I realised why movies have their magical pull. It's the area of
meaningful action that the protagonist has. In real life this
area seems so small, but movies can be targeted in a way that
leaves out the uncomfortable limitations.
Here's one example. Breaking Bad was apparently written without
a "big picture" in mind. They just wrote as they went. I am not
sure to what extent and am not bothered to find out now, as it
is not the point I am making. The point is about the interesting
changes in the series as it progresses. Through these changes you
can see some of the mistakes they made with a poor definition of
the actionable space. The first season, if I remember correctly,
has a lot of scenes where the main character is in the classroom
teaching. This stuff is super boring because he doesn't have real
options for doing interesting things in the classroom. I think
the classroom is basically a filler that they wrote in to put
something between the other scenes. As the series progresses, we
stop seeing the classroom. There is another filler though, maybe
on the second season, it's his wife, who is just making noise,
without the main character actually having strategies to deal with
her. I could be remembering this stuff wrong, by the way, it's
been a long time.
Here's the point. In normal life we do have that classroom and
the wife. Not every classroom of course is a negative space for
meaningful action, and neither are all wives. But if you tell me
that in your life you have put together a puzzle with only pieces
that increase your area of meaningful action, I think it must mean
you are some sort of a psycho, and everyone you are in contact
with are actually your victims (which could be said about Walter
White, in the end).
I picked this example because the mistakes in framing make it so
clear, but if you start browsing through movies, you will not find
one that has lifelike area of meaningful action. It would be too
boring. Movies are essentially focused in sequences where the
person is making choices that are important to them. We can't be
making important choices all the time. The ladder isn't high
enough to have that many steps on it.
But I think we can use the concept to our advantage anyway. Let's
say you don't have a tv. Should you get one? To get it means that
you will be plopped on that sofa more time than you are now. So
you have cancelled some of your area of meaningful action by
getting the tv. Especially anything you have to subscribe to is
suspect. You are engaged in meaningful action if you pick a movie
and go watch it, but you are reducing your area of action if you
subscribe to netflix and start watching stuff you would not have
picked to watch on it's own merits.
Sometimes you can subscribe to things that enhance your area of
meaningful action. Like if you want kids, you should probably get
a stable relationship first.
Sometimes you do want to limit the area of action superficially.
Like if you want to get fit and subscribe to a gym so that you
now have to go there lest your money was wasted for nothing.
The hardest limits to the area seem to be money, time and health.
Each of these is in one way or another being bargained for by
larger entities. When you get a job, it's not like they ask you
how many hours a day would you feel like working, and you say
"Let's start with two and see how it goes".
Most of the entities have the embedded growth obligation, so
they are designed to suck the air out of the room. And they do
it on all levels of magnification, so it's not enough that you
as an individual fight to limit your working hours. If you do,
you will realise that members of your family have been sucked
dry and are happily releasing some of their extra baggage on you.
It's like gases seeking equilibrium, the stress seeps to you
from all directions.
It does have to be fought, though, and I think essentially you
need to start the resistance as an individual. There are some
signs that the people who are drawn towards empowering themselves
are drawn towards each other as well.
