[tmbchr]™

The Conscious Use of Stories



Here’s a question I’ve been considering lately, and discussing a little bit with David Yeh. I think this is especially pertinent to religion and spirituality, and probably “magick” although that’s not really my bag, so I’ll have to collect opinions on it.

Anyway, the question is:

Is there any value in distinguishing which of these is “better”: (1) somebody who consciously (or intellectually) understands and uses a story; or (2) somebody who merely immerses themself in a story because they love it, or feel some sort of connection to it?

I tend to think there’s value in both, and a certain risk in both. In terms of conscious use of stories, David used the excellent analogy that if you thought too much about driving a car, it’s more likely you’d get into an accident. Like in some way, the fact that you’re not doing some things on a conscious level actually protects you or provides you some other benefit. I found a pretty decent Neil Gaiman quote about this once also:

[In terms of writing comic stories, Gaiman says:] “there’s a level on which you shouldn’t be trying to do this stuff too consciously. There’s a level on which you should know how it feels, on which you go by gut feeling, and you know that you’ve succeeded when the story feels inevitable.” The idea is not to consciously follow or obey a set pattern. If it is done correctly, in Gaiman’s view, it will fall into that pattern. This argues not for a conscious use of academically “identified” archetypes, but in keeping with Jung, the development of characterizations that fit our past and unconscious definition of archetypes.

It seems like a tricky area though, especially when you move into religious stories, or stories that are handed to you by corporations, governments, etc. Sometimes stories are created with the express purpose of controlling you. In these cases, it doesn’t pay at all to subconsciously allow these stories to roam about. It’s better to dismantle them and rebuild according to your own established needs. But going back to the car analogy, maybe the argument could be made that socially-controlling stories are sort of like the “Rules of the Road.” They are stories that we’re taught to agree on, so things can function smoothly. Or at least, that’s the rationale of the Plato’s “Noble Lie“.

Anyway, I’m curious to hear other people’s impressions on this whole debate. Seems like there’s a ton of stuff that could be said from all sides.







9 Reader Responses

  1. ray Says:
    May 11th, 2005 at 11:46 pm

    I’ve thought quite a bit about the “Noble Lie” over the last few years. And basically, I think it has great merit. The last few decades of American “democracy” have shown that most people can’t be trusted to make good decisions for themselves, let alone for their communities.

    But what happens when the Rulers stop protecting the flock? What happens when the Rulers assume the flock exist only for the benefit of the Elites? Then the field gets very tricky. Because on the one hand social stability is a good thing, but on the other hand it cannot exist for long when the system is profoundly unjust. Rulers cannot simply be vampires casually feeding on the lower classes and discarding their lifeless bodies.

    At these moments in history (and I believe we are here once again) it becomes time to discard the old stories and begin to write new ones.

  2. carlos Says:
    May 12th, 2005 at 12:16 am

    Depends what you mean by conscious. If you mean that voice that yammers on all the time “me me me!”, then yes, leave that idiot out of it. But I actually think that the subtle intuition Gaiman is referring to actually IS consciousness. We just can’t hear it over the din being made by that backseat driver, ego.

    Hmm, ego is another representation [like real-id]. Maybe that’s why it is so fervently embraced by those of the left hand path / black lodge.

    But to answer your question, immersion due to love is far more compelling, imho. I admit bias in this because I love to surf and swim and cause female orgasm, and I feel an affinity with the white lodge. And as far as “the rules of the road” go, well, fuck roads. Constructing a story from intellectual reasoning strikes me as somewhat mechanistic and, you know, them. Hollywood. No surprise which side a comic writer would choose.

    Fuck, reading this back I have a real problem with my own use of black / white, left / right, intentional / accidental. These dichotomies are certainly false. That is, there is only one lodge, or one path, with one player manifesting as many. And if there is no “us and them” then there is no “right” way to tell a story, and no “other”. There is not even a “both” or a “neither”.

    Ahh, my ego has fallen silent upon hearing this. Problem solved.

  3. Arizona Says:
    May 12th, 2005 at 1:47 am

    I agree that both approaches are useful and can be risky used alone.

    It’s a good idea to read or listen to a fairy tale with total naïveté, letting the magic work on you. Afterwards, you can read a thorough Jungian analysis of the archetypal elements in the tale and this should add some richness, especially if the analysis tale itself is well told (or magically told - this was a gift with Joseph Campbell). In reverse, you can listen to a detailed analysis of a piece of music and then just sit back and enjoy it. The mind may no longer be involved in the analysis but there is nevertheless an added alertness that renders the music just a little more enjoyable.

    When it comes to creating stories or music, I think you do get a better result if you combine adherence to some rules with an openness to surprise elements that just pop up.

    In the same way that each individual should be free to choose his/her own myths (political or religious stories), so too the artist should be free to choose which constraints will control the work. If an advertisement writer chooses to deliberately exploit archetypes then that is simply the code or formula that works in that genre. It may not be “right” for another genre like poetry.

    It’s an interesting question and one we would all do well to think on from time to time.

  4. Hester Says:
    May 12th, 2005 at 9:10 am

    Somehow this makes me think of the story of when the Buddha went to talk with a king demon. The demon was not home, and so the Buddha spoke first with his 7 wives. The wives loved the Buddha, they were enchanted with his calm, his peace, his clarity. When the demon came home he was very jealous. He kicked the Buddha out. So the Buddha went out. Then he said “COME IN” and the Buddha came in. Then he said “GET OUT” and the Buddha went out. This went on and on and on. Finally the demon said come in, and talked and talked, talking in circles, but the Buddha responded to every point with clarity. This went on for days. Finally the Demon became completely enamored of the Buddha and lapsed into silence and became a stream enterer.

    I think Stories are like that to us. If we are in control or not, they still have us.

  5. Hester Says:
    May 12th, 2005 at 9:28 am

    i feel kinda stupid telling that story but i love that story. see ya. i hate making any point.

  6. David Says:
    May 12th, 2005 at 9:29 am

    You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that it’s not a dichotomy, it’s a back-and-forth spiral. The stories that touch you deeply are those that most reflect your inner desires, impulses, and beliefs about the world. At the same time, the same story can challenge you and point you in different directions from the familiar. I think a truly good story is a mystery precisely because of that depth of ambiguity; it isn’t reducible to one realm or the other, but it has elements of both. So any authentic use of stories has to do both, to challenge your present understanding of yourself and your world, and reflect and express that understanding. But because the heart of a truly good story lies in the supersensible realm, nothing can make total sense of it. The path is in the trying.

    So the problem always lies in interpretation: How do I sort out the meaning I want from this story that cannot be reducible to mere ideas? That’s where authority comes in. They make things simpler. “This is the way it is.” Then we forget that there are other interpretations, unless we learn to think for ourselves. That whole Garden of Eden story, I’ve seen it interpreted so many ways, but for fundamentalists it may just have ONE meaning. Really it contains ALL meanings.

  7. Jacob Says:
    May 12th, 2005 at 11:09 am

    I posted a comment, on David’s article. I’m really pleased with it as I think I’ve found the unifying thread for every spiritual endeavor I’ve ever involved myself in.

    “It all comes down to appreciation, you become stronger to the extent that you can appreciate what you’re exposed to. You become weaker to the extent that you let it go through you without engaging it.”

  8. Occult Investigator » Your Data Body and You Says:
    May 12th, 2005 at 12:14 pm

    […] dy and You

    Carlos made an extremely interesting observation on my post about consciously using stories. He suggested that the ego is a representati […]

  9. hf Says:
    May 12th, 2005 at 10:34 pm

    Most intriguing. I definitely agree with the use of different perspectives. I like to remember how to start using the scientific method in a given situation, and decide whether or not to do so in each case. I think this practice would help society rather than hurting it, and will give evidence if anyone really wants it.



SURROUND YOURSELF WITH STRENGTH.