The Sorcerer's World

(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.

Very good topic, Della.

My two greatest teachers in this regard were my children. I was 'blessed' with very difficult children who unconsciously gnawed at the fabric of the roles I was playing until I recognized them as such or they finally just tore them to shreds. I realize now that what they were doing was making it impossible for me to model anything except authenticity for them.

I also found my teaching career to be a great way to explore this. Of course, most high schoolers are trying on roles left and right but, like you, I found it necessary to adopt various roles in order to facilitate learning. I couldn't scare the little buggers out of the classroom now, could I? LOL

One of the tricky things is to make the role we adopt convincing, to play it as if it matters. Because it does. The only way we can get what we need out of the role playing is to play it well enough that others, at least most others, can't tell that it's a role and sometimes it may be hard for us to tell, as well. That's why it is sometimes of utmost importance to be associated with other warriors who can remind us if/when we forget that we're playing a role.

Great information Della... this was the case for me midway through my marriage. It took a separation for be to break out of the role I was playing. Upon my return to my marriage, being more "myself" around my wife in many ways became very beneficial for both of us, and in other ways an unpleased shock. With my awareness to no longer play the customary roles in life, I see the areas of benefit and shock more clearly in myself and in those around me.

So how do we know what our authentic self is? I think that is a huge puzzle for people. Tuning down the internal dialogue helps me, because it often has the comments, pronouncements, judgements of others, sometimes sounds the way they would say it!

Still, what is that which is "really me"? How do I know that, and what good is it, if we all have to play roles just to earn a living?

I have my own ideas but wanted to provide the question as a jumping point for others who may be stuck there.

The authentic self is what I would also call the cohesive self - the true self that remains when we drop all of our roles and false personalities. It can be most easily identified when one IS playing a role - at which point the authentic self is the one in the background, wondering why one is playing the role in the first place.



The warrior who functions with awareness can adopt roles from a stalker's assemblage point - i.e., I can put on a bodice and a chemise and sell baubles to bimbos in order to make a living, but there is a constant awareness that I am not the role. At that point, all roles become controlled folly - up to and often including the "role" of warrior, stalker, wo/man of knowledge.



I look forward to hearing your take on it, too.

D

[color=orange]QS quote: The authentic self is what I would also call the cohesive self - the true self that remains when we drop all of our roles and false personalities. It can be most easily identified when one IS playing a role - at which point the authentic self is the one in the background, wondering why one is playing the role in the first place. [/color]

The observer. Not to get bogged down in zenful play "who is the observer" stuff. This is ordinary stuff, please, zensters, bear with me. This is meant only as an analogy.

The observer is not so much an It-- but Being Perceptive outside of what a person is doing at the moment. Let's say something prosaic as washing the dishes. Unless its a paid job, not many, I think mistake themselves as "I am Dishwasher" except maybe comically for a minute.

Might be known as "Conscience", the still small voice in one's self that one often very clearly hears "don't do that". Not as moral, but as survival. In the dishwashing example, let's say someone gets "carried away" with a tune and starts singing and swaying. In the back of attention to the process of rinsing a soapy slippery glass, one "hears" "don't do that" and yet the glass is dropped, shatters, and one's finger is cut. The attention was diffused among the tune, the extraneous moving, the possible internal dialogue, ooh I love this tune, remember when I went to...with that...and we did...., the hands move, not guided as well as one inherently can, assuming health dexterity, etc, that is the point to [here, zensters] ask, "who's in charge, and where did they go?"

Religion, to provide life-promoting rules, might take up this situation type thus: Never wash glasses. No singing allowed. Swaying at the sink is forbidden. We get confused, it seems like good advice, and yet also absurd. Something is missing.

Some of us may try to find out what is missing, and so go diverted even more, because the authentic experience "wet hands soapy glass=slippery event, observation notes glass often shatters, broken glass cuts finger" becomes mythology and each contributes some unnecessary decoration and ritual to what is very simple, and easily known to one's self. That self, which knows that, is close to what we are calling "authentic" self.

Authentically, we know handling such slippery stuff without the necessary attention might cause us harm, and harm might cause us delays or divert into other activities, such as rushing to the ER for stitches. But as a blanket Precept for living the original experience and intent is lost. No longer "authentic". Religion or societical rules, rather than providing "efficiency" in Being, becomes a club for a manipulator towards some entirely different agenda, and, ironically may harm you!

To me, this is where Intent as commonly understood still applies. When I am intent upon what I am doing at the moment, I bring to bear all my energies and talents that I can. This lessens catastrophe and drama.

When there is catastrophe, there still is opportunity for authentic self presence, I think that is why some people court danger. It's not "the rush" but that one's observer is present, still advising "don't do that", in my case, "don't ski, you will not be good at it".

So how do I know that isnt 'my mother's voice' judging me, holding me back from the delight of skiing? This is where one in their life has learned --or not, to know the difference between instruction and wisdom.
To be continued

continuing with my previous post on this thread.

Here I would like to go back a little further, to my original post at my forum blog, where I recommended a book "You Are Not the Target".

One of the little exercise she suggests is to change ordinary statements about myself. For example rather than saying "I AM sick" to I "have" something that may be sickness.

Or, in the Observer's way, "there is sickness". Remove my "beingness" from "illness" and thus own it, but not be it. Gives control back to one's self. Break a small habit of thought that locks in tremendous energy and attention. Retrieve one's identity.

This is why I say, I have diabetes. This implies to my self that I may not, or if it continues then I have some control. If I say I am diabetic, it seems that Being is immutable. I am a human, I get easily confused. If I say "I am thus" I often act as if I believe it.

Ironically, other people may support your belief, or actually work foolishly to derail it--that is drama, roleplaying, which easily mires attention, just like thinking of some fine day when washing a slippery glass.

This is where "appropriate" or "impeccable" comes in. Again, it is asked, "where is my attention now?" If I say, I am diabetic, it provides others opportunities to exploit that mode of being to their own advantage. If quid pro quo, why not? But, alas, it is not often quid pro quo [not even exchange to mutual benefit] so I may -the Observer points out, put myself at a dis-advantage.

I then "give up" some part of my energy towards a rather large industry, under implied threat, if you don't do this, you'll be sorrrry! That is what is unpleasant. Not really helpful, you know? True enough to carry a real menace, but to succumb to the rote style of living is less of a choice than a surrender. We never like to do that. Even for drama's sake, it irks us, makes us rebel somewhere even to our own dis-advantage. This is what I mean by being economical. The observer is not involved with any agenda than one's survival with the least energy expenditure.

What's the difference between just swallowing the pills the doc gave me, and looking them up, evaluating what is said [my Observer knows that is not All-True for the moment, anyway] and deciding, ok I will swallow these but not those? And keeping on it, not just sinking into yet another habit. Habits can be good efficient, but they must be re=evaluated, thus the observer can provide feedback. Maybe the lizard spit was too effective, and if I'd continued with it, being super effective in lowering my bg, but making me so sick perhaps I should have gone to the hospital.

In this way, I am as authentic as I can be for the moment. It could change, either way. But, for now, I am giving my attention to this, because it is extremely important to me. I see others do not share this, and that is their choice, who am I to know where their authenticity is?

My own observer can note, in another example, that if a person is applying mascara while driving on a busy freeway, perhaps I should drop back, or act some way to lower odds of interaction. It means, I am paying attention for my own safety, but also for others. I am not lost in my own little stage where I prepare for my role. That is why that is annoying, because such people's acts create those windows of opportunity that divert our energies from our intent.

On this scale, of course, a greater scale, could be karma or fate or destiny. It would seem, by giving our attention and listening to our inner observer, that we can dodge some of those moments. I think that is what DJM meant when he said if the sniper is there, I won't be.

Ah, here you have touched upon what bothers me about this topic.

The words "playing a role" seem to imply a holding back, a deception of some sort ... the "authentic self" is not that role, so it is being less than honest with the world at large.

However, I instinctively feel, as you say, that these roles matter. And, if I am to act with the impeccability of a warrior, as if *any* act might be my final "role" in this world, then holding back any of myself seems rather petty.

I do understand the "observer" - there have been times in my life when I've gotten highly annoyed with it - I *wanted* to lose control, throw myself into anger or sorrow - indulge in self-pity - but that damn "watcher" wouldn't let me. I always knew .. somehow .. that it was all BS anyway.

But I still feel that whatever current role we've taken on must be played to the hilt, not holding back. That's where the joy is. This doesn't mean you let the role play you.

I can completely and joyously immerse myself into my role as wife, as "dog mother," or various other "selfs." I can allow myself to get angry and put on a great display of Jersey-girl rage, with all the vulgar trimmings. I embody all of them anyway, so perhaps I just choose an aspect to play with and enhance - give it free reign for awhile. Yet, at the end of the day, none of these is completely me.

I think "aspects" might be a better way of looking at it, for myself.

The key element I would stress here is that you are playing your roles with AWARENESS - so they are not really "roles" at that point, as much as they become aspects (your word), or "stalker's masks".

When I initially wrote the first post in this thread, it was more or less a call TO awareness. My guess is that 99% of those on this forum are already sufficiently impeccable that what would be a "role" to an ordinary man is a stalker's mask to the warrior.

Just for clarification.

My own "observer" is not really a preserver of my safety, I don't feel, but of my "center." It's a different thing than "conscience" I think, also, as I feel it was a relatively recent development .. in my mid-twenties .. and not with me all of my life, at least not that I noticed. It showed up around the same time that I dedicated myself to living as a warrior to the best of my ability.

And the interesting thing is ... there was a period of time that I gave up that path, or tried to ... I went my own way .. but still ... still that damn "watcher" would not let up. I just couldn't lose myself in the "roles" as I'd done previously. Even though I can say I still managed to do a lot of stupid things, I never could completely forget that I was *choosing* to do them. There was still this part of me that was like .. observing .. and waiting .. and silently asking "OK, are you done yet?"

The best example I can give is when something upsets me. So I start crying ... and I really want to feel bad and hopeless and miserable ... but I always end up laughing.

It reminds me of that Castaneda quote about how we only choose once whether to be a "normal" person or a warrior and that another choice does not exist in this world.

Yes, that's it. Awareness. I am always aware of what I'm doing.

So perhaps I am the watcher?

The warrior-stalker is both the watcher and the actor. There is no longer any fragmentation when awareness enters the equation. The authentic self is capable of playing any role at any time. The observer is what keeps us from BELIEVING it is "real".

I have stood to the side & watched myself play the bitch, the hero, the fool, and dozens of other roles, but I can never take myself seriously, because the observer keeps reminding me that all these roles are nothing more than a means to an end. Yes, we CAN play them "as if" they matter, but in the big picture, the warrior's awarenes is always a keen reminder that we are just hand puppets of the authentic self. That can only happen with awareness... and as we've all undoubtedly discovered by now, there's no going back to ignorance once we have embarked on this path.

So... we play the games as if they matter, all the while knowing they are no more important than a speck of dust on the dashboard of eternity.