Perhaps... the word is loaded with the same potential for misinterpretation as the three letters G O D so there is little point in discussing it since there's no way to define it given it's historical usage especially when used in contexts where there are *multiple* levels of it.
-
-
This is because there are 2 main energies in relationships. They are: "I want you to be part of my story." "I want to be part of your story." If the mechanism of story isn't understood, the vibe will ALWAYS be off or buried under layers of fakeness & performance.
Show this thread -
Notice how similar "Self as Story" and "Never Part of the Story" are. They are both nihilistic. But there's a BIG difference.
Show this thread -
"Self as Story" is a fundamentally non-serious stance that allows greater resolution, color, and depth in the story told because it can be held more lightly. It turns a historical non-fiction into fantasy.https://twitter.com/a_yawning_cat/status/1349421580552523776 …
Show this thread -
"Never Part of Story" is a fundamentally serious stance that strips away all potential for noise, human bias, or external influence. There's a competitive desire for "perfection" here as well.https://twitter.com/a_yawning_cat/status/1335917603722674176?s=20 …
Show this thread -
So while these two stances SEEM close, they are actually very far apart. Their closeness is similar to how the far left and the far right can resemble each other. (This "Near Enemy" effect is incredibly prevalent in spiritual discourse.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.