Form, Field, Facet, and Force

The Form-Field-Facet-Force framework provides a structured approach to identifying the source of conflict within a given Perspective in a narrative. By shifting from Form to Force, this method moves beyond biased categories like Domain, Concern, Issue, and Problem and allows for a more intentional exploration of why conflict arises in a given context.

Instead of relying on pre-defined objects that may conflict in purpose, Form → Field → Facet → Force presents a more intentional, layered approach to uncovering the source of inequity. These are still structural categories, but rather than being imposed from the outside (as fixed labels), they emerge organically from the way conflict functions in a story. This method ensures that structure remains a tool for discovery, not just a system for classification.

This approach provides sub-layers of subtext, ensuring a deeper understanding of narrative conflict by examining how inequities manifest and persist across different scales of perception.

1. Establish the Perspective of Conflict

Before determining how conflict is structured within a narrative, we must first establish from where it is observed. Every conflict exists within a Perspective, which frames the nature of the tension and the way it is experienced.

These four Perspectives define the point of observation in relation to the conflict:

• I → The personal experience of conflict. This is the perspective of direct involvement, where the tension is felt from within.
• You → The externalized experience of conflict. This perspective observes and interacts with another both directly and indirectly.
• We → The bonded experience of conflict. This perspective appreciates the ebb and flow and space between a unified dynamic.
• They → The detached experience of conflict. This perspective operates at a distance, observing how conflict unfolds externally without direct participation.

By defining the Perspective, we determine and color the scope of engagement with the conflict before moving into the Form, Field, Facet, and Force that shape it.

2. Find the Form

(External, Internal, Framing, Processing)

The first step in Finding a Source of Conflict is determining the Form through which conflict is perceived. This is akin to identifying the general nature of the problem before understanding its deeper layers. A perspective projects an appreciation of conflict across four primary Forms:

• External: Conflict that arises outside the mind—tangible, observable conflicts such as physical actions, external threats, or environmental influences.
• Internal: Conflict that arises inside the mind—subjective struggles such as personal doubts, emotional turmoil, or psychological burdens.
• Framing: Conflict that is perceived as static—the way a situation or a prejudice is structured, defined, or positioned in a fixed state.
• Processing: Conflict that is perceived as a process—the way activities and dysfunctional ways of thinking are navigated, interpreted, or resolved over time.

This stage ensures that the lens of the narrative is correctly set before narrowing the focus.

3. Narrow the Field

(Foundational, Functional, Latent, Deliberative)

Once the Form is established, we refine the Field—the general scope or magnitude of the conflict within that Form. These Fields define the narrative landscape where conflict exists:

• Foundational → Conflict rooted in fundamental principles, structures, and existential tensions.
  • Represents deep-seated forces that form the bedrock of the narrative field.
  • Example: A society built on systemic inequality, where every interaction stems from that foundational tension.
• Functional → Conflict that emerges from execution, operation, and interaction within a system.
  • Examines whether something works or fails based on its inherent properties.
  • Example: A scientist trying to perfect a new technology but constantly encountering flaws in the system.
• Latent → Conflict that emerges, develops, and reveals potential change.
  • Represents forces that are unrealized, forming, or influencing transformation from beneath the surface.
  • Example: A young woman sensing an unspoken shift in societal expectations, navigating the tension between who she is and who she is becoming.
• Deliberative → Conflict that arises from active mental evaluation, strategy, and decision-making.
  • Engages with doubt, analysis, appraisal, and determining what is possible or allowed in the moment.
  • Example: A consul deliberating over a new governor incites assumptions and prejudice in reaching their final decision.

This structure maintains cohesion while ensuring each Field naturally aligns with the story elements it governs.

By refining the Field, we establish the terrain of the conflict—whether it is deeply ingrained, pushing outward, struggling to function, or caught in the tension of real-time analysis.

4. Explore a Facet

(Skill, Experience, Self Interest, Sense of Self, etc.)

The Facet represents the specific range or dimension of the conflict within the Field. This step allows for a precise articulation of where the source of tension exists.

Examples of possible Facets:

• Skill: The conflict revolves around proficiency, training, or mastery.
• Experience: The conflict stems from past events, lessons learned, or accumulated wisdom.
• Self Interest: The conflict arises from a focus on personal gain and self above all others.
• Sense of Self: The conflict is shaped by an over-inflated ego or a projection of self that conflicts with reality.

This step ensures that we are defining the parameters of the conflict within its landscape, clarifying how it interacts with the surrounding conditions and why it persists.

5. Identify the Force

At the deepest level, we uncover the Force—but unlike previous steps, this is where the elusive nature of inequity fully reveals itself. An inequity cannot be reduced to a singular cause, and if forced into a single entity, the entire system collapses.

Instead, the Force splits into four sub-forces, which attempt to approximate the nature of the imbalance:

• Problem, Solution, Focus, and Direction
• Condition, Adjustment, Resistance, and Flow

Each set of labels is simply another attempt to appreciate the inherently indescribable nature of inequity. These forces are not separate elements but rather different ways of perceiving the imperceivable, forcing the observer to inevitably loop back into another attempt at Forming an appreciation of inequity.

Why Stop Here?

This looping obliterates the original Perspective—meaning itself is lost when the force is broken down further. To preserve a coherent understanding, we hold everything within a Perspective by stopping at the Form, Field, Facet, and Force level—leaving the sub-forces as a stop-gap and means by which to stabilize a narrative.

This Form, Field, Face, and Force framework drills down into the dynamic interplay of forces that sustain conflict—without collapsing into an oversimplified, singular explanation that would eventually lose all meaning and appreciable value.

An Evolution of Structural Categories

Rather than discarding structure, this approach redefines the structuring of conflict in a way that better aligns with the true nature of inequity in a narrative.

Instead of asking, "What category does this conflict fall into?", we ask:

• From what Perspective is the conflict being observed? (I, You, We, They)
• How is the conflict being framed? (Form)
• What is its scale and depth? (Field)
• Where does it manifest specifically? (Facet)
• What is truly driving the imbalance? (Force)

With a set of four sub-forces making it possible for us to approximate and define how the very finite relates back to the very general.

By layering Perspective into Form → Field → Facet → Force, we ensure that the source of conflict is not just categorized but fully understood, making it more applicable to AI-driven narrative generation and real-world storytelling.