Darkworkers and relationships

[Shindra]

Originally Posted by Kingston

And I suspect that the historians from 4000 years in the future will not study Bush, but certainly they will study Napoleon and Alexander. To compare them with Bush makes me lol. He is not an example of great results, but of nepotism and stagnation.

Oh no, I didn't mean to compare Bush with Napoleon and Alexander. That is indeed funny . It was merely that you seemed to say quite too directly that to get to the political top and have impact, or to generally have control ove a very large number of people, required high-lvl/pol, and I know you agree that that is not the case.

Originally Posted by Kingston

Most darkworkers of the past were probably not politicians, but we don't read about them in the historybooks, so thats where my examples came from.

What we do not know might be more important than what is easily visible.
I would think one has to watch very carefully which indicators they look for to find great people to model or be inspired by. Ever since I learned about the syndrome, I have thought it logical to see any self-destructive acts as important negative signs.

Originally Posted by Kingston

In Napoleon's case, surely the same audacity that made him great defeated him in the end. He is a classic tragic hero with a fatal flaw. The perfect darkworker off course lives happily ever after, but Napoleon and Alexander were still polarized, and still manifested great results. That was my single point!

That is a good point then.
One thing you said is interesting, that Alexander died at 30 something. It is probable that someone at that age, even if they had polarized, would not yet have reached a level of consciousness where they had gotten rid of all the more weighty self-destructive tendencies.

I would not like to see you crash.

[Kingston]

About Musashi, for deciding on his polarity or not polarity, I refer you to the articles again. Maybe I'm wrong and he was not a darkworker/lightworker after all. That would mean that his killing was purely skill based, and that his enlightenment was either a myth, or limited to his profession.

Originally Posted by Natsu

I am sure that you don't fear losing control (nor do I, since fear is useless ;-) . But I suppose you take that possibility into account. Do you have something planned in that case? I'll take for granted you don't worry for that, but, have you planned some self-control stuff in case your own impulse got out of direction and sent you where you didn't want to go? I am really curious about this one.

Originally Posted by Shindra

One thing you said is interesting, that Alexander died at 30 something. It is probable that someone at that age, even if they had polarized, would not yet have reached a level of consciousness where they had gotten rid of all the more weighty self-destructive tendencies.

I would not like to see you crash.

Thanks Shindra..

We should not confuse darkworker syndrome with the "karmic debt" that is created by inflow intentions. As we know, the key to inflow intentions is paying the debt willingly. I suspect I can avoid a crash by being a good debtor, which means taking total responsibility for my life. Another way of seeing the crashes of people like Alexander and Napoleon is that their crash *was* their payment. The qualities that made them great also made them crash. They burned in their own flames.

I don't know yet what will happen when my inflow becomes extremely strong. No Napoleon or Alexander here, my polarity is expressed in ways that don't involve dying soldiers or likewise unpleasant things. As for other ways of crashing, since I can't foresee them, I guess I will just have to take my chances

I think I will leave this thread as it is now. Thanks for the insightful conversation.

[Mike Elias]

If I understand correctly, darkworkers see fear as something to be conquered. Couldn't this include the fear of having his heart broken? A darkworker could love without restraint, perhaps as passionately as a lightworker, but motivated by the desire to conquer that fear. Or at least to experience all the emotional highs that being in love entails. right?

[oberlee]

Thanks to ALL of you involved in this discussion...I"m confused on polarization as well. I don't really get it; it seems limiting. And I think it's strange that everyone talks about darkworkers in very negative terms, but tiptoe around calling them "evil." I am sure you don't consider yourself evil, and Im' sure you're not, but...I don't get it. If I had to choose between living a fear-based or a love-based life, isn't the choice obvious? Isn't it obvious that living a fear-based life is not transporting you to higher levels of consciousness? Isn't that, in some way, the definition of fear, that it's debilitating?

I was very interested in this at first, but I think it's ABSOLUTELY SILLY to reduce awareness to a mathematical problem. How can you do that? Like energy is measurable? I don't know... It seems too simplistic to me, and very, very limiting. I don't want my search for higher lvels of consciousness to be limiting. It makes me anxious just thinking about it, like when I was a wee Catholic and I committed a sin. I don't get it.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with you, but I have to agree with Natsu...and I'm glad that someone else has the same feelings about it as I do.

If someone could point to a real, great "darkworker" that had reached higher levels of consciousness without being evil and without committing suicide, could you please do so? Everyone seems to have a hard problem with this one, which leads me to believe it's faulty by definition.

Thanks! And you all rock.

[Plato]

There's no point in discussing people in history who might or might not have been darkworkers....it's impossible to say if anybody that seeks great power is a darkworker, lightworker or more likely neither.

Most significantly, you cannot determine somebody's polarisation from the way they behave. Life is a power game and whether you CHOOSE to play or not; whether your goal is to be president of the united states or just to be able to put a roof over your family's head, you ARE playing the game. Lightworkers must gain power to serve the greater good. Darkworkers must do what is necessary to achieve their own personal good.

And being a darkworker is about loving yourself unconditionally and doing everything for your own good. Given this perspective you can still have very humble desires. A lot of people here seem to be suggesting that being a darkworker is all about world domination!

Originally Posted by oberlee

everyone talks about darkworkers in very negative terms, but tiptoe around calling them "evil."

There's no such thing as evil.

[Brutha]

If someone could point to a real, great "darkworker" that had reached higher levels of consciousness without being evil and without committing suicide, could you please do so? Everyone seems to have a hard problem with this one, which leads me to believe it's faulty by definition.

The dark worker will do some things that other people judge as evil.

To the suicide topic, even someone like Jesus did on the cross.

The chinese Empress Wu Zetian is someone I would consider a darkworker who died at 80.

In addition it is very difficult to judge people out of a distance. We don't know much about people like Alexander the Great.

I don't want my search for higher lvels of consciousness to be limiting.

When searching anything of value you always have to limit yourself. Their is always a price to pay for strategic choices.

If I had to choose between living a fear-based or a love-based life, isn't the choice obvious?

It is not so much fear it is power. Feeling powerful is nice.

On the relationship topic:
Take someone like Sartre. After Sartre love is about power. We don't like when our partner sleeps with someone else because that reduces our power over our partner.
If love is about wanting the best for the other person, there is no reason for us to feel bad about our partner cheating.
In addition a intimate love relationship gives a lot of power to either make the partner feel bad or feel good.

In addition your average pickup artist, has also a darkworker perspective to relationships.

I agreed on Musashi as a successful person because he didn't kill for the sake of killing or power: he was striving for perfection, which he achieved,

Perfection is power.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Brutha

On the relationship topic:
Take someone like Sartre. After Sartre love is about power. We don't like when our partner sleeps with someone else because that reduces our power over our partner.
If love is about wanting the best for the other person, there is no reason for us to feel bad about our partner cheating.
In addition a intimate love relationship gives a lot of power to either make the partner feel bad or feel good.

In addition your average pickup artist, has also a darkworker perspective to relationships.

Hmm, love could be about power- I like that perspective. Thanks.

As for your 'average pickup artist'...most start out as such gushing little huggy bears that if they didn't focus on the balls-to-the walls side of things they'd find it very difficult to change their previously unsuccessful behaviour into something more effective.

Generally I will avoid anybody who calls himself a "PUA" though because invariably they are insecure weirdos and are annoyingly keen to go and hit on women... I should know, I was one. Once they stop identifying themselves as "PUAs" and start being "successful men" I'll hang with them.

Peace,

Plato.

[bdc]

Originally Posted by Plato

I'd particularly like to know how to remove any feelings of guilt for doing what *I* want.

Guilt is the deeply ingrained fear of retaliation and consequent loss.

How do you remove guilt?

- Avoid situations that could trigger retaliation
- Avoid attachments to things that can be lost
- Understand the essence of retaliation

The last item is practical and surprisingly potent. Why do others retaliate? Because you're not doing what they want. Think about the implications of that. You're not doing what they want. So? Who do they think they are? What are their motives?

Enlightened people rarely retaliate. They take measured action to prevent you from making a bigger mess. Or they simply move along. There is little to fear.

Unenlightened people do retaliate, but they command no moral high ground, so you can stop beating yourself up. Be wary of pretenders who invoke the cross, or the flag, or the community, or saving the children, in order to legitimize their self-serving demands.

At the risk of sounding sexist, the archetypal example is perhaps the woman who accuses you of being a selfish jerk because she doesn't want to share you with another woman. If she doesn't want to share, that's cool, but it hardly makes you selfish!

Another classic example is the person who serves their own spiritual greed and community standing by stealing your money and freedom in the name of the children. If you don't give up your freedom and money you're a horrible person!

If these people are angry or retaliatory it is because they would personally benefit, but they have failed to control you.

Originally Posted by Plato

It all stems from a deeprooted feeling of unworthiness I think.

It stems from fear of loss. People often fear losing:

- Health
- Toys
- Reputation (bedroom privileges )
- Participation in social games (bedroom privileges )
- Access to community resources (bedroom privileges )

Originally Posted by Plato

How can I get rid of that? Will it naturally fade over time by polarising more strongly?

Guilt will disappear the instant you understand. Guilt will reappear the instant you forget what you have understood.

If you cannot continuously manifest understanding, you will alternate between guilt and serenity in pathological fashion.

[fiar]

This is my first post here, so indulge me perhaps.

I've been reading Steve's site voraciously for about a month, and today was the day I read about polarization and darkworker/lightworker. I disagree with the entire assessment on both points.

It's clear that the characterization of these two polarities seems like choosing whether to be Christlike versus being the Antichrist. I think the whole premise is wrong. Based on the descriptions of "darkworker, " that seems like it's a path of destruction, vanity, and other low-level consciousness qualities. The description of "lightworker" seems to be to strive for the highest good of all.

That's why it's wrong. If you can truly optimize through either path, and the behaviors reflected look the same, then one cannot be against the highest good while one is for it.

They are merely two sides of the same path.

I don't yet have terminology to properly label these two, so I will stick with the lightworker/darkworker labels.

A "darkworker" will be motivated by the desire to improve himself. In doing so, everyone benefits. If everyone does not benefit, then it is not high consciousness being achieved. If there is retribution or any price to pay for self-improvement, then the self has not improved. To truly self-optimize, one must consider the highest good as well.

A "lightworker" will be motivated by the desire to serve others. In order to best serve others, she needs to also optimize herself. If she does not optimize herself, she cannot BEST serve others. She can serve others, but not to the maximum potential.

Thus, I see the idea of light versus dark flawed. Service of self and service of others are mutually enhancing and congruent.

I see polarization as a choice of which will be the motivating factor. If you look and say, "I want to be the best that I can be. I know that if I do that, it will be for the highest good" (especially if you consider subjective reality). If you look and say, "I want to serve the highest good. I know to do that I must be the best I can be" (especially if you consider subjective reality).

So, the only difference between the two "polarizations" is which lights the fire. I know when I consider the two options, I say, "I can really get motivated to be the best I can be." By that definition, I am a "darkworker," until I figure out a better set of terminology.

Evil people are NOT "darkworkers," they are low consciousness beings. Conversely, being a good person does NOT make you a "lightworker." "Darkworker" is not fear based. It is "self motivates me." "Lightworker" is not love based. It is "service motivates me."

If it is not for the highest good, it is NOT high consciousness.

[Freelancer]

Originally Posted by fiar

This is my first post here, so indulge me perhaps.

I've been reading Steve's site voraciously for about a month, and today was the day I read about polarization and darkworker/lightworker. I disagree with the entire assessment on both points.

It's clear that the characterization of these two polarities seems like choosing whether to be Christlike versus being the Antichrist. I think the whole premise is wrong. Based on the descriptions of "darkworker, " that seems like it's a path of destruction, vanity, and other low-level consciousness qualities. The description of "lightworker" seems to be to strive for the highest good of all.

That's why it's wrong. If you can truly optimize through either path, and the behaviors reflected look the same, then one cannot be against the highest good while one is for it.

They are merely two sides of the same path.

I don't yet have terminology to properly label these two, so I will stick with the lightworker/darkworker labels.

A "darkworker" will be motivated by the desire to improve himself. In doing so, everyone benefits. If everyone does not benefit, then it is not high consciousness being achieved. If there is retribution or any price to pay for self-improvement, then the self has not improved. To truly self-optimize, one must consider the highest good as well.

A "lightworker" will be motivated by the desire to serve others. In order to best serve others, she needs to also optimize herself. If she does not optimize herself, she cannot BEST serve others. She can serve others, but not to the maximum potential.

Thus, I see the idea of light versus dark flawed. Service of self and service of others are mutually enhancing and congruent.

I see polarization as a choice of which will be the motivating factor. If you look and say, "I want to be the best that I can be. I know that if I do that, it will be for the highest good" (especially if you consider subjective reality). If you look and say, "I want to serve the highest good. I know to do that I must be the best I can be" (especially if you consider subjective reality).

So, the only difference between the two "polarizations" is which lights the fire. I know when I consider the two options, I say, "I can really get motivated to be the best I can be." By that definition, I am a "darkworker," until I figure out a better set of terminology.

Evil people are NOT "darkworkers," they are low consciousness beings. Conversely, being a good person does NOT make you a "lightworker." "Darkworker" is not fear based. It is "self motivates me." "Lightworker" is not love based. It is "service motivates me."

If it is not for the highest good, it is NOT high consciousness.

Hehe you start of saying you don't agree with steve and than you proceed to repeat exactly what he means.


Ps. He has mentioned multiple times that lightworker and darkerworker aren't the best labels but theres simply a lack of anything better right now.

[fiar]

Freelancer

It seemed like there were conflicting messages. Just look at this thread for evidence of that. If I agree with what he means, then that's fine with me . It's also possible I haven't read enough about it.

[Freelancer]

Originally Posted by fiar

Freelancer

It seemed like there were conflicting messages. Just look at this thread for evidence of that. If I agree with what he means, then that's fine with me . It's also possible I haven't read enough about it.

I merely found it ironic that you first disagree and than repeat his points.

Your right though that a lot of people have a lack of understanding and I'd say you explained this clearly.


Besides, enlightened self interest and enlightened service to the greater good is probably more confusing than the labels darkworker/lightworker. Not to mention that social conditioning will apply to whatever label you choose, society generally views 'lightworkers' as the 'good' guys and 'darkworkers' as the 'bad' guys (self interest=bad, service to the greater good=good). Its tough to avoid...

[Kaspian]

Thanks, Fiar, for such a clear description of the two polarization extremes.

The discussion of polarization initially confused me, too. I read all of Steve's posts on it, and it just didn't sit right. Listening to the podcast helped only a little.

At the I Can Do It conference, a few of us discussed it, and one person explained it in a way that finally made sense to me. (She's posted her view here.) Like Fiar, she described it in terms of self-motivated vs others-motivated.

Since coming to that understanding, it's clear to me that the concept of polarization confuses a lot of people. Many of them have chosen to view it in terms of good vs evil or as love vs fear, because those are views we are familiar and comfortable with. Personally, I think the labels “Lightworker” and “Darkworker” are horribly misleading. I’d rather call it “Self-Polarized” and “Others-Polarized.”

Personally, I am highly motivated to help others, but I am close to useless if I put others’ needs ahead of my own. I operate like this: I strive to improve myself, and I take care of myself first. By putting myself first, I am best able to help others and improve the world, and simply by being who I am, I help others. Clearly self-polarized, but outside of a polarization discussion, I would call myself a lightworker.

[MartialDev]

Originally Posted by Freelancer

Ps. He has mentioned multiple times that lightworker and darkerworker aren't the best labels but theres simply a lack of anything better right now.

I think someone already covered it, about five thousand years ago.

[Freelancer]

Originally Posted by MartialDev

I think someone already covered it, about five thousand years ago.

Thank you for the link I wasn't aware of that.

[fiar]

Originally Posted by Kaspian

Thanks, Fiar, for such a clear description of the two polarization extremes.

The discussion of polarization initially confused me, too. I read all of Steve's posts on it, and it just didn't sit right. Listening to the podcast helped only a little.

At the I Can Do It conference, a few of us discussed it, and one person explained it in a way that finally made sense to me. (She's posted her view here.) Like Fiar, she described it in terms of self-motivated vs others-motivated.

Since coming to that understanding, it's clear to me that the concept of polarization confuses a lot of people. Many of them have chosen to view it in terms of good vs evil or as love vs fear, because those are views we are familiar and comfortable with. Personally, I think the labels “Lightworker” and “Darkworker” are horribly misleading. I’d rather call it “Self-Polarized” and “Others-Polarized.”

Personally, I am highly motivated to help others, but I am close to useless if I put others’ needs ahead of my own. I operate like this: I strive to improve myself, and I take care of myself first. By putting myself first, I am best able to help others and improve the world, and simply by being who I am, I help others. Clearly self-polarized, but outside of a polarization discussion, I would call myself a lightworker.

Same goes for me on all points. I'm starting to come to an understanding I think.

[Cael]

I just want to reply back to the very original topic.

Perhaps for darkworker, relationships isn't so much about fearing of being alone or all the other negative things. But relationships, is to merely include others whom you feel worthy, as part of your selfishness, as part of your inward world to grow together with.

Not so sure if I'm making any sense, but that's what me, as a darkworker see my own relationships as. I'm mainly referring to love relationships here by the way.

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by Plato

I'd particularly like to know how to remove any feelings of guilt for doing what *I* want. It all stems from a deeprooted feeling of unworthiness I think. How can I get rid of that? Will it naturally fade over time by polarising more strongly?

It will happen as you polarise more strongly. Or you'll polarise more strongly as it happens. The two are kind of interchangeable, in an upwards-spiral sort of way.

An Academic road to improvement
To help expunge the social conditioning insisting that only in self-sacrifice can you get to paradise, consider reading Ayn Rand. I personally find her non-fiction better than her fiction, but others disagree. The non-fiction explains and the fiction demonstrates her basic point: the self-sacrifice model makes no sense! Why are everybody elses' needs more important than mine? Why am I the only person in the entire universe whose desires don't count? Given a resounding lack of sensible answers to these questions, Rand suggests a system whereby everybody takes care of themselves instead.

You can also try reading Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. It's another fiction demonstration of Rand's point -- seen most clearly in the 6th book, Faith of the Fallen. (There's enough explanation in there that you can pick it up at the 6th book and follow the story without difficulty.) It shows some of the truly atrocious things that can happen when people insist that self-sacrifice is the only way, and the incredibly good that can happen when people decide to take their lives into their own hands and make themselves powerful.

A more earthy road
Alternately, regress to 6 years old and play the "Why" game. When someone tries to make you feel terrible for doing what you wanted (whether it's you or someone else saying "you shouldn't have done that") respond with "Why?"

The conversation may go something like:

'You shouldn't have done that' and respond "Why?" and the answer is, "Because it hurt your friend, and now she's not your friend anymore"
In this case, it was something that really wasn't in your self interest, so you should avoid it in the future.

But in many cases, the conversation will go something like:
'Because it's wrong to do things for yourself' "Why?"
'Because only through self-sacrifice can you achieve enlightenment' "Why?"
'Um... Because that's the way the world works' "Why?"
'Because if everyone only looked out for themselves, the world would be a terrible place' "Why?"

At some point, the nasty (whether it's another person or just your inner nagger) will run out of answers. Once you realise that the self-sacrifice model is an arbitrary set of rules imposed by a society that doesn't really have a reason for it, you'll feel more comfortable ignoring it.

Good luck!

[Old Soul]

As a darkworker a person will be self centred, but it doesn't mean they have to be selfish, even though many people confuse the two.

I don't see how a darkworker can not be selfish, if self is the centre,

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by Old Soul

I don't see how a darkworker can not be selfish, if self is the centre,

Depends on how you define it. In the strictest sense, selfish means with focus on self, and that darkworkers inevitably are.

But usually when people use the word selfish, we mean it in a more behavioral-based way: "He's so selfish; he (took the last piece of pizza without even asking)(wouldn't give her a ride home even though it's right on his way)(wouldn't help me with my homework because 'it doesn't affect his grade')(is always cutting people off on the highway)

And a darkworker wouldn't engage in those behaviors any more than a lightworker would. (Taking the last piece of pizza makes people angry at you, making it less likely that they'll invite you to pizza in the future; giving her a ride home is a low-cost way to get a favor owed to you; ditto the homework; cutting people off on the highway endangers his life)

So although they may be selfish in the literal sense, they're unlikely to have the term applied to their behavior.

[Old Soul]

selfish means with focus on self,

I would think "focus from* self" might be a better term , like if you are at the centre of everything, verses being other(s) being the centre of the focus of a lightworker

and given this how can a dark worker and light worker possibly cohabitate? they are as the topic sugests 2 opposite ends of the spectrum ...

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by Old Soul

I would think "focus from* self" might be a better term , like if you are at the centre of everything, verses being other(s) being the centre of the focus of a lightworker

I don't quite understand...can you expand on that?

and given this how can a dark worker and light worker possibly cohabitate? they are as the topic sugests 2 opposite ends of the spectrum ...

They do different things, but they don't do things that interfere with each other. On the contrary - the lightworker giving helps with the darkworker taking,and vice-versa. As long as they both agree to respect the other's position and intentions, they'd get along very well.

[Old Soul]

I don't quite understand...can you expand on that?

I am looking at it like a lightworker, sees others, then self, where as darkworker sees self and how others can give to that self .... I believe you are either others motivated or self motivated.......

I still think the relationship of a darkworker and lightworker as having alot of conflicts

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by Old Soul

I am looking at it like a lightworker, sees others, then self, where as darkworker sees self and how others can give to that self .... I believe you are either others motivated or self motivated.......

And that all makes sense, but I don't see how focus "from" self is a better term than focus "on" self.
On the other hand, it may be a minor vocabulary difference, not worth discussing.

I still think the relationship of a darkworker and lightworker as having alot of conflicts

Well, I can't argue that it takes effort. My best friend and I stopped speaking in 10th grade because of (I realise now) differing polarities. She was the child of 2 divorces, about to be the child of a third, and had come to the conclusion that you couldn't trust or rely on anyone. (In her case, a reasonable assumption). But she did care for me, and it made her frightened that I was polarizing towards light/love/others. She kept trying to pull me to dark/fear/self, and I wouldn't come. It eventually became easier to let schoolwork interfere with our relationship. So I can hardly argue that differing polarities wouldn't be a problem.

BUT we were both very low consciousness at the time - using Steve's scale where most people can swing from -3 to +3, we were both about at -1/2 to +1/2. Also, I had no idea what love/fear polarization was, and therefore had no real conception of what the problem was - I only knew that she wanted me to do something that I couldn't accept. If I met her again today, I'd be happy to be her friend, and agree that both of us had chosen different paths but we could still take the journey together.

So I guess it's not fair of me to say that a relationship between a lightworker and a darkworker wouldn't have conflicts, wouldn't be difficult. But I don't think it's fair to say that it inherently, inevitably won't work, either. I think a much more important factor is the consciousness level of the two people involved - high consciousness people can work out and learn to live with their differences, whether that's polarization, religion, belief about child raising, opinions on abortion, bedtime, whatever. Low consciousness people are far more likely to keep arguing and trying to change the other person until they divorce.

[Chet]

I find my relationship with the darkside (hehe) very rewarding, our different takes on almost everything really broaden my view of the world, and his too I believe. After all opposites attract.

[Old Soul]

She kept trying to pull me to dark/fear/self, and I wouldn't come. It eventually became easier to let schoolwork interfere with our relationship. So I can hardly argue that differing polarities wouldn't be a problem.

ok so what if you were an ascendend (?) enlightened light worker, would this have made things even more challenging, or how do you think it would have effected the relationship, asuming the enlightened lightworker understands dark needs light and light needs dark, and that it is all full circle for the higher good of man

[Old Soul]

After all opposites attract

Indeed, they also repel hehehe! , I personally believe one needs the other for a perfect circle