A model, not the actual thing.

A model, not the actual thing.

Please note, again, that all terms exist for explanation’s sake. We shall not cut wrist from elbow just because terms exist separately. We want the whole functioning arm.

The layers of the The Storyteller’s Eye worldview go as follows:

  • Storyteller
  • POV
  • Avatar
  • Body + mind

Nothing on this list is better or worse than anything else. They all work together.

I like to think of the above list as increasingly higher layers of the atmosphere, enveloping this multi-faceted and multi-dimensional existence called “I.” There are overlaps, for certain. Also, like air, parts move. Things don’t stay static. The storyteller can “infiltrate” the avatar and the avatar can “infiltrate” the storyteller.

This model gives me a sense of well-being. The storyteller and all her inspirations surround me, permeate the air around me, and cradle me at all times.

At all times.

And everywhere.

Equally everywhere and everywhen, I am her. She is I.

Back to the limitations of terms, and related to that, the limitations of a model.

I am using the novel analogy: the novelist writing a novel with a character. I believe this model is useful and powerful in viscerally describing the relationships between storyteller, avatar, POV, body, mind, plot, background, etc, etc.

But, no matter how useful and powerful, a model is not the actual thing.

Imagine this: a novel within a novel.

Say, I wrote a novel about a character who is a novelist. So, that character writes a novel. In that case, that character is my channel into her novel within my novel.

In the linear sense, each novelist is writing a novel. I am writing a novel. My character in my novel is writing a novel. And we could keep going into the novel of the novel of the novel of the novel, endlessly.

However, in the nonlinear sense (in the “real” sense), we are doing dimensionally different things. I mean that, there are some things that I can know that the character in my novel’s novel’s novel’s novel cannot know. It’s sort of like: I’m in the 3D world, while the character in the novel’s novel’s novel of my novel is in the 1D world. We are dimensionally different.

That is how I imagine my relationship with my storyteller. In that relationship, my storyteller is dimensionally more enveloping than I am with my novel. By “enveloping,” I mean that, when I’m writing a novel, I take care of things within the novel so that the character can focus on the characters’ story. For example, the sun rises and sets without the character needing to do a thing about it. But my storyteller, for my story, is a million times more enveloping than I am with my novel.

We exist in a different dimension from our storytellers, specifically to do what only we can do, as avatars: experiencing this particular world. This is just like how novelists in our avatar world write novels to experience the novel’s world through characters.

But, again, this analogy is only a model. It isn’t the real thing. So, while there are many similarities between a novel written in our avatar world and our own avatar life, it behooves us to remember: our respective storytellers are way more enveloping than any novelist in this avatar world.

The worldview tag is best read in this order. The later posts build on the earlier posts.