I’m still working through this thread so forgive me if this is already mentioned, but wanted to get it down before I forgot.
So one of these statements has 2 processes and 2 contexts (“I need to process 1 in order to context 1 unless I should process 2 in order to context 2). What we’re justifying is the process. That’s why we say “in order to”. It’s shorter than saying “and my justification for engaging in this process is…”. So in order to have conflict between the first justification and the second, we need those processes to be incompatible, to be impossible to engage in both at the same time.
It seems to me that one can ponder moodily as they reflect. Not sure if that’s what Jim meant when he said it he could see them both happening, but that’s where they don’t feel like they are in conflict for me.
I’d offer a suggestion on how I might fix it, but I’m trying to get caught up on work before this weeks Conflict Corner, which should be starting soon, I believe. Maybe I can come back afterwards to offer that.
…ok, so I have a minute after all. An extremely easy and lazy way to adjust this one would be to simply move part of the first context to the first process.
“Characters can ponder moodily their perceived injustices in order to suffer unless they should reflect on the perspectives of others…”
Now the only way these two could happen at the same time would be if others perspectives WERE somehow the perceived injustice. Assuming that’s not the case, one can’t ponder ones own perspective while also reflecting on the perspectives of others.
Continuing to read through, this actually looks a lot like what MLucas offered here: