Because the delusions will never cimpletely go away Nash is constantly balancing his original assessment that his delusions are real with his more informed reconsideration they are not real. ???
For Issue, I’m still not really sure what would work best. So as I ask questions, keep in mind that I’m not necessarily trying to talk you out of a choice, but trying to help you talk yourself into one.
That said, Issue is a value standard for judging efforts (paraphrasing the dictionary def). It should gives us a thematic exploration of the nature of these items. Does John MC throughline give us an exploration of Reappraisal vs Appraisal? If so how?
Does he though? It seems to me that he mostly thinks they are real and treats them as such until around the third act where maybe he does this some.
Also, his delusions are more OS related. What would be more MC throughline related?
Good points! Putting my thinking cap back on.
What about all the math and his desire for recognition? And what about his reactions to being told either he’s not the best or that he’s crazy? Can we get anything from that?
Doubt vs investigation. He certainly questions the validity of things without investigating to be sure. In act 1 he never goes to classes, saying they will dull your mind, though he never attended one to find out. He calls the game flawed without gathering evidence to support his claim. He balances this against gathering a collection of evidence to validate his theory.
Answered before i saw your prompts. Back to the drawing board.
No, I think that’s great! Can you give some act 2 or 3 examples to back it up a bit more?
With the math, what I was wondering is does he investigate it, appraise it, reappraise it, or doubt it?
If he does all of them (not saying he does, just covering all bases), which set does he seem to place a higher value on?
With the math it seems to me he investigates it…He gathers evidence to resolve questions of validity. There are no holes in his publishable theory validated by the math. And towards the end he sees that he is on to something with the equation he is working in, but readily recognizes it would require further evidence to be sure. His Doubt centers more around people - he can doubt Hansen played a fair game, doubt Rosen is,a psychiatrist, doubt he is in a psychiatric hospital but does nothing in these cases,to investigate his claims.
And Investigation vs doubt provides a value standard against which to judge his efforts? Like you can look at him at say Investigation is good here, Doubt is good there, Investigation sends him down a bad path there when he should have doubted?
Investigation was good for writing his paper that earned him wheeler. Investigation was bad when it kept him looking into newsprint and magazines for evidence of Russian codes. Doubt was bad when it’s conclusions made him punch the doctor, tip over his wheelchair, knock over the game board. He could have benefited from more doubt when he “meets” Parcher and accepts him as valid because he shows a badge as evidence for being who he claims,even though it’s pretty outrageous.
Well, I guess so then? What does that do to the OS Issue?
I don’t know. I know that ultimately the quads in OS and MC have to share,a problem element in stop change stories, but we aren’t there yet. Is there an if then rule for issues like there is for concerns “if concern is bottom right in one quad it is bottom right in all quads.” Or??
I guess we haven’t narrowed it down quite far enough. If the thematic argument Includes Investigation and Doubt, which one of those feels more like the thematic issue?
i don’t know what the math behind that would be.
I am thinking doubt for the thematic.
Why? What about it? …need twenty characters to post.
I think doubt is a larger source of his conflicts than investigation as it relates to wanting recognition. But honestly I think I pretty much just flipped a mental coin to choose doubt over investigation
Lol. Fair enough. Why don’t we look at OS then and see if we can pick a pair? I’d urge you not to look at the Story Engine for MC issue of Doubt if you haven’t already. Investigation gives us one OS argument and Doubt the other. If we can determine an OS pair, we should be able to get our MC Issue.
So overall, when looking at dealing with Johns way of thinking, does everyone look to permission, need, expediency, or deficiency?