It shows the emotional expression of people as they increase their vibration and get closer to enlightenment.
Whether it is true or valid is irrelevant to out discussion here.
We’re looking at it as a tool for creating stories
↓
Hawkins Scale of Consiousness can be a great storytelling tool.
Allow me to explain...
↓
It shows the emotional expression of people as they increase their vibration and get closer to enlightenment.
Whether it is true or valid is irrelevant to out discussion here.
We’re looking at it as a tool for creating stories
↓
EMOTION DICTATES PLOT
The emotion comes first which then tells you what events to write about.
Beginners get this backwards.
They come up with a bunch of mere events without the emotional journey.
Using the Scale of Consciousness fixes this.
↓
A happy story involves the story of a character moving Up the scale.
So the protagonist might start off as a timid person (Fear)
Suffer a tragedy (grief)
Tackle their demons (anger)
And stumble bc of ego (pride)
Before overcoming & being ready for life (hope)
↓
And this was linear for the sake of simplicity.
You can move a character up &down the scale, snakes and ladders-like to build tension.
If you reflect this is how real life journeys transpire. Two steps forward one step back.
Boring stories are too smooth
↓
In fact, if you just think up a sequence of different movements up and down the scale, your mind will easily form a plausible plot within these to manifest.
This system is great for idea generation.
↓
A tragic tale involves a character ultimately ending up at a lower place on the scale
For contrast they will usually start at a place of neutrality or higher and then descend
Romeo starts at neutrality &moves as high as Love & joy before descending all the way down
↓
Othello too
Any character who murders or kills themselves is at the very bottom of the scale
And this is the value of tragedy, to make us reflect on the bottom without having to go there
↓
More from Life
You May Also Like
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
Ironies of Luck https://t.co/5BPWGbAxFi
— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) March 14, 2018
"Luck is the flip side of risk. They are mirrored cousins, driven by the same thing: You are one person in a 7 billion player game, and the accidental impact of other people\u2019s actions can be more consequential than your own."
I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.
In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.
So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.
Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
