Why Do These Domains Impact Each Other?
From a broader perspective I've always wondered, "Why does a fixed attitude domain impact a situation domain and vice versa?", and "Why does a psychology/manipulation domain impact an activity domain?" As in why are they so dynamically opposed that a situation could never impact an activity or an attitude upon a psychology?
The key to the dynamic pairs in the current incarnation of the model is that represent the opportunity for greatest direct conflict. The companion, dependent, and component views are relevant, but do not provide the same type of relationship as the dynamic pairs. We chose the dynamic pairs because they represent the relationships most aligned with Western (American) sensibilities and problem solving.
At the heart of a story is an inequity -- an imbalance. The question is, "How does one best resolve the inequity." To make sense of something, one must have (or create or decide on) a context with which to find meaning. That means there must be some common base against which one measures everything else.
The domains (structural classes) are created by combining internal and external with state and process. The four combinations create the four classes:
- STATE + EXTERNAL = SITUATION
- STATE + INTERNAL = FIXED ATTITUDE
- PROCESS + EXTERNAL = ACTIVITY
- PROCESS + INTERNAL = PSYCHOLOGY (MANIPULATION)
So, when evaluating an imbalance between a situation and a fixed attitude, the common basis is that they are both states -- that becomes the baseline or context within which to evaluate their differences. The imbalance between the two classes then appears to be reduced to a question of where the 'problem' and 'solution' exist: External (Situation) or Internal (Fixed Attitude)?
Activity and Psychology share 'process' as their baseline and then look to the balance between external and internal between them.
For the above reasons these classes are compared to create the domains and not the other possible combinations.
So for a Main Character, the domain that is most challenging to his personal perspective is the one that has a shared baseline ("We're alike, you and I"), yet ALSO offers an alternative approach ("No, we're nothing alike!").