Weekly Conflict/Justification Practice Wk of 11/08-14/20

[GGreen]

Thanks Greg, your perspective helps a lot. To me just unravelling the justification would be:
People should give up a way of life in order to be a family unless that’s just a way to justify controlling others (and not really about family at all).
That was the structure I got from the last lesson in the class which was something like
People want to be misled about their vices in order to continue taking drugs without feeling shame unless they just want to be told what to do.
To me that only makes sense if you add in unless ‘the real reason is’ they just want to be told what to do. It didnt feel like a conflict to me…
When I thought I most got this concept was in
the writers room on the king’s speech where one character wanted respect in order to maintain their status whilst seeking help and the other’s view was that if you do that, you wont be able to get what you really need, which is healing, because that requires equality (or something). I think the whole wants versus needs thing is common in other story theories and I could very likely be wrong but it doesnt seem incompatible with the justifications stuff.

People should temporarily adopt a lifestyle in order to be a family unless people need to be true to who they are in order to thrive.

If it helps, I’m trying to describe the dilemma of a selkie!!! The family need to be together on land in human form but being on land makes the mother (in my story) mentally ill, which actually makes everyone unhappy.

Thinly veiled autobiography of a woman home educating due to lockdown and going crazy

[Greg]

@GGreen

People should temporarily adopt a lifestyle in order to be a family unless people need to be true to who they are in order to thrive.

I think this one works much better.
I think it’s going to be easy to say that one can be a family AND thrive, so there may be a way to word it to avoid that. But as far as creating conflict, people cannot temporarily adopt a lifestyle while also constantly, or steadily, being true to themselves. Since “being a family” and “thrive” are not the processes in question, but are there to justify the processes and tell us the context we miss out on by choosing one over the other, I don’t think the ability for these to coexist really defeat the conflict.

@GGreen

the structure I got from the last lesson

There’s a whole segment in that lesson where they discuss wanting to be misled for this reason or wanting to be misled for that reason and that didn’t click with me at all. It’s like those old beer commercials where they argue over whether they like the beer because it’s less filling or because it tastes great and the idea is that it’s both less filling AND tastes great. There’s really no conflict there.

Similarly, there doesn’t seem to me to be conflict between wanting to be misled to avoid shame and wanting to be misled to be told what to do. I think there would be conflict between wanting to be misled to avoid shame and wanting to be told what to do for some other reason in that you can have someone send you in the wrong direction, or you can have what someone is telling you to do BE your direction, if that makes sense. I personally think what’s confusing is looking at the UNLESS part as a second context rather than a second justification.

Just to take this a bit further, though, I would say that the statement “people can/want/need/should in order to x unless people can/want/need/should” IS offering two contexts. But they are two different types of context at two different levels. “In order to x” provides context for the first justification. And then the whole statement from the first justification all the way through the second justification provides context for conflict. And if we were to use the longer form of “people C/W/N/S in order to x unless people C/W/N/S in order to y”, then we have three contexts. Two separate contexts for two separate justifications and one context for conflict.

[GGreen]

@Greg

Just to take this a bit further, though, I would say that the statement “people can/want/need/should in order to x unless people can/want/need/should” IS offering two contexts. But they are two different types of context at two different levels. “In order to x” provides context for the first justification. And then the whole statement from the first justification all the way through the second justification provides context for conflict. And if we were to use the longer form of “people C/W/N/S in order to x unless people C/W/N/S in order to y”, then we have three contexts. Two separate contexts for two separate justifications and one context for conflict.

Yes, I think I am following you. This is so fascinating.

[JohnDusenberry]

@Greg

Just to take this a bit further, though, I would say that the statement “people can/want/need/should in order to x unless people can/want/need/should” IS offering two contexts. But they are two different types of context at two different levels. “In order to x” provides context for the first justification. And then the whole statement from the first justification all the way through the second justification provides context for conflict. And if we were to use the longer form of “people C/W/N/S in order to x unless people C/W/N/S in order to y”, then we have three contexts. Two separate contexts for two separate justifications and one context for conflict.

I think you’re onto something here that may be leading to a lot of the confusion around conflict and what exactly it is. More on this in the next Conflict Corner.