But if the OS Signpost is Future, then the OS Domain must be Universe, and the OS Issue and Problem are therefore in Universe as well. In the example, the OS Issue is Attitude (Physics) with the given Problem Quad.
I don’t know what this has to do with the Signposts and Variations falling out of phase.
1 Like
In that example, it’s not right vs. wrong, positive vs. negative. Right and wrong, positive and negative are just points of view. Conflict is not an argument. Argument happens becuase of a conflict. The conflict in that case was not the animal dies or I die. That’s a choice, not a conflict. The conflict is in “I have to kill that animal lest it kill me vs. all life is precious.” Kill or be killed, vs. all things should live. The tiger’s life is just as important as your own life. But in that situation, the other truth is that for one to live the other must die. It creates an actual conflict. How can one of you die if both lives are important? Both of those statements/truths cannot be upheld at the same time, and it creates a dilemma.
Value is the objective usefulness or desirability of something. The two truths are saying: Setting things in stone has value in one situation, unless there is an assertion dealing with the same thing (valuing something) that lacks value and negates the other.
2 Likes
Hey @bobRaskoph
So,
the value portions of that are “is a great way” and then it compares the value against being rigid and not embracing spontaneity. The statements compare the relative value of plotting vs pansting…and while they aren’t technically mutually exclusive, I think you’ll find most people fall into one camp or the other.
Again, I think this is a technicality that doesn’t really make a difference, BUT just for clarity’s sake here is a screenshot of where we got the self-interest while futuring. I’m pretty sure it could show up just this way in any of the throughlines, but in this case it was the obstacle character throughline
2 Likes
As @jassnip says, this is referring to the Plot Sequence Report – the PSR Variations (Issues) for a given throughline signpost are usually (never?) the ones you find under the Concern “at rest”. This is how you have Self Interest while Future.
Interestingly, the Elements that you find under the PSR Variations are always the ones that belong to those Issues (not out of phase). @jhull explains why this is so somewhere but I don’t think it matters why.
1 Like
Russian Roulette *rimshot*
I feel like I’m not communicating clearly here. My confusion is not about Self-Interest or its subordinate elements, but Approach and its subordinate elements being the OS Issue and Problem Quad as shown in the Episode Notes. (my earlier post said “Attitude”, so sorry about that)
This seems like the crux of my issue with the entire justification dilemma concept.
“Kill or be killed vs all things should live” is clearly contradictory without context, while most of the other examples are not.
(You die OR I die) AND (Nobody dies) => clear contradiction
(I exercise -> I am happy) AND (I look good -> someone gets jealous) => no contradiction. Needs context.
(I stay healthy AND I exercise -> I live longer and happier) AND (I spend time away from my SO -> I grow old alone) => no contradiction. Needs context.
I suppose I could resolve this by just phrasing it differently / be more specific. “I grow old alone and unhappy” 
But that statement HAS context. The situation of facing down a tiger ready to eat you. They both need context, and they both have it.
Re: the one we discussed in the Writer’s Room about Self-interest, it’s looking at both justifications as illustrations of conflicting self-interest:
Staying healthy and exercising everyday leads to a longer happier life unless spending too much time away from your significant other leads to growing old alone.
Perhaps it’s not specific enough, but the idea is that serving yourself generates happiness, unless serving yourself generates sadness. If both can be true, then the same thing (self-interest) can generate happiness and sadness. But you can’t really feel both at the same time… at least not without feeling (say it with me) conflicted!
Basically, with any of these you’re playing devil’s advocate.
1 Like
My confusion is not about Self-Interest or its subordinate elements, but Approach and its subordinate elements being the OS Issue and Problem Quad as shown in the Episode Notes. (my earlier post said “Attitude”, so sorry about that)
Oh, @bobRaskoph I see what you mean now.
Yeah @jhull @JohnDusenberry we might have skipped a beat here. Unless I’m misunderstanding, we started the exercise using a piece of John’s storyform from the IC throughline (Universe -> Future etc.) as if it were the OS. Then later when we went back to check the Problem/Solution Element quad context of the scene, we skipped back to the actual OS, which is Physics -> Obtaining -> Approach.
The correct Problem and Solution Elements for the IC throughline are still Consider/Reconsider but the Focus and Direction are different (Disbelief/Faith).
(Compare 20:00 to to around 53:00 you’ll see what happened).
1 Like
Ahh, yes we were using the IC throughline’s storyform. But no matter where the problem elements are borrowed from, the exercise still works. Jim wanted to use Self-Interest only because it’s one of the most easily understood elements.
3 Likes
Check your email 
(yes)
2 Likes
We are meeting tomorrow at 1pm for mutual benefit UNLESS writing by yourself is the only way to achieve artistic satisfaction.
4 Likes
I was thinking about this more. It’s quite interesting – it’s specifically the “while Future” part of the scene’s PSR-level conflict (Self-Interest while Future) that could never occur when the problem quad is Pursuit/Control/Uncontrolled/Avoid for the same througlhine.
However, something we don’t often talk about is how a scene that falls under one throughline’s PSR beat, can still contain conflict relevant to another throughline perspective. In my own writing, I sometimes have trouble figuring out which PSR item a scene falls under, as it might seem to be, say, equally weighted between OS and IC. But usually after the scene is written I can look at it and tell which element quad it is. (Note: this gets even more complicated with two substories woven in!)
So what we did at the end of that exercise was to take a scene that fell most strongly in one throughline (we labelled it OS), and then we saw how another perspective (IC) was woven into the same scene.
1 Like
So glad I returned to the forums to see this (and the video on Subtext)
LUDO — Where’s the D? I have it now! Yes!! 
In case it wasn’t clear, I’m going to try to join the session tomorrow.
Thank you, @JohnDusenberry and @jhull for starting this!
2 Likes
What is LUDO? I’m not familiar
Shorthand for a common progression of the Dramatica Physics/Activity domain:
Learning -> Understanding -> Doing -> Obtaining.
My cry of joy is due to the fact that, if I were to write my struggles with Dramatica as a story, I’d currently be stuck working through the journey from Understanding to Doing. This Conflict Corner practicum may just be the springboard I need to get over that bump.
(It’s been a bit of help already, actually. 
)
2 Likes
Well thank god we now have that guy!!
Huge thanks to everyone who showed up today. This is proving to be a really exciting and challenging journey. I think we’re all going to come out stronger the more we flex this muscle.
Looking forward to seeing you again next week… same bat time, same bat channel!
6 Likes
I missed this week’s class, but that’s because I didn’t visit the forum to see the schedule! I’ll be there next week.
I rewatched the first class and the process is eye opening. Applying it to my own storyform is a bit of a challenge still but with the workshops, I’ll get plent of practice. Thanks @jhull and @JohnDusenberry
3 Likes
Is there another class today? How do I join it?
1 Like