To understand the entire human condition, you need to only believe in one axiom, one assumed truth:>The Axiom: Every action is in pursuit of a goal.You have to believe there's a reason behind everything we do. If you can, you will begin to understand why we do anything.>Corollary #1: Characters are always pursuing goals. There is no downtime between action and goals.We are always acting. When we are breathing, we are acting. When we are thinking, we are acting. When we are sitting, shitting, and sleeping, we are acting. Even when we are dead, our bodies are acting to conform to physics. All of these actions, whether intense or not, pursue goals.>Corollary #2: There is no such thing as a pointless action, only a fruitless one.If there is a reason behind every action, there is no action without a point. Actions can miss their mark, but they are always aiming for one.>Corollary #3: Every physical action/goal serves a mental action/goal.We cannot perceive the world without our senses: vision, smell, taste, feel, hearing. These senses are processed by our minds to give the sensations meaning. Regardless, two people can experience the same thing and interpret it differently: One person can see a firework as a brilliant blossom of light, and another as a violent destruction of nature. Similarly, all of our choices, actions and goals arise and resolve in our minds.For example, a criminal may have the goal to kill someone. They stab the victim a dozen times over, confident that they won't survive, and escape. Little do they know, the victim survives. The criminal think they achieved their goal, despite physical reality proving otherwise. Alternatively, the criminal may be preparing a murder, but unknowingly plan a death that already happened due to a stroke a week ago. They don't think they achieved their goal, despite physical evidence proving otherwise. Until the criminal is mentally convinced they're dead, they don't believe they achieved their goal. Interpretation is the ultimate arbiter as to whether one believes they achieved anything.>Corollary #4: A character only does what they deem necessary to achieve their goal.Because every choice we make (whether consciously or unconsciously) comes from our mind, and no choice is pointless, none of those choices to act appear unnecessary to us. We can overestimate and underestimate, but at the moment one decides to do something, they believe it is the best course of action available to them.>Corollary #5: A character believes their goals are achievable.Otherwise, some actions must be pointless, and that contradicts the axiom.>Corollary #6: Every action/goal has a selfish attribute.Because we believe our goals are achievable, we always stand to gain the pleasure/closure/comfort of being right about our preexisting beliefs. It does not mean we WILL obtain the advantages of being right, because we can always fail and be proven wrong.(cont.)
(cont.)>Corollary #7: A character always acts in prediction of the easiest path forward.This does not mean the path is easy, but that it requires the least effort, as would only doing what's necessary. If someone drops a pen, they will try to reach exactly where the pen fell to pick it up. If someone drops a pen while blinded, they will try to reach where they THINK it fell to pick it up. It would be unnecessary and nonsensical for someone to first walk across the room and reach for it in a corner unless they have an alternative goal or they truly believe it easiest to start there.It works the same if a good, honest friend suddenly messed something up for you. You would assume and act like it was an genuine mistake before you started theorizing they did it on purpose. Not only would the latter demand more physical effort to pursue, but it would also be mentally exhausting to tarnish a great relationship over something that is likely untrue. Only when you think dissociating from them is necessary will you pursue it. Changing one's mind is one of the most exhausting things anyone will ever do, because all of your physical actions are also tied to your mental decisions.Every real person and authentically written character follow these rules perpetually. If a character appears artificial, it is because they break one of these rules.This concludes Essay #1.
>>25296033This is false, as is evident by the wisdom of the Illustrated I Ching.
>>25296037Thanks for the (You). What is the wisdom of I Ching?
uh, books?
>>25296043It cannot be succinctly explained, but truth, harmony and predictive acumen.
>>25296088ok so this is that except it is succinctly explained
>>25296099Arrogance invites calamity.
>>25296033Nah.. not that simple, i believe lacans model of the barred subject lack surplus enjoyment, desire, etc nailed it
>>25296099Meditation will allow you to sniff and follow the flow of the way, the Iching is swimming with the river, zen is remembering your face before you were born (original Buddha nature) and Buddhism is attainment through following and taking refuge
>>25296115This post is very auspicious
>>25296103>>25296115You could just say you didn't read it the OP
More? This is kinda vaguely insightful.
>>25296119For (You)
>>25296111What part of the OP contradicts Iacans' model? They don't need to be exclusive.
>>25296121I can talk about the second essay in an hour. It addresses demonstrations of actions and goals tangibly. It refers to this chart. It's also a lot longer.
>>25296131It's too simple when alot of the times every action is in pursuit of object petit a not the goal but desire itself and the goal will collapse that desire it just doesn't include fundamental parts of the psyche
>>25296141For (You)
>>25296141How does your model handle akrasia i.e. character genuinely wants to do x but acts against his better judgement? Is there room for internal conflict in your model?
>>25296148There is not. Return in an hour for Essay 2.
>>25296142I think we're saying the same thing using different terms. You're talking about a hierarchy of desires, no? Some people call it an object/objective, some people call it a want, a goal, a win, a victory, or a desire, but they all ultimately mean the same thing: a destination--something that you work towards because you want it.Sometimes you abandon a goal in pursuit of a preexisting greater goal when you realize there's a better way to it, a.k.a. you find another object petit (whatever you call it) that better achieves that desire, and then the goal collapses, like you said.>>25296143You have to stop believing that wisdom is monopolized by ancient books and skeletons. The appeal to authority/masterpieces stops you from trying to improve flawed works by flawed beings.>>25296148Absolutely. I left that part up to assumption because I thought it would be obvious that people can be wrong about their beliefs because they're not omniscient. It's about a heirarchy of desires which change based on new information and failure.>>25296152Hey stop pretending to be me. Why do people try to sabotage genuine discussion
>>25296157>he doesn’t see the fun inherent in being anonymousI don’t think your system is worth hearing about if you can’t fathom why someone would ape you on here.
>>25296160I understand it perfectly. People don't enjoy the idea of people trying harder than them, i.e. crabs in a bucket. I just hoped they wouldn't appear so spiteful about it
>>25296166I just did it for fun, anon. Plus you’ll likely post better explanations if you’re being challenged. If anything you should thank me for impersonating you.
>>25296167I do appreciate the (You). I hope I can help (You), too.
>>25296157Have u ever had a situation where u wanted something really bad but when u finally got it you didn't really want it anymore. We desire desire itself. So u are enjoying the desire of thinking about and chasing the goal of fucking a girl but when she finally agrees to come over u don't even want to anymore because desire collapses when u actually get the object.This is an over simplification but there is a lot more going on
>>25296169If it makes you feel better, goodwill and self sacrifice are often met with resistance if not outright hostility. It’s to be expected.
>>25296171I completely agree. The level of goals/desire you're talking about belongs to the Story segment of my chart. It's definitely more complicated than that, but not THAT much complicated. We can solve it.
>>25296176I tried making this thread about a year ago and I was definitely not ready for it. My theory was incomplete, too verbose, and not as amicable. I spent this past year of college working on it and applying it to be as clear and simple as possible. The problem then became that my work presented itself so obviously that it didn't even appear remarkable anymore...which is why I'm here to see if that's true.
>>25296141>The Why/How SpectrumEvery action is in pursuit of a goal. Actions are how we reach our goals, and goals are why we take action. One never exists without the other.The Why/How Spectrum depicts the relationship between actions and goals, actions and actions, along with goals and goals. Smaller actions serve smaller goals, and those goals beckon greater actions, and those greater actions lead to greater goals. Actions and goals are endlessly nested within each other and themselves, just as how matter and energy interact likewise on the smallest and largest scales: smooch to sex, friendship to marriage; atoms to planets, joules to gigatons. These inescapable cause-effect relationships define everything we believe and do.Here is a clarification of these terms:>Mental/Physical:Actions/goals more directly associated with the left side of the chart are engaged and interacted with more mentally than physically. Actions/goals on the right side are the opposite.>Scope:Actions/goals on the left side engage with a greater scope within a character’s existence. It does not necessarily imply physical size, like that of a million-man concert versus a private recital. Instead, it implies the scale of time and personal importance. If a character can forgo a smaller physical goal to achieve a greater mental goal, they always will. “Every physical action/goal serves a mental action/goal.”
>>25296257>"Why?"/"How?":All of the terms and concepts on the chart are placed relative to the others horizontally. One can navigate and answer the question of “why” or “how” something is done by addressing concepts to the left or right of it. Why does one threaten? To compel a target. How does one threaten? By moving and/or speaking.>Awareness:This is a general indicator of how much a character is consciously aware of at a given time. It aligns closely with what we believe we can effectively and usefully control: If we believe controlling our breathing is important to reach our goals, we’ll consciously try. If we believe pondering the nature of the universe will help us reach our goals, we’ll consciously try. If we believe compelling other characters to act on our behalf will best help ourselves, we’ll consciously try. But if something is not one of the most pertinent subjects at the moment, we leave it to our subconscious operations. What a challenge it would be to constantly operate entirely manually. Typically, a character finds it most effective to physically/verbally interact with other characters directly in front of them, ergo most stories are presented via engagement with other characters. Robert Cohen writes, “there are simply no good plays about characters learning the multiplication table or developing a personal philosophy without an interpersonal struggle” (Acting One/Acting Two, pp. 62).
>>25296085For now, this only exists in my google docs and on this thread. I intend to make it a video essay series on Youtube eventually.
>>25296267>World: The world in this case does not mean the entire planet, but specifically the world that a character affects and is affected by. The answer to “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” in this context is “no.” If something is not perceived or acknowledged by a character, it cannot be a part of their world. But if something is recognized by a character, it contributes to their worldview. Religion, philosophy, and science are how characters describe and explain the world they live in. Our worldviews have countless branches and details that apply to countless different scopes and scenarios, all of which are trimmed and cultivated as we receive new information. The thicker the branch–or the more foundational a worldview a character carries is–the more rewarding or exhausting it is when one confirms it or has to abandon it. It can cause cascades of destruction in a character’s life or immeasurably solidify and relieve it. It is often described as joy and grief, respectively. Every action a character takes is to reinforce their worldview(s). Even a character driven to suicide after their whole life has been revealed as a lie still holds onto worldviews, namely, “if I die, I no longer have to experience what is in front of me.” As stated previously, “Characters are always pursuing a goal; there is no downtime/interruption between goals.” One treats their worldviews the same way one would treat a hedge or a bonsai; we only trim what we must, because growing new branches takes much time and effort. The moment a character is created/born with the ability to perceive and respond to stimuli, they have and are building their worldviews and taking action to reinforce their worldviews.
>>25296033>>The Axiom: Every action is in pursuit of a goal.false. actions are usually habitual and the goals can be very far from the action or not even anticipated by the agent
>>25296033>>Corollary #2: There is no such thing as a pointless action, only a fruitless one.
>>25296341Actions can be habitual and still have a purpose. Does brushing your teeth suddenly have no meaning because you do it too often? What are you trying to say here?
>>25296319>Life: The world we live in will inevitably outlast us, in some shape or form. Unless a character is delusional or powerful enough, all characters recognize that they are only a portion of the world they live in. The worldviews they have established for themselves are made from the knowledge they have bestly gathered throughout their lifetime, yet such worldviews are subjective and vary from person to person. Unless a character has omnipotent, godly status, their worldviews will be built with limited information, and said limits will almost certainly be challenged by new information. Such is life.Along with these challenges comes the challenge of understanding the purpose of one’s existence, and how they can best operate in what they know. Although characters are always acting to pursue a goal, the effect of their actions and goals are limited by what they know and what they think they can do about it.People often think that they “have no purpose in life.” It sounds observably untrue when considering this discussion thus far, but it is the “in life” portion that keeps it valid. They maybe have a purpose or goal at their job: to make money, and said money means they can continue to live as they are, but those people will not believe their current lifestyle embodies their worldview of “I am capable of improving.” Constantly failing to reinforce the worldview causes an exhausting grief and inefficiency in action and goals which steepen one’s goal to improve their life. “A character believes their goals are achievable,” but “a character only does what they deem necessary to achieve their goal.” With limited understanding, a character’s worldviews are practically destined to collide and strangle one another. There are probably a dozen ways for a person like that to clarify their life, but they either don’t know it’s possible or they don’t deem it necessary–either a limitation of knowledge or capability/willingness. They will maintain their actions and goals in smaller scopes, hoping to reach greater ones through spontaneous opportunity and revelation. By reinforcing their worldviews through life, they can ascertain the reasons they act in their ways. Such strong certainty offers emotional closure, linking their minds to the physiological closure of their mortal life.
>>25296372what if you have a habit of going to church every week simply because your parents used to take you to church every week, and youre not even conscious of any other purposewhat if the other purpose youre there is known only to God
>>25296380Well there's the obvious goal of wanting to please your parents, and pleasing your parents probably help you get a lot of things you want. You don't need the mystery of God for that. But there can totally be a greater purpose or advantage found later on in life
>>25296374 The terms under this section describe the ways a character engages and overcomes the challenges of finding their purpose in the world they live in. They are taken from Robert Cohen: “sexual interest includes romance, success, dominance, and even wealth, all of which have sexual components. Terror includes embarrassment, confusion, humiliation, and pain, all of which have a terrifying component” (Acting One/Acting Two, pp. 95). Cohen mentions the possible sexual attributes in these concepts because first, human reproduction/the aspects of human reproduction are frequently revered as one of life’s objective purposes: to reproduce and continue the human race. Second, the pleasure associated with the act of sex is equally as revered, offering few rivals in the department of physiological reward.But said reproduction doesn’t have to explicitly involve sexual acts. Sexual reproduction is definitely a powerful way to prove one’s worldviews are valid and durable, exemplified by how one’s physical attributes are continued and evade physical death. However, there are many worldviews that transcend lineage altogether: religions, sciences, philosophies. There are even people who thought it would be better to die than to concede their worldviews like Jesus Christ, Galileo, and Sophocles. It is generally regarded that their greatest accomplishments are not expressed in the number of children they had, but rather the knowledge from their worldviews that have carried on for centuries and millennia. But I digress.(cont.)
>>25296391Although a story is placed to represent a smaller scope than that of a life, it is not a hard rule that a story cannot last longer than a human lifetime. I have intentionally avoided using the term “human” and have used “character,” because characters are not limited to only being humans: they can also be gods, animals, inanimate objects, intangible concepts, etc. as can be observed in narratives of fiction. It is because “every physical action/goal serves a mental action/goal” that anything can be a character. Our limited universal knowledge necessitates our flawed–but useful–interpretation of phenomena. Simply put, as long as a human believes something can affect and be affected, and that thing can help them pursue their goal, they can and will interact with it with the same level of regard as they could a given human.For example, children will often take the action of making an imaginary friend to pursue the goal of talking to someone and avoid isolation. A child can treat said imaginary friend just as sincerely as they could a real friend that they cannot currently see (because said friend moved away or otherwise). One may argue that the real friend is more objectively tangible, but it makes no difference because they are equally as unaffecting and unaffectable as an intangible imaginary friend. Before an infant learns object permanence, they take this to the literal extreme.Thus, a life need not necessarily be a human life. It could be reflecting the eternal life of a God, or the brief life of a fly, or the shelf-life of a pretzel, or the life of a nation. Within any of these lives, stories of conflicts emerge and resolve.
>>25296391>This section describes Story.
>>25296393>Pleasure:Pleasure, specifically physiological pleasure, is the one concept under story that Robert Cohen does not explicitly include, but implies. Sexual acts are generally understood to be pleasing, after all. It is the simplest of the goals that can be sought after in a story, because it is the most physically rewarding and the most divorced from mental joy. Drugs, sex, food, physical comfort, and all the other physically appealing things fall into this category of a story action/goal. It also serves the shallowest mental purposes and worldviews: “I exist to live fast, die young, and leave a pretty corpse.” Pleasure’s terror-counterpart is pain. Obtaining pleasure means avoiding pain, and obtaining pain means leaving pleasure. Because of its extremely physical tangibility, it’s the easiest to recognize and pursue. But because “every physical action/goal serves a mental action/goal,” pleasure is never the be-all, end-all; it is merely an indicator for something greater.>Wealth:Wealth is an inactive, indirect proof of one’s capability and purpose. Ebenezer Scrooge from A Christmas Carol held the worldview that through his capital, he would escape from the misery that plagued him in his childhood. Wealth definitely gives people more ability to take certain actions, but it doesn’t necessarily make those actions happen on their own. Having something and using something are two different actions. But, for some minds, simply having something is their goal and reinforces their worldview of “my riches are proof that I’m right about life.”
>>25296480>Success:Success is an inactive, direct proof of one’s capability and purpose. Wealth can be a measure of success, but meaningful success is rarely measured by wealth. One can measure success in anything: work, love, war, learning, sex, eating dirt, and so on. The limiting factor of success as a purpose is that it can be only measured after it is achieved, not before or during. An accomplishment cannot be claimed or defined before it is accomplished. Success reinforces worldviews through observation of the past: trophies, awards, medals, past smiles and pictures, and so on. But, it cannot confirm worldviews through the immediate present. Perhaps one was the strongest man in the world, but are they the strongest now? The “I am the strongest in the world” worldview can be reinforced by implication from the past, having punched through an indestructible stone wall for example, but that success alone cannot confirm that it remains true. It may be possible that such a person was outclassed by another strongman since then, or maybe the strongest man’s muscles have atrophied so much that they are not strong at all! A person’s proof of success might endure, but the successful person might not–even from moment to moment.>Dominance:Dominance is an active, indirect proof of one’s capability and purpose. Having control (or dominance) over others is especially effective at reinforcing worldviews because “a character believes their goals are achievable”. A dominant character can observe the actions of a controlled character and witness when they don’t act to achieve goals against the dominator’s worldviews. Through inference, the dominator recognizes that other characters might agree with their worldviews due to lack of counterevidence. Because of the constant absence of conflicting worldviews, it only makes those uncontested worldviews appear that much stronger and true. But, this does not account for deception, delusion, or unawareness. A scheming vizier might despise and plot against the gullible sultan, a cult leader may believe themselves God based on undisprovable metrics, or a fish may believe they’re the biggest in the world because they only live in a small pond. It is the overwhelming and undefeated force that dominant characters impose on others which reinforce their worldviews based on power. This should not only be taken negatively. Characters can have good reasons to be dominant, and imposing their worldview on others can be wonderful; a judge sentencing a drug addict to rehabilitation might become a better action than the drug addict would remain on their own, for example. Perhaps the addict held the worldview of “I can never beat my addiction” whereas the judge believed the opposite, and the judge proved to be correct.
>>25296491>Romance:Romance is the active, direct proof of one’s capability and purpose. Unlike dominance, which is controlling others to conform to a character’s preexisting worldviews, romance is the act of placing others at an equal or greater value or intelligence than the character. In doing so, a character adopts and submits to worldviews of others: parents, peers, children, bosses, lovers, gods. Although the typical connotation of romance implies non-platonic relationships between two persons, the definition of romance is much more broad. Romance is the feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love–love is an intense feeling of deep affection–affection (archaically) is the act or process of affecting or being affected–and to affect is to make an effect or difference to something.In other words, romance is embracing the voluntary feeling of becoming different or making difference.Since actors (characters) are always pursuing goals, always trying to make differences, we are always pursuing romance. These romances need no sexual compatibility; both parties don’t even need to be living or tangible. There is romance between a parent and child, farmer and crops, knight and blade, mathematician and unproven theorem. It is the joy of learning–the gathering of new information–that is the constant, active, direct mental action/goal. There is romance in dominance, success, wealth, and pleasure: learning how to better dominate, succeed, gain, and self-please, because these pursuits are what characters happily want to achieve. Romance does not need to be a two-way street, nor does it need to be totally absorbent. A character can be excited to learn about another character, but the interviewee can also be entirely disinterested about the questions. A character can be a fan of a movie star, despite their distaste in the actor’s infidelity; there is still much love to be sought in their work. Because of our intense lack of omniscience, there is a romance in everything we do–it is our degree of excitement and absorption that differs. Romance is what allows us to create, destroy and seek our greater actions, goals, purposes, and worldviews. Without romance, the willingness to mentally change, we can only reinforce and harden worldviews we already have. Just like a tree, it takes much more effort to trim and grow than to remain the same–yet, the reward can be rewarding by dozens of times as much.
If there is still interest, I'll share the second half of Essay #2 in the morning.
>>25296501Well, we're waiting.
>>25296501Bump. Where you @ OP?
>>25297910apparently he ran out of tokens on his free chatgpt account
>>25297108>>25297910>>25298514Oh, you guys are still here? Ok, I'll continue.>>25296497>Scene:A scene is a subsection of a play that is separated from different instances of itself by constant/continuous action. The axiom of “characters (persons real or fictional) are always pursuing a goal; there is no downtime/interruption between actions or goals” conflicts with this concept, however the definition of scene is not meant to be a hard fact. It is merely a mental categorization which helps organize information in storytelling. In literature they can be called books or chapters, in plays they can be called acts or scenes, in music they can be called measures or movements, in television they can be called episodes or seasons, etc. In all of these cases, they are all nestled as parts within a greater story. Stories can begin and end within scenes, but only because the scene is also a part of a greater story taking place. The Why/How Spectrum is designed to only address one world-action at a time, but you can shrink and grow the spectrum to fit into different instances of another, like pictured.One can imagine the top diagram to be the perspective of a human, the middle perspective that of a dog, and the bottom perspective that of a bug. The dog’s whole world revolves around a human’s life, and a bug’s whole life can begin and end within a single scene of the human’s. The number of stories a character engages in is equal to how many goals an observer can recognize–and those stories can overlap. There is the story of a character’s day at work, and within that is the story of their trip to the bathroom, and within that is the story of finnicking with the bathroom doorknob, and within that is the story of twisting the doorknob left…and so on. The point is that stories (and scenes by extension) are a convention made to organize segments of time and action with general consensus. Here, scenes are going to be described in the context of french scenes–which are defined by the entrance or exit of a character in the relevant space. The relevant space is defined by the intended area of perception of the audience. In plays it’s the stage, in film it’s the general area of the camera; in books and music, it’s whatever mental imagery the medium provokes, which is much more imaginative and subjective. It indicates what a character believes they can immediately affect.
>>25296103thank you for making this board marginally less retarded sage anon
>>25298612>Target:The target of a scene is the character(s) another character wants to compel to action, said actions ultimately reinforcing the compeller’s worldview(s). A king may compel his army to charge with a rousing speech, or a robber may compel the clerk to empty the cash register, or a child may compel a seed to grow, or an astronomer may compel the celestial bodies to reveal their secrets. They would all have very unique and creative ways to interact with their worlds, but all of those interactions ultimately revolve around compulsion: making characters act in their favor. This does not mean those actions will successfully compel their targets in the right way or even at all, nor does it mean those actions are supposed to even appear sensible. A child may whisper to a seed about their toy racecar collection, but few people would believe it would have the intended effect–yet the child does it anyway. Our limited knowledge is again the cause of this. Compulsion can also be purely physical, like bending a prison bar to make an escape–the prison bar was compelled to give way by the sheer physical force exerted on it, and thus acted to the prisoner’s advantage.*Subscenes “are units of action within a scene, or French scene, in which each character pursues, to some sort of conclusion, one primary goal. The subscene ends when that goal is accomplished, or abandoned, or (as is more common) reassessed and revised. Subscenes can run from a few seconds to several minutes” (Cohen 215). The goals in subscenes are building blocks to the goals in the whole scene.
>>25298620>Beats:Beats are “representing individual units of action, which, in our terms, means those short units in which the actor employs a single tactic. In a subscene in which you are pursuing one goal, you might play several–or several dozen–individual beats” (Cohen 215-216). The goals in beats are building blocks to the goals in subscenes which are building blocks to the goals in the whole scene. Beats describe how characters compel and are compelled, using the two types of tactics: induction and threat. “Tactics that threaten say, ‘do what I want or I’ll make your life miserable.’ Tactics that induce say, ‘Do what I want and you’ll be happier for it’” (Cohen 46). “A character does only what they deem necessary to achieve their goal,” and so it can be inferred that if a character induces another character, it’s because they believe that they believe it is the best/easiest way to compel their target; same goes for threatening. A king may be more inclined to inspire his troops than to promise punishment or death, but as Cohen describes it, scenes/subscenes can require multiple beats (and multiple tactics by extension) in order for a character to compel and reach their goals. For characters hard to compel, both induction and threatening can be deemed necessary–carrot and stick. A parent may induce a child to eat their broccoli saying the vegetable will make them grow big and strong, but also threaten to take away their dessert if they refuse. In other words, induction implies helping others toward their goals and threat implies hindering others from their goals.
>>25298625>Action:Action, the means to pursue a goal, is the smallest segment listed on the spectrum. Actions are anything a character performs, and characters are always performing something: “Characters (persons real or fictional) are always pursuing a goal; there is no downtime/interruption between actions or goals.” Actions in this instance are like particles: small to subatomic, sometimes perceptible, sometimes not. The sort of actions here describe those that are capable of inducing or threatening targets. Breathing rarely is enough of an action to compel another character. But stomping, shouting, caressing, pointing, grabbing, approaching, speaking, singing–those noteworthy actions are much more capable of compulsion. Although speech is technically a subcategory of movement, it is physically distinct enough to deserve its own category. The ellipsis of the action category is made to imply the scope of actions that can apply. Actions can be consciously perceptible, such as the examples stated above, but there are also sensory inputs we may enact and perceive subconsciously: posture, scent, eye contact, temperature, twitches, all other physical habits that we perform while formulating other thoughts. This applies to speech as well: diction, volume, duration, pitch, rhythm, etc. Two characters can walk and deliver the same line, but the difference between all of these qualities can not only have varying levels of effectiveness, but even a totally opposite impact on the target. One character can stroll over to a door in a sing-songy voice and say “let’s go outside,” while another can skulk over to the same door and whisper “let’s go outside.” Although the outcome to compel may be the same, the tactic employed is wildly dissimilar.This concludes Essay #2. I have one more essay of similar length specifically about storytelling, and it's definitely the most complicated one. I plan to make at least a couple more. I might just share the third one with a link, if that feels more accessible. Let me know what you think. That's all for now.
>>25298630your definitions are bullshit and this is going nowhere. real philosophers use words instead of defining them like real chads use women instead of wining and dining them
>>25298633Well, this essay was solely about explaining a chart. It's not meant to have a narrative direction like most argumentative essays; it's more like a glossary that one can easily reference. It's really wordy because unlike the first essay that I've cut down for conciseness, I just copied and pasted what I wrote for a college-level study. I can and definitely intend to make it more easily communicable, but this is what I have right now. Think of it like you would the book of legal code: nobody is expected to read all of it except for the most scrutinous.Would it help if I described it in a nutshell like I did for the first essay?
>>25298638anyway, universal order is what james mason said his cult name would be in his essay collection siege, though while he had the utmost respect for charles manson he didnt form a cult
