Justification practice

I might just be talking through my hat here, but I wonder if this is a Linear/Holistic thing?

So, Wall Street, Linear:

“Greed, for lack of a better word, is good and serves the world.”
“Greed is bad and destroy’s families and people.”

Negation, passing a binary yes/no judgement on a value statement–which feels false, because the great thing about Gecko’s argument is that, in some ways, he’s right. But not in all ways. How many problems of the world result from someone getting a bit of truth (in context) and universalizing it for all cases at all times for all people?

Also, passing a yes/no judgement on a value statement – I mean, who the hell do we think we are? This doesn’t seem to me to be the proper business of rational human beings, who, if they are rational, have to recognize the limitations of that approach. If they DON’T recognize the limitations of that approach, I start to ask questions about their motivations and agenda. There’s a desire for power lurking in there somewhere under the blankets.

I was reading Jim on Melanie on C++ programming, and thinking how a lot of the theory comes out of a time of OOP and noun-based programming, but the world has moved on in the last several years to functional verb-based programming. And the idea of the individual self as being a source of desires is giving away to a set of desires, copied from others, usually, and their particular state at a particular point in time, being the best statement about a ‘self’ that we can honestly make, without wandering off into abstraction and fictionalizing. Not to knock fictionalizing :slight_smile:

Wall Street, Holistic:

“Business is more important than family.”
“Family is more important than business.”

If winning/losing is big in the linear mode, finding the right balance is what’s key in holistic. In holistic, the justifications seem to revolve around scope – business is more important because its scope is larger, family is just about the people in the family. Family’s responding argument might be, without the healthy, productive, happy families, where will you get people to buy things from your business, or work for them? And what’s the point of life anyway? Making a better business or making better people?

Something like that.

Not technically mutually exclusive, according to the current interpretation of ancient Aztec beliefs. It was considered an honor to be a sacrifice. Thus, the life of the one killed was still sacred and honored, both while living in the moments before, and after death. Thus, within that albeit ancient and what would more likely now be considered a mind-warping perspective, they can exist at once.


Many psychologists and theories in that field have more recently tended to assume that humans are, in general, not rational, and in doing so there has been a flood of more interesting and more accurate results in many cases. That said, the paragraph from which I’ve pulled this quote could itself be used as a set of justifications for a story. In fact, I think it’d be a rather interesting one at that, especially since people are complicated.


What I’m most excited to see though, is the more Yin/Yang style interpretations of the theory finally being presented more directly and more clearly. They’ve been there since the start, e.g., “Dynamic Pairs are not opposites.” But, it’s nice to see the ideas being clarified in all areas of the theory, and with practical use in mind. I suspect these Justification ideas are only the start of that, and I’m excited to see what comes next.

By negotiation, you mean the idea that the illustrations are merely inverses of the other, yes? I always refer to this weakness of conflict as “opposites”, but perhaps negotiation is a better way to describe this occurrence.

I agree my original example has that negotiation feel to it, though the original intent of pitting living forever against being a perpetual student still works as a potential source of conflict:

You can’t live forever if you wish to share your life with others UNLESS you can be a perpetual student of life in order to facilitate a cure for old age.

You can imagine a character so driven to find a cure that he never ages—while everyone else he loves passes away. That dilemma is something that can’t be negotiated.

1 Like

@jhull @jassnip

is it possible to use the same technique in this manne

A character (illustration) because unless a character (illustration) because

Example:

Mum wants her children to stay at home because they need to rest after their long flight the previous night unless they promise not to sleep during the funeral service their parents are going to attend because it will embarrass their parents

@samuelogeda I’m gonna say no, this doesn’t work…now I’ll try and work out why my instincts are telling me uh, uh.

I think the matter is timing…no conflict can be created at the bedtime if mum simply changes her mind. There is no problem in the immediate.

If you made it something along the line of
Mum wants her children to sleep in order to have time to cry alone
UNLESS
The kids need to process their grief with their mum in order to be able to sleep.

See how those become mutually exclusive? They both need to happen now.

In your example you’re closer to a conflict on the day of the funeral, with mom trying to keep sleep kids awake while not becoming embarrassed as they snore away during the eulogy.

1 Like

the formula has to follow the language of in order to and unless

Here’s an updated example:

Mum wants her children to stay at home in order to know how to take care of the house by themselves unless they can promise to be on their best behavior in order for mum to be able to get work done at her office.

What in that is mutually exclusive? No problem is created.

Mum can’t afford a sitter and needs her children to stay home alone and get dinner started in order to make ends meet
UNLESS
The the neighbor lady wants to interfere by reporting the family to child protective services in order to make sure the children are safe and under adult supervision.

2 Likes

let me try this again:

Thomas wants to visit his friend after curfew in order to be able to get help to finish a project that’s due early next morning

UNLESS

Thomas doesn’t want to get grounded by his strict parents in order to have their trust whenever he needs to go out of home in the future.

I find using the word BUT helps me much more than UNLESS

Mum wants her children to stay at home in order to know how to take care of the house by themselves unless their dad who’s not around wants mum to stay with them or find a trusted adult to stay with them in order to make sure they are safe

Hey Samuel,
I’ve been playing with these opposing justifications for some of my scenes lately (in revision). I would say that UNLESS is a lot better than BUT in terms of reiterating how the two justifications are mutually exclusive and need to be pitted against each other in the scene.

This is getting close. One issue is that you are not matching up the two levels of justification properly. From Jim’s article:

We justify the zero level with its corresponding Method in the first level. Can justifies Knowledge, Want justifies Thought, Need justifies Ability, and Should justifies Desire.

You were justifying knowledge with want and ability with want. I think you could do something like:

  • Mum wants her children to try taking care of themselves in order to be thought of as a good mum UNLESS mum should scrutinize the neighbour in order to fear his violent tendencies

Or a different take:

  • The children need to try staying home alone in order to be able to take care of themselves UNLESS mum should secretly validate them from the closet in order to allay her fears

I’m also not sure if you were using a Dramatica element in your constructions. In the above I was using Test. The formula is:

Character [can/want/need/should] [Dramatica element in action] in order to [some form of knowledge/thought/ability/desire]​

I’ve run into some cases where because works better than in order to, and where it makes more sense to put the in order to clause first. But I would always start with this formula and only vary where necessary.

1 Like

**Here’s my example: **

**Justification vs Justification: **

Mum wants her children to stay at home in order for them to know how to take care of the house by themselves unless their dad who’s not around needs mum to stay with them or find a trusted adult to stay with them in order for their dad to feel that they are safe.

Sample Scene

It was 1 pm in the afternoon and Mrs. Ojara needed to leave the house to run some errands. She called her 13-year-old daughter, “Cynthia, please come here."

Cynthia was busy in the bedroom playing with her younger brother Jacob.

“Cynthia, will you please come here?”

Mum sounds angry. She left the bedroom and went to the living room.

Mom was standing in the middle of the room will her handbag around her right hand and a pair of red pumps in her left hand. “Why didn’t you respond the first time I called you?”

“I didn’t hear. Jacob was making a lot of noise.”

“I need to go and collect something urgently for Grandma. She’s not feeling too well. Aunt Suzie is coming over to take it to her this evening. I’m going to be leaving you alone at home.”

“Can’t you take us with you? We’ve never been left home alone.”

“No. You’re a big girl now. You can handle it. Just make sure both the front door and the back door are closed.”

“Okay.”

Mum got out of the house and stepped onto the verandah. “Come and open the gate for me.”

Cynthia went and did so. On her way back to the house, she found Jacob standing at the front door.

“Where did mum go?”

“She went to get something for grandma.”

“Yes.” He grabbed the remote controls from the middle table and switched on the TV. He tuned into the Cartoon network. The show Ben 10 was ending. “No,” he said.

Cynthia grabbed the remote controls from his hand and tuned into the Telemundo channel.”

“Yuck. Why do you like watching soaps?”

“Keep quiet.”

“You know you’re not supposed to be watching that channel. I’ll tell mum when she returns.”

“No you won’t.”

“Yes I will.”

“You’re a snitch.”

“And you will be stopped from watching TV for a while.”

“Fine." She found a family movie to watch on the Mnet Movie channels.

The home phone rang.

Cynthia stood and run to answer it. It was dad calling.

Hello.

Hi dad.

Can you please tell mom I need to speak to her?

Mum is not around.

What? Where has she gone? Is there anyone at home with you?

There’s no one here. She said she had to go to pick something for grandma.

A dog barked in the neighborhood.

Okay, that’s fine. Be safe. Don’t open for anyone until mum comes home even if it’s someone you know at the gate. Only open for mum and no one else.

Yes dad.

Okay, darling, I have to go.

Bye dad.

Bye.

Mr. Ojara’s Office:

He set the phone down on his mahogany desk and looked out of the large transparent glass wall opposite where he sat. How could she? And then she chooses to keep her phone off. She doesn’t know someone could climb over the fence. I’m going to give her a piece of my mind.

He tried to get back to his work. The thoughts of his house being broken into with his children inside captured his mind. He picked his phone and dialed her number. It went to voicemail:

Hi darling. How could you? How could you? And then you keep your phone off. We discussed that there must be an adult at home at all times. You know the neighborhood is not safe. Have you gotten over what happened to our 3 years old already?

On the road back home:

Mrs. Ojara was in her Toyota Rav4 five minutes away from reaching. She glanced at the front passenger seat where the package for her mum was. I hope it helps with her immunity. She thought about Cynthia and Jacob. I hope they are not fighting.

She increased her speed and overtook two cars in front of her.

Back at home:

Jacob went to the fridge and came back to the sitting room with a bowl filled with four scoops of Vanilla icecream.

Cynthia looked at him, “You didn’t ask mum.”

“She’s not here.”

Cynthia went to the fridge and put five scoops of ice cream in her bowl when she heard a hoot at the gate. She grabbed her bowl of ice cream and ran with it to the bedroom she shared with her brother.

Jacob followed from behind and went to the bedroom with his ice cream. He continued eating.

Cynthia went and opened the gate.

Mum drove in.

She closed the gate and started to walk towards the verandah.

“Cynthia please come and help with grandma’s package and my bag?”

She walked to the front passenger door and grabbed the package and the bag. Before shutting the door she said, “Mom. Dad called.”

“Oh my. I didn’t carry my phone now that I think of it. I left it charging in my bedroom. I’ll call him back.”

Cynthia shut the door and proceeded inside.

to be continued, I’m not yet done

(note my post above was cross-posted with yours)

some examples approved by Jim in this thread don’t match-up justifications as prescribed in the article

In other examples my mind has matched the justifications like the stated format in the articles almost like magic

I’m not going to critique all parts of this scene. Only the conflict. There isn’t any. There’s the groundwork for future conflict, but none in these bits. One of the things that killed any sense of conflict was Cynthia’s age. I don’t know how it is where you live but 13 year olds babysit in the United States. At least I did when I was 13. So leaving a younger sib with an older sib isn’t really an issue that anyone would believe. Maybe it’s different where you live.

If I might suggest…re write this scene and shift the timing…

Mum is just getting back from this important errand (you need to know why is it impossible that she took the kids with her)
Dad is packing the kids’ suitcases because mom left them alone.

Try writing that.

1 Like

[quote=“jassnip, post:55, topic:2858”]
Can is based on Ability and motivates Commitments that accept Circumstances
Want stems from Desire and drives Rationalizations that allow for Situations
Should builds out from Thought and generates Obligations that surface one’s State of Being
Need finds its core in Knowledge and determines Responsibility that manifests a Sense of Self

experiment - building out four levels of justification

Can / rationalization / state of being / knowledge

dramatica element - falsehood

A character can forge some medical documents in order to make excuses for not being able to attend a crucial meeting in order to give themselves an opportunity to change jobs in order to know how far they can progress in their career

UNLESS

need / commitment / situation / ability

A character needs to lie about their employment status in order to have someone commit to aiding them financially in order to move our of the crime ridden neighborhood they have been living in order to be able to viewed in a positive light by family members.

should / responsibility / circumstances / desire

want / obligation / sense of self / thought

If this approved, I think a good technique is to write the conflicting justifications for each level before moving on to the next level of justification

Let’s take it back to just a singular layer of justification and master that before jumping into hard mode, kay?

A character can forge some documents in order to attend a crucial meeting [that will decide something important]
UNLESS
[WHAT WOULD KEEP HIM FROM LYING OR FORGING DOCUMENTS? OR WHAT FALSEHOOD IS ALREADY ON DECK THAT WOULD MAKE TROUBLE FOR HIM?] in order to [WHAT CONTEXT WOULD BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ATTENDING THIS MEETING]

1 Like

Falsehood

Thomas wants to forge immigration documents in order to have a local criminal syndicate think he is the best person they can trust and pay to help them facilitate illegal cross border movement

UNLESS

Thomas needs to lie about how he got the job he has in the first place in order to be able stall investigations into a sexual harassment case at his workplace.

THEREFORE

Thomas should lie to their supervisor that he is innocent in order to quench the desire of the lady pressing the charges.

UNLESS

Thomas can falsify a travel document for the lady’s husband to enter the country in order to know how he can frame the lady for facilitating the illegal entry of her husband into the country.

I’m sorry, what about this is simple?

@jhull Tag, you’re it.

1 Like

I don’t understand when you say what about this is simple?

Or do you mean to say what about this is difficult?

I think she means that your format of UNLESS -> THEREFORE -> UNLESS is more complicated/not following the original format. You’re also bringing a lot of different illustrations in (which I think is great thriller stuff BTW – but it might be too complicated for this exercise, at least to start with).

So instead of trying to put things into a cause/effect sequence, it might be good to just practice with one.

Regarding your example, I’m confused: how does Thomas’ lying about his employment status conflict with lying to his supervisor? (Why can’t he do both? How is it a dilemma?)

1 Like

Hi,

Reading this thread seems to make it easy, but when I try to practise this, it is much harder

My MC has unprocessed grief of the loss of a loved-one
This is causing to fail in his job, and all other people as he OPPOSE to everone.
He is really needed as hero as he is the only one to solve the problem at hand.

How could you describe a justification for this in Lakis way:

Lakis wrote:
The basic structure for applying conflicting justifications is:

[People/I/You/We] [Can/Want/Need/Should] (illustration a) in order to [Knowledge/Thought/Ability/Desire] UNLESS [People/I/You/We] (illustration b) [Can/Want/Need/Should] in order to [Knowledge/Thought/Ability/Desire]

Where “people” is OS, “I” is MC, “You” is IC and “We” is RS.

And/or in jassnip

jassnip wrote:
A character
can/n’t wants/won’t need/n’t should/n’t
UNENDING
in order to
ZEN
UNLESS
A character
can/n’t want/won’t needs/n’t should/n’t
UNENDING
in order to
ZEN

Rgds,
Jeri