Abandoned documents from the earliest days
of  Dramatica Theory development

developed by
Melanie Anne Phillips and Chris Huntley

A Letter from Melanie Anne Phillips
to Chris Huntley
Detailing How to Add Flexibility
To the Structure

December 19, 1992

Dear Chris,

I have only had four hours sleep each of the last three nights, and as you know, this makes it much easier to grasp the model of Mental Relativity [and how it applies to Dramatica].   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 it 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 view 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, the "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 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 is 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 the 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 the bottom/bottom, top/top, as the two points of the crystal that forms 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 in the model? 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?  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) represents 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, then the observation moves up one level to the subconscious.  Subconscious 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 in inequity (or unresolved unbalance between our understanding the way thing - the original observation - are.  If memory has no experience with this inequity, it moves to the subconscious.   If subconscious has no angle on the inequity, it moves down to pre-conscious.   And by the time it gets back 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 unresolveable observation.

Now if the observation was INTERNAL, that is to say that a creative (unobserved) thought materialized in the conscious, then 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 so that it perfectly blends with the original thought, canceling 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 areas 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.  What we CAN get, however, 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 the SBOS system compared to the TBOS system.  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 pattern is the same BETWEEN them.

So are the individual patterns random or not?  Well it depends on how you measure, doesn't it?  It depends on your point of view.  Taken indecently, each is random, but 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 form 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 way it 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 our.  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 either 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.  However, by combining both operating systems in the same model, 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 and we see it 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 progressing 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 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 again simply 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 and 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 labeled things [items in the model such as Classes] as static/objective.  Static is what is needed for an SBOS to evaluate, Objective is what is need for TBOS.  By selecting the same time as both Static AND Objective, the focus of the story will be the same for both SBOS and TBOS minds.  That is how the random becomes identical.

SBOS sees space better than 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 line out the unchanging measuring stick of the story.  Objective, therefore, contains four appreciations.

The subjective view of the story is provided by three appreciations:   PC [primary character - the "change" character] or PV [pivotal character - the "steadfast" character], + or - [positive or negative charge], and Timelock or Spacelock [optionlock].  These subjective appreciations are created by the selection of the four static/objective 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 Main Character will be the 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 the PC or PV.  Which of these two functions (flipping or rotating) carries the children [carries items below it in the model with it as it changes position in the structure] determines timelock or spacelock.

These decision 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, straight forward 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 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 determination 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 time at each level is the one that holds the problem element.   And THAT is the one consistent item from level to level: the time that carried the children is the Static Objective 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 limiting.  As soon as you make the determination of one of the three choice 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 simply not a structural relationship at all but a dynamic one.  Structurally, the patterns seem to randomly wave all through the model, whereas dynamically, it is just a matter of three choices per level.

Once we imagine the manner in which the Dept First Order of the plots progress is presented to the audience [the order in which items come into play from the structure into an unfolding story], 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 consistent, and the model need not be, but of course vice versa is equally true.   For example, we might have a consistent answer to each of the four levels of the 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 of the relationships between the structural and dynamic models.  So what then is this elusive Dynamic model?  Simply the Dynamic Partner Super Class [a larger model than Dramatica in which all four class form a single Super Class] 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 point in the structural model that will be read in the Depth First Order.  The exact mechanism of this dragging of the other Super Class remains to be discovered, but for now we can safely say that is how we determine the interaction of the dramatic units, rather than just their states.

The next area I wish to work out is the exact functions of justification in the two subjective classes [static/subjective and changing/subjective].  At this point, it my hunch that whatever pattern was chosen in the objective classes is mimicked 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 in two pairs: the pair that represents the problem element in the PC's subjective class [changing/subjective] and the pair that represents the focus element in the PV's subjective class [static/subjective].  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 the 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 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 not only to 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.

[Although completed and programmed into the engine, the scene resolution material has not yet been made available to the user even in version three of the software.]