Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Stimulus

Myths, movies, and novels are all playgrounds inviting the subject to be free—freedom-from-stimulus—choose her very own conscious experience (e.g., remember crying in the movies as if a string of images is actually a real person really dying, knowing full-well and willingly discounting the fact that it's just a movie—made for the express purpose of eliciting a pre-conceptualized experience), which the subject sometimes unwittingly gives up—voluntarily surrendering his freedom when he asks "what does it really mean?" which in turn fueled somewhat militant artistic movements: "against interpretation" that celebrate "refusal to communicate." Watching a movie is less of an amusement / entertainment purchased on sale and more of a flexing of the freedom that is conscious experience. We look at play, given our religious commitment to the utilitarian calculus of work ethic, as refueling for purposeful work, but a play is a play is play as in leela: festive dance of subjective conscious experience. The warring factions in the epic intellectual battle that is living have been labeled as contrasting: Being vs. Becoming (unity vs. change), but we can, in the hope of staying cognizant of our most precious inheritance of freedom to see, think, and feel, rename the dialectic: Naming vs. Being, in a nod to the primacy of mind-made and in an acknowledgement of the fact that things don't come equipped with theories.