Steph 7/16/2016
I find that I am drawn to particular types of stories, particular stories – and I’ve noticed that certain actors will play the same role, or tell the same story in multiple movies. Almost like they are reinforcing that particular lie – or perhaps illuminating it. When I understand the lie and let it go, I am no longer attached to the story; and then, I feel kind of homeless in a way. But I’m emotionally indifferent to the story, which is the point I suppose. Do you like Jane Austen? I’ve been watching a lot of movies based on her books lately. They are really nuanced, and emphasize the true individual navigating the game of society…and of course love always wins in the end in her stories, but not in a sentimental way. She seems to emphasize that being true to oneself is the only way to get to one’s true desires. She is fair to all of her characters – there’s never a “villain.” Well, the villain would be certain ideas. It seems she created from the mental level (more than most storytellers), although I will say that she seems to reinforce the idea of women and men as “opposites,” which of course is occult. Her storytelling is nuanced but of course films turn it into high drama and romance, which can be annoying.
Cathy Replying to Steph 7/16/2016
I’ve never watched anything of Jane Austin’s, nor did I read her books. I’d say that we are drawn to stories that reinforce our illusion until we decide to exit. Then we are drawn to stories that show us the way out. That’s why we become indifferent when we let go with regard to stories within the illusion. When I read or watch anything, even social media, I ignore that which my mind or another labels “true.” I don’t want to put that into my mind with the label of “truth.” When we do that, we develop a truth clone…which pretends to be our True Self. We don’t need to speak or think the truth; we all know it inherently as our inspiration. We could say that our inspiration is “being true to our Self.” But often people have very illusory definitions of their personal truth; their truth is really just their beliefs, i.e., lies, that they have decided are true for themselves. Authors often become like gurus or spiritual teachers. They give people beliefs labeled the truth, and people do tend to believe them, especially when the author is popular.
When I read or watch something, I’m always looking for what is false. I’m watching my mind and emotions as I engage with the book or movie. Then even if the movie or book wasn’t written from win win, I’ve used it in a way that is win win for me. Also, the fact that a writer of fiction writes something great means nothing about the author. Stephen King, who is definitely not wise or true, wrote “The Shawshank Redemption.” That is the closest thing I’ve seen to a modern initiation story. He didn’t have a clue what he was writing; and he didn’t really like the story. But he published it, and many have enjoyed it. Whether a writer is deemed to be good or bad is usually about the reader. Whether people understand what I write, or don’t understand it, is all about their state of mind. I’m just writing what I’m inspired to write. In other words, the role of reader is not a submissive role in my opinion. In my perspective, the masculine role of writer and the feminine role of reader are equal and first cause; and I expect my readers to view themselves with that level of power. Cathy
Taylor 7/16/2016
Yes yes yes. Love this stuff. Any thoughts on Shakespeare? It seems like he was a pretty big force for the story. It seems like ALOT of the archetypes of today come from him, i.e., star-crossed lovers, mixed signals that lead to revenge and “death.” But it’s weird because one thing that always bothered me about Shakespeare was he was really dramatic (I think even for the times). We mostly still read Romeo and Juliet like a love story even though most of us know that wasn’t his intention. After reading this article on story, I wonder if what bothers me is that most of his stories stop at the fall. No redemption or freedom. He tells us the Capulets and Montagues stopped fighting, but I never felt much resolution in his stories. Hamlet gets a raw deal. Macbeth sort of takes himself out. Maybe they were more so stories of caution than freedom?
Cathy Replying to Taylor 7/16/2016
Yea, not a fan of Shakespeare. Don’t know why people like him. I think he’s like opera…most people don’t like opera, but it’s considered a sign of status to say that you like opera. All of Shakespeare’s stories just validate the illusion; they’re all fall stories. We can use them to learn about the illusion; but it’s hard to see the causal beliefs in his way of writing. Yes, they’re dramatic; I agree. They’re physically centered…not mentally centered. Consequently, I can’t decode Shakespeare because he wrote only from the viewpoint of the illusion. But I can decode most ancient stories, even stories from the Old Testament of the Bible. No exit or full-circle stories were ever written by Shakespeare. In fact, he causes people to think that the illusion is true because he’s viewed as such a genius. He also copied other older archetypes, kind of like Disney does. Then he changed them a bit. Like you said, his stories have common archetypes in them. But truthfully, Disney is more interesting and entertaining. And Disney often showed that true love, i.e., unconditional love, created an exit out of the illusion. So Disney brought stories more full circle than Shakespeare. Cathy
