Early Mental Relativity Development Memo
An early Mental Relativity theory development memo from 1992
December 19, 1992
Dear Chris,
I have only had four hour's sleep each of the last three nights, and as you know, this makes it much easier to grasp the model of Mental Relativity. What follows will sound fragmented, but only insofar as it leaps from one kind of understanding of the model to another. This is only because I am taking the spatial view of time and the temporal view of space. It is essential that this approach is used because in order to understand the key to unlocking the dynamics of our structural model, we must "invert" the manner in which we have previously maintained a consistent view of the model as a whole. In order to USE the model, we must violate the constant perspective that created the model.
The nature of our minds is that they either favor a spatial view or a temporal view at the biologic level. This is inescapable, as it is built into the very architecture of our brains. For men, the spatial view is favored, for women, the temporal.Here is our first need to shift our perspective in order to understand. The men's view (Spatial Brain Operating System or SBOS) favors space because in freezes time. What does this mean? That both space and time sense depend on comparing observation to experience. One must either look at the memory of "before" and compare it to the observation of "now", or must compare the memory of "there" and compare it to the observation of "here".
At the conscious level, both men and women can do either, but at the pre-conscious or "architecture of the mind" level, we are saddled to only one. For men, they favor "here and there" over "before and now".Jumping perspectives, we can make a leap of understanding here and see how these two views might be the precursors of the two forms of logic, "when, also" and "if, then". "If, then" is the male form of logic that depends on a temporal appreciation of the relationship of things, and "When, also" is the female form of logic that depends on a spatial appreciation of the arrangement of things.
Note how we have now flipped one hundred and eighty degrees in how we view male and female minds. We first said that men saw things primarily in terms of space, then we said their logic was "If, then" which is time based. For women, we said that they viewed things in terms of time, then ascribe to them a spatial logic of "When, also".How can this be? This illustrates the understanding we have built into the Mental Relativity model. At the Pre-conscious level, the architecture of the brain determines the operating system. But when you move up the levels of the mind, by the time you get up to the Conscious, the view has completely inverted or "flipped".
So for men, at the bottom level, they see space, at the top they see in terms of time. For women, at the bottom level they see time, at the top they see in terms of space. Notice the words I used here to describe these functions. For both men and women I described the bottom of the model as "seeing" something and the top as "viewing in terms of". This neatly describes the relationship between the Pre-conscious and the Conscious. The Pre-conscious gives us observation, the Conscious evaluates it.In a sense then, both men and women have access to space and time, but one is a "passive" access and the other "active". One way to look at the difference between the two systems as being "flipped" between each other: one's passive is the other's active, one's top is the other's bottom. But this is only partly true, as they BOTH "see" from the bottom and "view" from the top. This creates a feel much more like a ninety degree out of phase relationship between the two minds, rather than a one hundred eighty degree one.
In Mental relativity, we describe these four conditions (bottom space, top time, bottom time, top space) in a Quad, and we describe bottom/bottom, top/top, as the two points of the crystal that form the axis for the Quad. We, as observers of the mind, look at the Quad from either of the two points of the crystal and see each of the four elements of the Quad as being ninety degrees away from the next.
So far, I have only described the bottom and top levels of the mind, but as we know from our work, there are four: Pre-conscious, Sub-conscious, Memory, and Conscious. In a sense, these four levels are a sideways view of a Quad. Each level is ninety degrees away from the next.Why do we have both Quads and Levels? Why does not one method of looking at the mind suffice? Because one method looks at the mind in terms of time and the other in terms of space. Again, these are the two ways any mind can examine an observation, and when we wish to fully examine our own minds we must use both.
Why? Because since the mind uses both, in order to see both, we must use one kind of view to observe the other. What this illustrates is that we hold either time or space constant (do not evaluate changes in it) in order to observe changes in the other.At the bottom level of the mind, we do this passively and gain our observations. At the top level of the mind, we do this actively and arrive at decisions. The structure of the Mental Relativity model of the mind (from level to level) represent the method by which a mind shifts its appreciation from spatial to temporal, or vice versa.
The final seeming paradox we need to bring into this discussion in order to understand what we need to know so that we may dynamically manipulate the model, is this: The mind can be seen temporally as a flow of thought, or spatially as compartmentalized functions. If we view the mind as a flow, we see observation moving into the Pre-Conscious area of "first response", examining it in terms of instinct, and if that cannot identify the information, the observation moves up one level to Sub-Conscious. Sub-Conscious examines the observation in terms of motivations, and if it cannot identify the observation, it moves up one level to Memory. Memory (experience) takes a look, and if it fails to identify the observation it is bumped up to the final level, Conscious, where it is considered and understood by comparison.
But what if it cannot be resolved? Then it moves back down, level by level, but no longer as an Observation. Now it is perceived as an Inequity (or unresolved unbalance between our understanding and the way things (an observation) are. If memory has no experience with this inequity, it moves to Sub-conscious. If Sub-Conscious has no angle on the inequity, it moves down to Pre-Conscious. And by the time it gets to Pre-conscious, the original observation at that level has become a negative image of itself: an inequity, that perfectly masks the continued seeing of the observation so that it becomes functionally invisible to the mind.
This is how the mind clears itself from getting trapped in a loop by continuing to consider an unresolvable observation.Now, if the observation was INTERNAL, that is to say that a creative (unobserved) thought materialized in the Conscious, until it is understood, it will flow DOWN through the mind, then, if still unresolved, flow back UP until it reaches the Conscious again, inverted into a negative image until in perfectly blends with the original thought, cancelling it.
This is how the mind prevents itself from continuing to consider ideas that have no application at all.Of course, in actual function, for more complex thoughts and observations, each level of the mind might have some impact on the shape of the "mental image" as it moves from level to level. At each juncture, the mental image might be added to or subtracted from. Why? Because mental images can form at any of the four levels of the mind and then make the rounds of the other three and back again to where it started. If there is a difference between what went out and what came back, the process continues until the mental image masks itself out of further consideration.
Now, I return to saying that this described the final paradox that we needed to understand. All these paragraphs were one side of the paradox, which of course means that so far they do not appear as a paradox at all. The whole explanation of the level to level transition describes the mind as a process (time) moving a mental image from one place in succession to the next.
But an equally true view is to see the mind spatially, as four levels of processing that occur simultaneously, each altering the mental image at the same time. Therein lies the paradox. How can the same untainted image be acted upon at the same time by all four levels, if they get it one after the other?I don't know. That is why it is a paradox.Even in the model of Mental Relativity, we cannot explain away the paradox of time versus space. Rather, for the first time, we explain the relationship BETWEEN them.
The model does not eliminate that paradox, how can it, as we (within whom the paradox exists) cannot leave ourselves to view ourselves. We bring the baggage of our own operating systems to the endeavor of understanding our own operating systems. Left unchecked, we would (as many have) end up chasing our tails in a mental hall of infinite mirrors.So what are we to do? How can we ever get a true view of the mind? In truth, we cannot. However, what we CAN get is a CONSISTENT view of the mind. That is what the model of Mental Relativity achieves.How is this accomplished? If we cannot eliminate the paradox, at least we can decide where to put it. But, of course, it is in a different place for SBOS systems compared to TBOS systems. If both systems see the world so differently, how can we ever agree to put the paradox in a single place appropriate to both? By giving the model two meanings.
This needs explanation. An analogy: we have two pictures, each consisting of a number of random dots. Actually the dots only appear to be random until you realize that they all line up between the two pictures. Interesting concept: that each picture appears random until it is compared to the other. Only when the two are looked at lined up against each other do we see that the patterns are the same BETWEEN them.
So are the patterns random or not? Well, it depends on how you measure, doesn't it? It depends on your point of view. Taken independently, each is random, taken together, neither is.This is what we have with the model of Mental Relativity. The vertical levels matched against the horizontal quads showing that the same patterns exist in each "picture" of the mind. One pattern is from a SBOS mind, the other from a TBOS mind. Separately, they are random, together they are patterned.We learned early on a most amazing thing: That the operating system of one mind (that moves observation up to the Conscious) equally describes the Conscious system of the other (that moves thought down to the Pre-Conscious).
This is the crucial concept to understanding the relationship between the two minds in terms of the model: That what appears to be observation to one mind will appear to be thought to the other, and vice versa.This is the functional explanation for the feeling we all have of the "opposite" sex. We see the other side's mental operations as being one hundred eighty degrees away from ours. And yet, we still see that their Pre-Conscious is also at the bottom and their Conscious is also at the top. Once more we arrive at the paradox of the two minds appearing completely opposite or completely identical, depending on your measuring stick.And now we have a cursory, working understanding of the structure of the Mental Relativity model. It serves to eliminate paradox by finding the identical natures between two independently "random" patterns.
The side note is that the patterns only appear random because BOTH time and space are functioning in the same place at the same time in each mind. And since we must freeze one as a measuring stick to see the other, we can never observe them both at work in the same place at the same time. However, by combining both operating systems in the same model, that's exactly what we can do. Because the comparison between them replaces the randomness of each with the pattern of both.Now (my dear Chris) on to the DYNAMIC key that unlocks the functional power of the structure.
The model works for both operating systems because we see it two ways. One way is to view a quad spatially in terms of Potential, Resistance, Current (flow), and Power (outcome), each of these being an element in the quad. The other way is to view the four elements temporally as an order of events: one, two, three, four.When we look at the mind as an SBOS mind, we favor PRCP, and therefore, time is not favored, we see is less accurately as a "Z" pattern rather than a circular cycle. This leads to the SBOS order in a quad that follows the Z pattern: Potential (One), Resistance (Two), Current (Three), Outcome (Four).Now this arrangement of order is meaningless when viewing the model as a TBOS mind. In that case, the TBOS mind would see the order of progression as being a circle, rather than a Z because the TBOS mind will see time clearly and space less accurately. So the order/arrangement for the TBOS mind would be: One (Potential), Two (Resistance), Three (Power), Four (Flow).
It is important to notice how both systems assign Potential and Resistance as One and Two. This is a reflection of both having Pre-conscious at the bottom and Conscious at the top. But Three and Four are for SBOS, Current and Outcome and for TBOS, the reverse arrangement, Power and Flow. This is a reflection of one system having time at the top and space at the bottom and the other system being the inverse.
Also note, how both agree on Potential and Resistance as being the same words or objects, whereas each needs a different words to describe the remaining two elements of the quad. This is because TBOS and SBOS can never agree on all four points, but only on two, which is simply, again, the essence of their difference reflected in the model.
By giving two different interpretations to each of the same two items in a quad, we accommodate the paradox between them by matching up the images so that they appear identical an no longer random.Okay, the remaining portion of this discussion will be in terms of Dramatica, as opposed to Mental Relativity, as it will form a shorthand language between us that can leap over some complicated concepts we share without the necessity of explaining each concept along the way.How do we wind up the model in order to create the dramatic tension that represents justification? What is it that determines the relationship between the Problem Element, Variation, Type, and Class?
First, we have labelled things as static/objective. Static is what is needed for an SBOS to evaluate, Objective is what is needed for TBOS. By selecting the same item as both Static AND Objective, the focus of a story will be the same for both SBOS and TBOS minds. That is how the random becomes identical.SBOS sees space better that TBOS, so space in the model is assigned the SBOS view of PRCO. Time is seen better by TBOS, so the quad time is circular, 1,2,3,4. The PRCO would not read perfectly to TBOS, nor the 1,2,3,4 to SBOS, but since it is on each of their blind sides, it is not a measurement either will make. (That's one place we hide the paradox).What does "winding up the model" mean? It means creating a wholly invisible balanced inequity. These inequities are essential to experience and motivation, yet, if the relationship between mind and universe changes, they can be as wrong as they are invisible.
As an audience, we view the story objectively by picking a static/objective item in each level. Those become the unchanging measuring stick of the story. Objective, therefore, contains four appreciations.The subjective view of the story is provided by three appreciations: PC or PV, + or -, and Timelock or Spacelock. These subjective appreciations are created by the selection of the four s/o choices (and of course, vice versa).
The three manipulations that determine these subjective binary pairs each have two states. If you select one state the MC will be PC, the other state, PV, and so on for all three pairs.Rotating the 1,2,3,4 dial ninety degrees (one element) clockwise or counter-clockwise (in relationship to the PRCO) determines positive or negative. Flipping one dynamic pair or the other (in relationship to the 1,2,3,4) determines PC or PV. Which of these two functions (flipping or rotating) carries the children, determines timelock or spacelock.These decisions can be made completely independently from level to level: we need not be consistent in the direction of the rotate, selection of the dynamic pair, or who carries the children. BUT, it must be determined for each level. When it is consistent, we get such stories as "The Wizard of Oz" where it is a simple, straightforward view at all levels and from the beginning to the end as to whether or not PC or PV, + or -, and timelock or spacelock. When it is NOT consistent, we end up with stories more like "Witness" where we have some trouble determining who is the MC and whether space or time is locked.Remember, once these determinations have been made at all four levels, it both affects how each level "feels" in the Story Mind, and also how that feel changes with time over the course of the story.
The S/O item at each level is the one that holds the problem element. And THAT is the one consistent item from level to level: the item that carried the children is the Static Object item at that level.Already, this simple, arbitrary decision of picking a binary choice on each of three things on each of four levels has created an incredibly complex relationship among the S/O items on each level. It amounts to this: Any item on any level can, under certain conditions, be set as S/O in relationship to any other S/O on any other level, but not under ALL conditions. That's why the choice is both arbitrary and limited. As soon as you make the determination of one of the three choices of binary pairs at any level, you have limited your choices elsewhere to some degree.It becomes quite clear why we never were able to pin down the structural relationship between S/O items before. It is simple not a structural relationship at all, but a dynamic one. Structurally, the patterns seem to randomly weave all through the model, whereas dynamically, it is just a matter of three choices per level.Once we imagine the manner in which the Depth First Order of the plot's progress is presented to the audience, we can see that they may be fully aware of where a story is leading or can be fooled entirely, just by these simple choices.
It is also clear how the subject of a scene, the dialog, and the order of the scenes in the act can be easily determined. We assume here that the Depth First Order is consitent, and the model need not be, but of course, vice versa is equally true. For example, we might have a consisent answer to each of the four levels of three choices and the Depth First Order could vary from scene to scene.As another note, this description of the functional actions of winding up the model and its effects is not a description of the dynamic model, but only the relationships BETWEEN the structural and dynamic models. So what, then IS this elusive Dynamic Model? Simply the Dynamic Partner Superclass to this one.
If we overlay the opposing Super Class over THIS Super Class, everything is balanced. But when we begin to make the flips, rotates, and child stealing, we drag the other model with us. This takes such concepts as "parallel" and "intersecting" and assigns them to points in the structural model that will be read in the Depth First Order. The exact mechanism of this draggin of the other Super Class remains to be discovered, but for now, we can safely say that is how we determine the interactions of the dramatic units, rather than just their states.The next area I wish to work out is the exact functioning of justification in the two subjective classes. At this point, it is my hunch that whatever pattern was chosen in the objective classes is mimiced perfectly in the subjective classes. The patterns are the same, and unwind themselves in the same way, but the semantics are all different: all but two pairs - the pair that represents the problem element in the PCs subjective class and the pair that represents the focus element in the PVs subjective class. Which one is seen as the main character is already determined by the dynamic flipping choice in the objective wind-up.Of course, one could approach the wind-up from the subjective view and arrive at the appropriate objective class wind-up just as accurately. It all depends on personal preferences of the author.Finally, the "24 scene" structure of a story derives (as we supposed) from the Depth First Order exploration of all four elements in a Quad, followed by a flip and a rotate, one of which will bring the children.
In summary, we must return somewhat to our earlier understanding of the simple process of winding up the model in order to appreciate the relationship between the S/O items at each level of a properly structured story. By applying this method, we are now able to not only fulfill the mandate of the engine for version one of the Dramatica program, but have already created much of the groundwork for the scene resolution appreciation of version two. Further notes, as I think of them:
1. The combination of flipping and rotating can and does create any of the odd Z pattern and hairpin pattern progressions we have seen in the dynamics.
2. The one true structural paradox in the model is seeing the vertical pairs as Dependent or Decendent. Both are correct, one for each BOS. By justifying, companion pairs become decendent pairs: this is the function of changing space into time by the right minded. By flipping either access of the PRCO, companion pairs become dependent pairs, the left minded justification of turning space into time. When we both see companion pairs as structure and dynamic pairs as dynamics, we must each see the vertical pairs differently.
3. Two possible arrangements work for the flip/rotate function. First, the one described above is for a Main Character who is SBOS. By rotating in a circle and flipping in Dynamic Pairs, Women will sympathize with the MC and Men will empathize with him. In the other arrangement, we take a TBOS MC perspective. Here, we "rotate" in a "Z" pattern and flip in companion pairs. This creates an MC that women will empathize with and men will sympthize with.Unlike the other choices which can vary from level to level, this decision must remain constant throughout all four levels in order to insure a consistant MC.Between these two systems, all of the equations of Mental Relativity can be generated.
It is my feeling that a story like "Prince of Tides" actually uses the TBOS MC, but gives the part to a male player. In the original "Alien", the pattern is SBOS, but given to a female player. There is nothing wrong with this: if anything, it allows the audience to separate the sexual affect of the player from the mental struggle of the character.
December 19, 1992
Dear Chris,
I have only had four hour's sleep each of the last three nights, and as you know, this makes it much easier to grasp the model of Mental Relativity. What follows will sound fragmented, but only insofar as it leaps from one kind of understanding of the model to another. This is only because I am taking the spatial view of time and the temporal view of space. It is essential that this approach is used because in order to understand the key to unlocking the dynamics of our structural model, we must "invert" the manner in which we have previously maintained a consistent view of the model as a whole. In order to USE the model, we must violate the constant perspective that created the model.
The nature of our minds is that they either favor a spatial view or a temporal view at the biologic level. This is inescapable, as it is built into the very architecture of our brains. For men, the spatial view is favored, for women, the temporal.Here is our first need to shift our perspective in order to understand. The men's view (Spatial Brain Operating System or SBOS) favors space because in freezes time. What does this mean? That both space and time sense depend on comparing observation to experience. One must either look at the memory of "before" and compare it to the observation of "now", or must compare the memory of "there" and compare it to the observation of "here".
At the conscious level, both men and women can do either, but at the pre-conscious or "architecture of the mind" level, we are saddled to only one. For men, they favor "here and there" over "before and now".Jumping perspectives, we can make a leap of understanding here and see how these two views might be the precursors of the two forms of logic, "when, also" and "if, then". "If, then" is the male form of logic that depends on a temporal appreciation of the relationship of things, and "When, also" is the female form of logic that depends on a spatial appreciation of the arrangement of things.
Note how we have now flipped one hundred and eighty degrees in how we view male and female minds. We first said that men saw things primarily in terms of space, then we said their logic was "If, then" which is time based. For women, we said that they viewed things in terms of time, then ascribe to them a spatial logic of "When, also".How can this be? This illustrates the understanding we have built into the Mental Relativity model. At the Pre-conscious level, the architecture of the brain determines the operating system. But when you move up the levels of the mind, by the time you get up to the Conscious, the view has completely inverted or "flipped".
So for men, at the bottom level, they see space, at the top they see in terms of time. For women, at the bottom level they see time, at the top they see in terms of space. Notice the words I used here to describe these functions. For both men and women I described the bottom of the model as "seeing" something and the top as "viewing in terms of". This neatly describes the relationship between the Pre-conscious and the Conscious. The Pre-conscious gives us observation, the Conscious evaluates it.In a sense then, both men and women have access to space and time, but one is a "passive" access and the other "active". One way to look at the difference between the two systems as being "flipped" between each other: one's passive is the other's active, one's top is the other's bottom. But this is only partly true, as they BOTH "see" from the bottom and "view" from the top. This creates a feel much more like a ninety degree out of phase relationship between the two minds, rather than a one hundred eighty degree one.
In Mental relativity, we describe these four conditions (bottom space, top time, bottom time, top space) in a Quad, and we describe bottom/bottom, top/top, as the two points of the crystal that form the axis for the Quad. We, as observers of the mind, look at the Quad from either of the two points of the crystal and see each of the four elements of the Quad as being ninety degrees away from the next.
So far, I have only described the bottom and top levels of the mind, but as we know from our work, there are four: Pre-conscious, Sub-conscious, Memory, and Conscious. In a sense, these four levels are a sideways view of a Quad. Each level is ninety degrees away from the next.Why do we have both Quads and Levels? Why does not one method of looking at the mind suffice? Because one method looks at the mind in terms of time and the other in terms of space. Again, these are the two ways any mind can examine an observation, and when we wish to fully examine our own minds we must use both.
Why? Because since the mind uses both, in order to see both, we must use one kind of view to observe the other. What this illustrates is that we hold either time or space constant (do not evaluate changes in it) in order to observe changes in the other.At the bottom level of the mind, we do this passively and gain our observations. At the top level of the mind, we do this actively and arrive at decisions. The structure of the Mental Relativity model of the mind (from level to level) represent the method by which a mind shifts its appreciation from spatial to temporal, or vice versa.
The final seeming paradox we need to bring into this discussion in order to understand what we need to know so that we may dynamically manipulate the model, is this: The mind can be seen temporally as a flow of thought, or spatially as compartmentalized functions. If we view the mind as a flow, we see observation moving into the Pre-Conscious area of "first response", examining it in terms of instinct, and if that cannot identify the information, the observation moves up one level to Sub-Conscious. Sub-Conscious examines the observation in terms of motivations, and if it cannot identify the observation, it moves up one level to Memory. Memory (experience) takes a look, and if it fails to identify the observation it is bumped up to the final level, Conscious, where it is considered and understood by comparison.
But what if it cannot be resolved? Then it moves back down, level by level, but no longer as an Observation. Now it is perceived as an Inequity (or unresolved unbalance between our understanding and the way things (an observation) are. If memory has no experience with this inequity, it moves to Sub-conscious. If Sub-Conscious has no angle on the inequity, it moves down to Pre-Conscious. And by the time it gets to Pre-conscious, the original observation at that level has become a negative image of itself: an inequity, that perfectly masks the continued seeing of the observation so that it becomes functionally invisible to the mind.
This is how the mind clears itself from getting trapped in a loop by continuing to consider an unresolvable observation.Now, if the observation was INTERNAL, that is to say that a creative (unobserved) thought materialized in the Conscious, until it is understood, it will flow DOWN through the mind, then, if still unresolved, flow back UP until it reaches the Conscious again, inverted into a negative image until in perfectly blends with the original thought, cancelling it.
This is how the mind prevents itself from continuing to consider ideas that have no application at all.Of course, in actual function, for more complex thoughts and observations, each level of the mind might have some impact on the shape of the "mental image" as it moves from level to level. At each juncture, the mental image might be added to or subtracted from. Why? Because mental images can form at any of the four levels of the mind and then make the rounds of the other three and back again to where it started. If there is a difference between what went out and what came back, the process continues until the mental image masks itself out of further consideration.
Now, I return to saying that this described the final paradox that we needed to understand. All these paragraphs were one side of the paradox, which of course means that so far they do not appear as a paradox at all. The whole explanation of the level to level transition describes the mind as a process (time) moving a mental image from one place in succession to the next.
But an equally true view is to see the mind spatially, as four levels of processing that occur simultaneously, each altering the mental image at the same time. Therein lies the paradox. How can the same untainted image be acted upon at the same time by all four levels, if they get it one after the other?I don't know. That is why it is a paradox.Even in the model of Mental Relativity, we cannot explain away the paradox of time versus space. Rather, for the first time, we explain the relationship BETWEEN them.
The model does not eliminate that paradox, how can it, as we (within whom the paradox exists) cannot leave ourselves to view ourselves. We bring the baggage of our own operating systems to the endeavor of understanding our own operating systems. Left unchecked, we would (as many have) end up chasing our tails in a mental hall of infinite mirrors.So what are we to do? How can we ever get a true view of the mind? In truth, we cannot. However, what we CAN get is a CONSISTENT view of the mind. That is what the model of Mental Relativity achieves.How is this accomplished? If we cannot eliminate the paradox, at least we can decide where to put it. But, of course, it is in a different place for SBOS systems compared to TBOS systems. If both systems see the world so differently, how can we ever agree to put the paradox in a single place appropriate to both? By giving the model two meanings.
This needs explanation. An analogy: we have two pictures, each consisting of a number of random dots. Actually the dots only appear to be random until you realize that they all line up between the two pictures. Interesting concept: that each picture appears random until it is compared to the other. Only when the two are looked at lined up against each other do we see that the patterns are the same BETWEEN them.
So are the patterns random or not? Well, it depends on how you measure, doesn't it? It depends on your point of view. Taken independently, each is random, taken together, neither is.This is what we have with the model of Mental Relativity. The vertical levels matched against the horizontal quads showing that the same patterns exist in each "picture" of the mind. One pattern is from a SBOS mind, the other from a TBOS mind. Separately, they are random, together they are patterned.We learned early on a most amazing thing: That the operating system of one mind (that moves observation up to the Conscious) equally describes the Conscious system of the other (that moves thought down to the Pre-Conscious).
This is the crucial concept to understanding the relationship between the two minds in terms of the model: That what appears to be observation to one mind will appear to be thought to the other, and vice versa.This is the functional explanation for the feeling we all have of the "opposite" sex. We see the other side's mental operations as being one hundred eighty degrees away from ours. And yet, we still see that their Pre-Conscious is also at the bottom and their Conscious is also at the top. Once more we arrive at the paradox of the two minds appearing completely opposite or completely identical, depending on your measuring stick.And now we have a cursory, working understanding of the structure of the Mental Relativity model. It serves to eliminate paradox by finding the identical natures between two independently "random" patterns.
The side note is that the patterns only appear random because BOTH time and space are functioning in the same place at the same time in each mind. And since we must freeze one as a measuring stick to see the other, we can never observe them both at work in the same place at the same time. However, by combining both operating systems in the same model, that's exactly what we can do. Because the comparison between them replaces the randomness of each with the pattern of both.Now (my dear Chris) on to the DYNAMIC key that unlocks the functional power of the structure.
The model works for both operating systems because we see it two ways. One way is to view a quad spatially in terms of Potential, Resistance, Current (flow), and Power (outcome), each of these being an element in the quad. The other way is to view the four elements temporally as an order of events: one, two, three, four.When we look at the mind as an SBOS mind, we favor PRCP, and therefore, time is not favored, we see is less accurately as a "Z" pattern rather than a circular cycle. This leads to the SBOS order in a quad that follows the Z pattern: Potential (One), Resistance (Two), Current (Three), Outcome (Four).Now this arrangement of order is meaningless when viewing the model as a TBOS mind. In that case, the TBOS mind would see the order of progression as being a circle, rather than a Z because the TBOS mind will see time clearly and space less accurately. So the order/arrangement for the TBOS mind would be: One (Potential), Two (Resistance), Three (Power), Four (Flow).
It is important to notice how both systems assign Potential and Resistance as One and Two. This is a reflection of both having Pre-conscious at the bottom and Conscious at the top. But Three and Four are for SBOS, Current and Outcome and for TBOS, the reverse arrangement, Power and Flow. This is a reflection of one system having time at the top and space at the bottom and the other system being the inverse.
Also note, how both agree on Potential and Resistance as being the same words or objects, whereas each needs a different words to describe the remaining two elements of the quad. This is because TBOS and SBOS can never agree on all four points, but only on two, which is simply, again, the essence of their difference reflected in the model.
By giving two different interpretations to each of the same two items in a quad, we accommodate the paradox between them by matching up the images so that they appear identical an no longer random.Okay, the remaining portion of this discussion will be in terms of Dramatica, as opposed to Mental Relativity, as it will form a shorthand language between us that can leap over some complicated concepts we share without the necessity of explaining each concept along the way.How do we wind up the model in order to create the dramatic tension that represents justification? What is it that determines the relationship between the Problem Element, Variation, Type, and Class?
First, we have labelled things as static/objective. Static is what is needed for an SBOS to evaluate, Objective is what is needed for TBOS. By selecting the same item as both Static AND Objective, the focus of a story will be the same for both SBOS and TBOS minds. That is how the random becomes identical.SBOS sees space better that TBOS, so space in the model is assigned the SBOS view of PRCO. Time is seen better by TBOS, so the quad time is circular, 1,2,3,4. The PRCO would not read perfectly to TBOS, nor the 1,2,3,4 to SBOS, but since it is on each of their blind sides, it is not a measurement either will make. (That's one place we hide the paradox).What does "winding up the model" mean? It means creating a wholly invisible balanced inequity. These inequities are essential to experience and motivation, yet, if the relationship between mind and universe changes, they can be as wrong as they are invisible.
As an audience, we view the story objectively by picking a static/objective item in each level. Those become the unchanging measuring stick of the story. Objective, therefore, contains four appreciations.The subjective view of the story is provided by three appreciations: PC or PV, + or -, and Timelock or Spacelock. These subjective appreciations are created by the selection of the four s/o choices (and of course, vice versa).
The three manipulations that determine these subjective binary pairs each have two states. If you select one state the MC will be PC, the other state, PV, and so on for all three pairs.Rotating the 1,2,3,4 dial ninety degrees (one element) clockwise or counter-clockwise (in relationship to the PRCO) determines positive or negative. Flipping one dynamic pair or the other (in relationship to the 1,2,3,4) determines PC or PV. Which of these two functions (flipping or rotating) carries the children, determines timelock or spacelock.These decisions can be made completely independently from level to level: we need not be consistent in the direction of the rotate, selection of the dynamic pair, or who carries the children. BUT, it must be determined for each level. When it is consistent, we get such stories as "The Wizard of Oz" where it is a simple, straightforward view at all levels and from the beginning to the end as to whether or not PC or PV, + or -, and timelock or spacelock. When it is NOT consistent, we end up with stories more like "Witness" where we have some trouble determining who is the MC and whether space or time is locked.Remember, once these determinations have been made at all four levels, it both affects how each level "feels" in the Story Mind, and also how that feel changes with time over the course of the story.
The S/O item at each level is the one that holds the problem element. And THAT is the one consistent item from level to level: the item that carried the children is the Static Object item at that level.Already, this simple, arbitrary decision of picking a binary choice on each of three things on each of four levels has created an incredibly complex relationship among the S/O items on each level. It amounts to this: Any item on any level can, under certain conditions, be set as S/O in relationship to any other S/O on any other level, but not under ALL conditions. That's why the choice is both arbitrary and limited. As soon as you make the determination of one of the three choices of binary pairs at any level, you have limited your choices elsewhere to some degree.It becomes quite clear why we never were able to pin down the structural relationship between S/O items before. It is simple not a structural relationship at all, but a dynamic one. Structurally, the patterns seem to randomly weave all through the model, whereas dynamically, it is just a matter of three choices per level.Once we imagine the manner in which the Depth First Order of the plot's progress is presented to the audience, we can see that they may be fully aware of where a story is leading or can be fooled entirely, just by these simple choices.
It is also clear how the subject of a scene, the dialog, and the order of the scenes in the act can be easily determined. We assume here that the Depth First Order is consitent, and the model need not be, but of course, vice versa is equally true. For example, we might have a consisent answer to each of the four levels of three choices and the Depth First Order could vary from scene to scene.As another note, this description of the functional actions of winding up the model and its effects is not a description of the dynamic model, but only the relationships BETWEEN the structural and dynamic models. So what, then IS this elusive Dynamic Model? Simply the Dynamic Partner Superclass to this one.
If we overlay the opposing Super Class over THIS Super Class, everything is balanced. But when we begin to make the flips, rotates, and child stealing, we drag the other model with us. This takes such concepts as "parallel" and "intersecting" and assigns them to points in the structural model that will be read in the Depth First Order. The exact mechanism of this draggin of the other Super Class remains to be discovered, but for now, we can safely say that is how we determine the interactions of the dramatic units, rather than just their states.The next area I wish to work out is the exact functioning of justification in the two subjective classes. At this point, it is my hunch that whatever pattern was chosen in the objective classes is mimiced perfectly in the subjective classes. The patterns are the same, and unwind themselves in the same way, but the semantics are all different: all but two pairs - the pair that represents the problem element in the PCs subjective class and the pair that represents the focus element in the PVs subjective class. Which one is seen as the main character is already determined by the dynamic flipping choice in the objective wind-up.Of course, one could approach the wind-up from the subjective view and arrive at the appropriate objective class wind-up just as accurately. It all depends on personal preferences of the author.Finally, the "24 scene" structure of a story derives (as we supposed) from the Depth First Order exploration of all four elements in a Quad, followed by a flip and a rotate, one of which will bring the children.
In summary, we must return somewhat to our earlier understanding of the simple process of winding up the model in order to appreciate the relationship between the S/O items at each level of a properly structured story. By applying this method, we are now able to not only fulfill the mandate of the engine for version one of the Dramatica program, but have already created much of the groundwork for the scene resolution appreciation of version two. Further notes, as I think of them:
1. The combination of flipping and rotating can and does create any of the odd Z pattern and hairpin pattern progressions we have seen in the dynamics.
2. The one true structural paradox in the model is seeing the vertical pairs as Dependent or Decendent. Both are correct, one for each BOS. By justifying, companion pairs become decendent pairs: this is the function of changing space into time by the right minded. By flipping either access of the PRCO, companion pairs become dependent pairs, the left minded justification of turning space into time. When we both see companion pairs as structure and dynamic pairs as dynamics, we must each see the vertical pairs differently.
3. Two possible arrangements work for the flip/rotate function. First, the one described above is for a Main Character who is SBOS. By rotating in a circle and flipping in Dynamic Pairs, Women will sympathize with the MC and Men will empathize with him. In the other arrangement, we take a TBOS MC perspective. Here, we "rotate" in a "Z" pattern and flip in companion pairs. This creates an MC that women will empathize with and men will sympthize with.Unlike the other choices which can vary from level to level, this decision must remain constant throughout all four levels in order to insure a consistant MC.Between these two systems, all of the equations of Mental Relativity can be generated.
It is my feeling that a story like "Prince of Tides" actually uses the TBOS MC, but gives the part to a male player. In the original "Alien", the pattern is SBOS, but given to a female player. There is nothing wrong with this: if anything, it allows the audience to separate the sexual affect of the player from the mental struggle of the character.
Comments