Khan as a high-level negative entity showed that he was willing to mass execute.

Of course I also don't buy terming the two polarities love vs. fear, since negative polarity is not based on fear it's based on love-of-self. Either polarity experiences fear, but the fear is of different things. At least that's my opinion.

Anyway I don't mean to preach, I think people should believe whatever feels most congruent. I guess I feel compelled to speak up when I see what looks to me like dangerous confusion. But who am I to judge? I'm sure it's all for the best.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by yossarian

I wasn't talking about darkworkers ("a new concept") I was talking about a classical conception of negative polarity - something that would classically be called evil.

OK, evil vs good polarity.

There are so many different conceptions of polarity being thrown around they seem to be getting confused. That was just my take, which is a more classical take, and it seems I totally disagree with JHL on everything. As far as the Steve take goes, I think in general everything he says is right except for a few specific issues.

Are you agreeing with Steve's ideas as darkworker=negative polarity and lightworker=positve polarity? I hope not, since that wouldn't jive with readings Steve's ideas since a darkworker is able to arrive at the same place/state that a lightworker achieves.

Some say that darkworker syndrome is hurting others, but maybe the real darkworker syndrome is being adverse to hurting others. A darkworker who is truly dedicated to his own service should not be unwilling to twist, coerce, and dominate other people, as those actions will benefit himself. Some people will certainly be a threat to the darkworker, and sometimes the easiest way to remove these people will be to kill them. Genghis Khan proved the wisdom in this course of action. There has never been a richer individual.

The real syndrome is not hurting others? Hope that's not true. To think, hurting a few is going to be better for the whole is not a problem? Big debate possible there since it happens with vaccinations. Some kids get bad complications from vaccinations, to the benifits of the whole world if, say, polio stays dormant while a few may have died while trying to stamp it out with vaccinations.

I guess what it comes down to is that I don't buy the idea that entities striving for seperation will abstain from controlling others through force. Controlling others through force, IMO, is practically the entire discipline, and only a low-level negative entity would not engage in this behaviour. Steve as a low-level negative entity showed that he was willing to shoplife. Genghis Khan as a high-level negative entity showed that he was willing to mass execute.

I don't buy any of that either. However, being a negative darkworker may control others but not a positive (healthy) darkworker. Supposedly the healthy darkworker doens't hurt others.

Of course I also don't buy terming the two polarities love vs. fear, since negative polarity is not based on fear it's based on love-of-self. Either polarity experiences fear, but the fear is of different things. At least that's my opinion.

Anyway I don't mean to preach, I think people should believe whatever feels most congruent. I guess I feel compelled to speak up when I see what looks to me like dangerous confusion. But who am I to judge? I'm sure it's all for the best.

Is the dangerous confusion equating darkworker with your description of negative polarity? Then I see what you mean.

[yossarian]

IMO what Steve has presented with regards to the dark path specifically is a confusion.

Negative polarity and positive do end up at the same place - I absolutely believe this. But they don't have the same effects on the world, they don't behave in identical ways, and they (of course) have differing intentions.

I certainly believe that a negative individual can LOOK the same as a positive one, and that it is impossible for a human to discover what they are definitively (but in some cases you can make a very educated guess) since you can't read their mind. I also believe negative entities make it a habit to intentionally look positive to beguile and control others.

Do both polarities end up at the same place? Yes. After eons. This is what I was referring to as the reconciliation - the time when a negative entity realises he can go no further on his journey without fully accepting the fact of unity. At this time, which happens in the early 6th dimension at the latest, the negative entity is so powerful and so wise that he can instantly manifest himself to a highly polarized positive entity. That is the power of his intentions. We're talking about someone far more powerful than any human - a more ethereal being on a higher plane of existence.

So yes they certainly end up at the same place. But it can take a long time. Of course, every path is unique. Some reconcile sooner than others. We are speaking in the general case, so that individuals may be helped to choose a polarity and cultivate a vision of themselves.

Long story short, IMO you can't take the negative path without eventually enslaving others as a matter of course. That doesn't mean it's bad - slavery is a very natural thing and I encourage anyone who truly feels the call of the dark to pursue that. I say this with full awareness that you'll be directly screwing my own interests up, since an enslaved entity is one that isn't going to spiritually develop very much himself. But I mean it's just not right for me to dissuade people from doing what they feel called to do. It's not for the greatest good. In my opinion.