06-23-2020, 11:43 PM
(06-23-2020, 10:58 PM)Stranger Wrote: Mostly, it's not what you do, it's how you do it - the attitude toward yourself and others. (There are exceptions, eg, combat or let's take it to the extreme - professional torturer). In most occupations, it is possible to be positively or negatively polarized, with the demands and pressures of the occupation serving as catalyst for that choice.
Athlete example: is your goal to defeat the competition? Negative. Is your goal to do your best, focusing on honing your own excellence while also wishing the others well in their efforts? Positive. The difference is in the antagonistic vs caring attitude to yourself and others.
If you're a business owner following ethical practices, and customers choose to come to you because you offer a superior product or service? Positive. Are you trying to manipulate the situation to intentionally drive customers away from your competitors to you? Negative.
Now, it is also true that in some fields, unless you play dirty, you will not be in the lead and might not even survive in that field. However, I've seen extremely positive people survive even at the highest level of corporate cutthroat culture by just being excellent at their jobs (though they don't enjoy being in that environment simply because there is so much STS gamesmanship going on).
I wanted to talk about gray area examples - say somebody isn't necessarily consciously looking to play dirty or polarize negatively, but they have a very hard time performing without very intensely visualizing themselves winning, and cultivating a very strong desire to win (which is synonymous with defeating the competition). Is having that strong of a desire depolarizing or even negative?
What if somebody is dependent on that desire for their career or other practical necessities because of the way manifestation works? There's a whole range of situations and emotions between loving everyone unconditionally and wanting to manipulate.