(Spinning off from comments made by MadameElen
The entire issue of "adopting a role" has to do with awareness. People who adopt roles WITHOUT awareness usually find themselves in a heap of misery at some point, because the role and reality usually don't go hand in hand. For example, I know a woman who plays the role of "the good wife". With that comes certain "responsibilities" (her word, not mine). She must cook the husband's meals, do his laundry, fold his socks, perform her wifely duties twice a week upon request. And all of this must be done with a smile, even though said husband has been cheating on her for years, abuses her verbally, and essentially married her to be a maid rather than a companion.
Now... the problem is that she has no awareness of any of this because the role has literally blinded her to what's going on all around her.
A stalker may adopt a role, but it is always done with awareness. For example, there have been times at one of our shows when I will quite happily play the role of the dumb blonde because most customers are less intimidated by a "dumb blonde" than by the real essence of who-i-am. Easiest way to explain it - when someone is looking at an expensive ring, and asks me, "So, how are you doing today?" my response is going to be what the person wants/needs to hear. "I'm great! You?" Chat them up, but never on anything too heavy. If I answered their questions truthfully, they would flee in terror. *LOL*
"How are you doing today?"
"Well, lemme see. We are all beings who are going to die, and short of taking responsibility for every moment we are alive, we will most likely die to the oblivion of our own awareness. Other than that, I'm having a great day. You?"
*heh* Obviously that's a very simplified version, but let me just say that a stalker chooses his/her role with awareness (as Mark Twain pointed out); whereas the "ordinary man" walks through life in a series of roles that are generally not really of his choosing. At work, he is the successful businessman (which comes with that "new set of clothes"). At home, he is "the loving husband" (a different set of clothes). With the kiddies, he is "the attentive father." Problem is... if none of those roles are talking to one another through a cohesive I-Am, there is a tendency to fragment and eventually one ends up on anti-depressants, because "the role" comes with a whole set of expectations as well as all those new clothes - i.e., the successful business man EXPECTS that promotion, which may instead be given to a junior partner who is, in fact, less deserving, but happens to be the boss's nephew. The loving husband EXPECTS a loving wife in return, but may, in fact, come to realize that because he was playing a role and not really operating from the assemblage point of his authentic self, his wife lost interest in him years ago and the entire marriage is nothing more than a pretty illusion. The attentive father EXPECTS his kids to do well in school, but will be shocked and dismayed to discover that they are selling meth to the first graders for reasons that may or may not ever be clear.
So, for the advanced warrior, there is always a keen awareness of whatever "role" we may be playing at any given time. I am well aware, for example, when I am playing the role of "the bitch" in order to stalk some aspect of myself. To others, I may appear "mad as a shithouse rat," but beneath the spinning, chruning Tasmanian devil is the cohesive self who is essentially the director/writer of ALL the roles. And that's the difference between the warrior & the ordinary man where "roles" are concerned. The warrior projects from the authentic self at all times, whereas the ordinary man (with his beliefs & expectations) has no real idea that there is an authentic self at all, because he becomes caught up in each and every role to such an extent that it becomes his sole reality.
This is a sufficiently important topic of warriors that I felt it deserved its own space, so I am encouraging others interested in the subject to respond here.