The first part of the worldview has been covered. I titled it, "Consider this possibility."
To summarize & clarify more:
The "I" can be directed to various regions of our body, such as the head or the chest area. Not only that, this "I" doesn't necessarily have to be related to the body, at all. In fact, whatever the avatar focuses its POV on, that is the "I." (Examples: if you're very hungry and all you focus on is hunger, hunger is what you are. If you are in flow state, doing what you love, that thing that you love is what you are.)
Because the POV can focus on anything, we can be anything. If we identify more with x, y, z than a, b, c, it's not because we're inherently more x, y, z than a, b, c. Rather, it's because we accepted the inspiration that we have more to do with x, y, z rather than a, b, c.
The concepts of "imaginary" and "real" are also not inherent. A person can look at an apple and say: that is real. A person can look at an apple and just as likely say: that is imaginary. In fact, sometimes, this happens automatically.
You dream of an apple. Unless you're lucid-dreaming, you'll likely think, "This apple is real."
Then you wake up from the dream. What becomes of the apple? Unless you accepted the inspiration to consciously decide what is real/imaginary for you, likely, that apple will suddenly and automatically "become" imaginary "because" it was an apple in a dream.
An inspiration, a long time ago, said, "What happens in a dream isn't real." And most people accept that inspiration automatically. Most people don't think of this as an inspiration, at all, even though many will have had the experience of having cried after awakening from a nightmare with a monster. (Simply replace "apple" with "monster.") Once upon a time, it was "natural" for them to cry about a dream monster, because the dream monster was so real. Yet, some years later, they find it more "natural" not to cry about dreams anymore.
That's fine. The point is that the reason they have come to accepted something as a given isn't because there is some inherent property in the dream/reality or apple/monster. Rather, the reason is that at some point, they've come to accept an inspiration.
Nothing is so because it's actually so. It is so because someone somewhen somewhere decided that it is so.
In other words, just as you can decide that an apple in a dream is real, you can decide that an apple in reality is imaginary.
More importantly (more practically), just as you can decide that a monster in a dream is fake, you can decide that a monster in reality is fake.
To put it more accurately, there is no difference between imaginary and real. Therefore, we can treat the monster that makes us cry, in reality, the way we treat the monster in a dream. Then, what will happen to us? When you wake up after dreaming of a monster, what does it feel like to realize that the monster belongs to a dream?
You can feel that feeling, in reality, more and more. Possibly, that feeling could become your default state.
One of the things that worldview of The Storyteller's Eye allows you to do is to stop the automatic rejection/acceptance of inspirations. The POV cannot control what inspirations arrive. But it can accept or reject inspirations, and that is what The Storyteller's Eye can help you do.
This is useful, because, again, what you focus on is what you are. The inspirations that you accept/reject, over time, make what you are.
What are you? And do you like what you are?
Is the monster real for you?
What about the apple?
The POV can travel freely to any time, any space. It can focus on anything to become anything. So, imagine what you could become, if you could really understand what you're saying Yes or No to.
The worldview tag is best read in this order. The later posts build on the earlier posts.