(Please forgive me, I have just realised that I have not used quotation marks around Jim’s original wording - I am sorry.)
I have used Jhull’s excellent ‘template’ to begin pinning-down the INEQUITY in my story. I hope by using Jim’s framework i have not broken any Community code of conduct. Thanx. Emm.
Mitch’s DESIRE to no longer have the need to be around SADIE TEAK and Sadie Teak
SADIE TEAK is not a problem.
The DESIRE to no longer have the need to be around SADIE TEAK is not a problem.
What does create the potential for a problem is the space between the two: (could this be their age difference? lack of mutual attraction? Imcompatabi!ity?)
…the human mind sees this space as an inequity.
When faced with an inequity you have two choices:
…resolve the inequity
or
…justify it away.
(The Inequity Between Things – Resolving the Inequity)
You can resolve the inequity in different ways:
…MITCH to lose his DESIRE to no longer have the need to be around SADIE TEAK
Get rid of the DESIRE no more separation between things, no more INEQUITY - everything returns to Zen.
OR
MITCH can continue having the need to be around SADIE TEAK.
Continue having the need to be around SADIE TEAK, HE no longer has a DESIRE for it, no more space in-between, no more inequity - everything returns to normal.
But what if MITCH has difficulties in getting to be around SADIE TEAK, and HE can’t get rid of the DESIRE to be around SADIE TEAK?
That’s when you start the justification process.
(Justifying the Inequity)
When deciding the alternate path of justification, MITCH’S mind first looks to see where it is going to focus its attention.
Let’s say MItch focuses on ‘being around SADIE TEAK’.
MITCH has "locked’ the DESIRE to no longer have the need to be around SADIE TEAK away — MITCH is no longer going to consider losing that desire as an option.
HIS attention is focused on 'no longer having the need to be around SADIE TEAK.
With the DESIRE locked away, the desire to ‘no longer have the need to be around SADIE TEAK’ itself now becomes a PROBLEM.