At some point, a thread starts to get unwieldy for me because of all the information in it.
At the beginning of this thread, I think I was saying exactly what you guys are telling me now.
In some ways, it feels like you guys want to have your cake and eat it too when talking about the RS. Maybe it is about each person having a different lexicon and a different mode of expression, but it feels like there are a ton of contradictions in statements throughout the thread.
That's not meant as an insult or anything like that. Don't take it that way.
What I intended to say was: the interactions of the MC and IC -- if viewed externally (from an Overall/Objective view) -- makes a statement about the RS. Whether that statement is spoken by another character, the characters themselves, or the author directly, never, etc. doesn't matter. It could be a Chapter title. That would be enough.
Then Greg went on to talk about:
Now we are talking about the MC and the IC. We are talking about things outside of the scope of the RS (if we use my original definition). The state of the relationship could translate into the MC or IC, but it is still outside of that particular throughline. Unless we view this moment in terms of the RS assigned class.
If the MC looks at the moon and he/she feels closer to the IC, this doesn't necessarily bring them closer together or farther apart. For example, it could merely redefine the RS as "unrequited feelings or an imbalance of desire."
My point was that you need both the IC and MC (internal and external modes of expression -- thoughts, feelings, emotions, actions, etc.) to create context. This context allows you to look at the relationship and say that it is something objectively.
If you look at just the MC and IC throughlines, it might work (not sure), but it wouldn't be in the Class of the RS. So, perhaps it is necessary to look at them through the lens of the RS (whatever the Class may be).
I'm not sure I can explain it any better, but it makes huge amounts of sense to me.
The status of the relationship is an Objective statement. It takes all these different viewpoints into context and comes up with a statement about the relationship. But we can't do it without a look at the subjective side of things. We don't just look at what is true, but we also look at what the MC, IC, and every else (for that matter) believes to be true, because this could very well label a relationship as "misunderstood," and this is useful in the RS throughline.
The MC and IC affect the RS. In fact, all throughlines could have an impact on the RS, therefore they are part of it by that logic (extending on your statement). I agree with the MC and IC being part of it. The OS can define it and shape it.
A relationship is dependent upon context so the other interactions and synergies are important.
That seems to be what you are saying. I don't understand how we seem to be disagreeing.
Duality. Or perhaps a zoomed in examination of the OS. Focusing on relationships. Then you go on to talk about "A Beautiful MInd" and you point out that Class will define whether or not a particular relationship should be considered as part of the RST or not. I can accept this.
But this is part of defining the RS. If they are in the dark or ignorant of the true source of the problem then the Objective definition of the RS changes (compared to if the were aware, but stubborn).
Another Class allows for another view. A fourth view gives a complete view in this case. Same thing.
There's probably more, but I have a few online classes to give. Hopefully, this clears things up. If not, I might just have to try and create something functional for me and tinker with it if it doesn't work.