You Can't Twist the Fabric of Reality

This short segment of a Jordan Peterson talk is an excellent description of The Heart of The Moral Premise concept. "You Can't Twist the Fabric of Reality and Get Away with it."

Peterson's point is summarized by an adage I first heard from my good friend Dan Glovak (R.I.P). Dan reminded his daughter and my son of this before they married: 

You can make any choice you want,
but you have no control over the consequences. 

In my Moral Premise workshops I use this diagram, which I explain below.

The Decision Cycle in Pursuit of a Goal

A character (or real person, on the left) has a goal they want to achieve (the red star on the right). Typically the path to achieving the goal requires some sort of personal transformation.  In reality (Peterson's "fabric of reality") the transformation takes place through a long series of cycles through the following four steps.

1. VALUE. The person possess certain values and reside deep in their psyche. The person may consciously recognize and be able to articulate those values, or they may not. The values may be either righteous, good, banal, bad, or evil. Regardless, the values are  the inner motivations that control the person's decisions and actions. 

2. DECISION. When a person observes something outside themselves, such as the goal they want to achieve, or an anti-goal they want to avoid, their values kick into action. They may do this consciously or subconsciously, but they nonetheless evaluate, compare, and contrast what they observe (perhaps a behavior of a person or an event in the physical world) outside themselves to their motivational values. Depending on the strength of their values and the largeness or smallness of the observation, the person makes a decision to interact with the observation, or thing outside them. The person decides, perhaps, to change what they observe, or to come alongside it and encourage the behavior or presence of whatever it is. 

Both steps 1. and 2. occur inside a person's psyche. They are invisible. But they are real events that happen in the person's mind. 

3. ACTION. Based on numerous factors and conditions, the person translates their values and decisions into the physical realm and takes some action, which as just mentioned either attempts to change or encourage the outside observation....or path the person wants to take toward their goal or anti-goal. 

These first three steps are all within the control of the individual. 

But once step 3. ACTION occurs, the person is at the mercy of Natural Law, or the fabric of reality. 

4. CONSEQUENCE. For every action there is a re-action. It could be an opposite and equal action as we know about in the realm of physics. Or, in the psychological realm it could be an alignment or encouraging, reinforcing action. But either one is not for the individual to decide or control. The consequence is entirely regulated by Natural Law. It may be a law of  physics, like gravity—you can't step off a cliff without falling and hurting or killing yourself.  Or, it could be a law of human psychology. If you are disloyal to a friend, Natural Law indicates you have a good chance of losing that friendship. 

The result?

After the person experiences the Consequence (and depending on the severity of it or them), the person may adjust their values, hopefully driving them closer to an alignment with Natural Law (The Fabric of Reality), where they will find true peace and happiness. If the person is malleable in this way, given enough of the cycles through those four steps, Natural Law will nudge the person toward what is good, true, and beautiful...unless the person is particularly belligerent and meets a tragic end—the true villains among us. 

This diagram and explanation is all very nice, but it's missing the sizzle of Peterson's passion and insight.. 

ACTIONABLE INNER VALUES with MICHAEL JANN

MICHAEL JANN - Emmy Nominated TONIGHT SHOW writer

Making the invisible visible.

That's the job of the filmmaker, and even the novelist, although, I think, the novelist has the more difficult time of it.

Show, don't tell.

That's the mantra of all storytelling, although, again I think, the novelist has it more difficult.

Make it visceral, not abstract.

That's the job of all communication. Although our essences are spiritual, we identify ourselves primarily in physical terms.

Psychological Values leads to Physical Actions.

That's the concept that The Moral Premise concept builds upon. But, what matters to film audiences and novel readers is what transpires in the physical realm. Our psychological world may house and care for our moral motivations, but something does not become part of our neighbor's universe (and the larger realm of humankind) until we push it into physical space.

These are the storytelling dilemmas all of us storytellers are faced with. And, perhaps I've made this a bit more difficult to resolve by sticking to my strictly speaking "inner to outer" litany. I mean by that, this: Most of the time when I speak or write bout The Moral Premise it is in this form:

Inner Value leads to Outer Action.

But to the screenwriter and the even the novelist, that inner value has no practical identity until it is made visible through some action. I know this, but I don't always practice it. In helping writers with log lines and moral premise statements I may get there, but my mind isn't purposely doing so, i.e. making physically explicit the inner motivations. 

This was brought to my attention recently in dialogue with MICHAEL JANN, Emmy nominated writer who wrote for THE TONIGHT SHOW with both Jay Leno and Jimmy Fallon. He's been working on a few screenplays in his post TONIGHT SHOW reality when he wrote me this about current screenplay (this used with his permission):

I’m so happy right now!  After reading your chapter 10 again (more carefully, this time), I got less rigid with my prose, and more “writer-y”, and fine-tuned my Moral Premise to: 

“Hiding behind masks and shields leads to isolation, loneliness and misery. But, giving yourself to others in an authentic way leads to community, intimacy and love”. 

It was so cool to express my virtue and vice in external terms (moral, i.e., affecting others). rather than internal terms (abstract, i.e., affecting only the hero).

Now the woman he falls in love with must confront this same moral premise.  She might boast that she doesn’t hide behind a “mask", but she bludgeons people with her “honesty”, which is still hiding  (albeit in a different way -- behind a shield, rather than a mask.)  Now they both have to confront the moral premise:  "Hiding is bad, authenticity is good."

To some, this may be subtle. But the distinction is worth emphasizing because it empowers the writer (and the director and actors) to communicate effectively with audiences. I wrote Michael back:

You make a good point that I’m not sure I’ve ever emphasized, although I’ve come up with MPS like this. But I need to make this more explicit. The human process is still internal value drives external behavior, but for screenwriters I won't argue with your insight.  While the novelist would speak in more internal terms, the screenwriter can’t … except perhaps on a 3x5 card taped to the frame of his computer. “Hiding behind” is more physical than “lack of self confidence” or “selfishness.” And, “giving yourself” is more physical than “self confidence” or “generosity”.  “Hiding…” and “Giving…” are “action” terms, which is a key concept for actors.

At this point I referenced ACTIONS: The Actors' Thesaurus by Marina Caldarone & Maggie Lloyd-Williams, (also available as a SmartPhone APP, it appears.) In my own directing efforts I've found this book invaluable when working with actors at table reads, centering their performance on actionable interpretation of lines and scenes. ACTIONS also contains an excellent introduction explaining Stanislavski's acting method and the necessity of "finding an action for a particular moment or line of text." I think I should write about this book and how it can help screenwriters connect better with actors and audiences.

In a followup email to the above, Michael pointed out the practical benefit of thinking more visible, physical, and actionable:

That finesse point was the biggest thing I learned from both you and then from John Truby.  He talks about how the hero's flaw must be a moral, i.e. negatively affecting other people. The example he gives is if a guy is alone in his bedroom doing heroin, we don't really care and it's not much of a story. But if his kid is waiting at the school bus stop while he's in his room doing heroin -- now you've got a story. I recall him initially apologizing for the word "moral", in anticipation of the "I don't want to moralize" backlash. But that's why I thought I would share this development today with you, as you have always been a fearless proponent of that idea. Seeing it come to life for me made me today made me really happy and I immediately thought of you -- the Moral Premise-Meister! 

Thanks, Michael, for the kind words, but even more so for the great insights.