Is a dilinequity a paradox?

#1

Enjoyed the invention of a new term in the writer’s room today “Dilinequity”. We are becoming a knowing parody of ourselves :smile:

Afterwards I was playing around with incompatible truths inspired by the story, just to see if I could start to get a handle on this. I noticed that I was drawn to something I’ve been using in my coaching practice; the use of ‘and’ to question dualism, to be able to hold apparently or actually contradictory truths. I began to ask myself if an inequity might be a paradox?
I woke up this morning thinking about the paradox of observation.

People behave differently when they are being watched.
And
We need to observe natural behaviour in order to understand it.

Is it possible that we were operating at one level removed from the source of the inequity, when we already said ‘people can mislead others to get what they want’. Isnt the source of the inequity, why they need to mislead them?
I can see that maybe this would be a different story though, perhaps.
What I did think was interesting is how this paradox breaks up the quad underneath understanding. The first one seems to be about conditioning and instinct and the second element about senses and interpretation.

And this all gets a bit meta when I consider this quote from Kierkegaard “This, then, is the ultimate paradox of thought: to want to discover something that thought itself cannot think.”

#3

Can I get a quick definition for dilinequity?

1 Like
#4

Hi Mike!
I think it is kind of a tongue in cheek term but it (or some similar portmanteau) was mentioned in @JohnDusenberry and @jhull’s class, I think by @Greg but maybe wrong there. A combination of dilemma and inequity.
The idea was to distinguish it from a justification which is the old term for the people must…in order to…unless… thing. It has been decided justification is innacurate.
It was a playful moment :grin:

2 Likes
#5

Wasn’t me. But wasn’t it just jokingly referring to the inequity illustrations previously referred to as justifications?

2 Likes
#6

Yes.

I ended up making a mess of things when I referred to the illustration of an inequity as a “justification vs. justification.” Both sides are really just parts of a justification, and should be classified otherwise.

I prefer “Source of Conflict” to define the purpose of this exercise—as it came about in response to difficulties writers had illustrating Storypoints as processes within the mind (e.g., writing “John wants an ice cream” as an illustration of Obtaining).

Part of me thinks it’s gone too far in terms of making things more complicated, but I can’t deny the results of the exercises (more better stories).

Dillemmnequy is a mash-up of:

  • dilemma
  • inequity
  • illustration

So it’s a bit of a joke about how this particular sphere of the writing world likes to really dig deep.

1 Like
#7

Ah sorry Greg. Yes it was referring to that. I wasnt too sure what the serious name was nowadays :smile:

#8

Yes, it is one level removed (nice catch):

  1. Inequity appears.

  2. Justification process begins:

  • Being
  • Conceiving
  • Conceptualizing
  • Becoming

“People can mislead others to get what they want” is a combination of the 1st and 2nd levels of justification — one step away from the actual inequity.

3 Likes