LIFE IN-BETWEEN A BEGINNING MIDDLE END RMN ArMeNi
beginning
noun
first
number
1.
2.
in-between
/ɪnbɪˈtwiːn/ central, halfway, intermediary, intermediate, medial, median, mediate, medium,
adjective
- situated somewhere between two extremes or categories; intermediate."I am not unconscious, but in some in-between state"
noun
- an intermediate thing."successes, failures, and in-betweens"
Translate in-between to
- 1. միջեւ
- What is another word for between-time?
between
preposition
1.
2.
end
noun
1.
2.
verb
Translate tail end to Armenian
noun
- 1. պոչ
- 2. ծայր
through
/θruː/
preposition
- 1.moving in one side and out of the other side of (an opening, channel, or location)."she walked through the doorway into the living room"
- 2.continuing in time towards completion of (a process or period)."the goal came midway through the second half"
adverb
- 1.expressing movement into one side and out of the other side of an opening, channel, or location."as soon as we opened the gate they came streaming through"
- 2.so as to continue in time towards the completion of a process, period, etc."she's just started a tour that will keep her busy right through to June"
adjective
- 1.(with reference to public transport) continuing or valid to the final destination."a through train from London"
- 2.(of a room) running the whole length of a building.
Translate through to
- 1. միջոցով
BEGINNING MIDDLE END
An imitation of an action to be complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude; for there
may be a whole that is wanting in magnitude. A whole is that which
has a beginning, a middle, and an end. A beginning is that which does
not itself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something
naturally is or comes to be. An end, on the contrary, is that which
itself naturally follows some other thing, either by necessity, or
as a rule, but has nothing else following it. A middle is that which follows
something as some other thing follows it. Any creation as in a well constructed plot,
therefore, must neither begin nor end at haphazard, but conform to
these principles.
Three parts. Three movements. The number “3” is an interesting one.Three is first odd prime number and the second smallest prime. There are three types of galaxies: elliptical, spirals, and irregulars. Three basic Earth divisions: Igneous- Metamorphic- Sedimentary. Freud suggested that psyche was divided into three parts: Ego, Super-Ego, Id. The Holy Trinity: Father — Son — Holy Ghost.
There is also an inherent sense of structure to the number 3: a triangle of three points; three pitches in a triad, the most basic form of a chord.
Furthermore and to my main point, there are innate cycles in the physical universe that reflect three movements: Sunrise — Day — Sunset; Departure — Journey — Return; Birth — Life — Death.
So, too, in the world of ideas: Hegel’s dialectic of Thesis — Antithesis — Synthesis; classical music’s sonata form of Exposition — Development — Recapitulation.
The idea of these three movements is so fundamental to the human experience, it is little wonder that story structure evolved to Beginning, Middle and End.
Indeed directly related to screenwriting, these three movements of Beginning, Middle, and End undergird all elements of script structure:Every scene should have a Beginning — Middle — End.
Every sequence should have a Beginning — Middle — End.
Every subplot should have a Beginning — Middle — End.
Every screenplay should have a Beginning — Middle — End.
Things continue as they always have.
The number three is ripe with meaning. One is the three dimensions of space. Another is the structural stability of the three-legged stool.The number 3 gets even more interesting when taken with Sven Eric's mention of Pythagoras and seen as the Golden Mean. Everything spins out from the Golden Mean, and Campbell was on that, too.
Life, a story , a play, are mediums based in time, not space. What is the minimum number of structural points needed for time-based stability is thw question. Aristotle identified three: a beginning, a middle and an end. This should be self-evident. A story with a beginning and a middle but no end is . . . well . . . not over yet. A middle and end with no beginning? That’s when you come in late to the movie. One must not overlook the repeated use of the word “whole” in this passage. One of Aristotle’s big concerns was to determine what creates cohesion in a dramatic work. He was posing the notion of a beginning, middle and end as a starting point for making sure a story has “wholeness.” He then ventures a definition of each that relies on the use of cause and effect. He is saying a story starts with a cause (that is not the effect of some other thing before it), and ends with an effect (that is not the cause of some other thing to happen next). In between there is a series of causes and effects, constructed in such a way that they gradually lead to that final effect at the end. This is his elaboration on what is necessary for cohesion -- not only that there must be clearly marked boundaries of beginning and ending, but that everything in the middle needs to proceed one to the next in a logical manner. Again, a fairly fundamental idea. And a rather liberating one.
An imitation of an action to be complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude; for there
may be a whole that is wanting in magnitude. A whole is that which
has a beginning, a middle, and an end. A beginning is that which does
not itself follow anything by causal necessity, but after which something
naturally is or comes to be. An end, on the contrary, is that which
itself naturally follows some other thing, either by necessity, or
as a rule, but has nothing else following it. A middle is that which follows
something as some other thing follows it. Any creation as in a well constructed plot,
therefore, must neither begin nor end at haphazard, but conform to
these principles.
Three parts. Three movements. The number “3” is an interesting one.Three is first odd prime number and the second smallest prime. There are three types of galaxies: elliptical, spirals, and irregulars. Three basic Earth divisions: Igneous- Metamorphic- Sedimentary. Freud suggested that psyche was divided into three parts: Ego, Super-Ego, Id. The Holy Trinity: Father — Son — Holy Ghost.
There is also an inherent sense of structure to the number 3: a triangle of three points; three pitches in a triad, the most basic form of a chord.
Furthermore and to my main point, there are innate cycles in the physical universe that reflect three movements: Sunrise — Day — Sunset; Departure — Journey — Return; Birth — Life — Death.
So, too, in the world of ideas: Hegel’s dialectic of Thesis — Antithesis — Synthesis; classical music’s sonata form of Exposition — Development — Recapitulation.
The idea of these three movements is so fundamental to the human experience, it is little wonder that story structure evolved to Beginning, Middle and End.
Indeed directly related to screenwriting, these three movements of Beginning, Middle, and End undergird all elements of script structure:Every scene should have a Beginning — Middle — End.
Every sequence should have a Beginning — Middle — End.
Every subplot should have a Beginning — Middle — End.
Every screenplay should have a Beginning — Middle — End.
Things continue as they always have.
The number three is ripe with meaning. One is the three dimensions of space. Another is the structural stability of the three-legged stool.The number 3 gets even more interesting when taken with Sven Eric's mention of Pythagoras and seen as the Golden Mean. Everything spins out from the Golden Mean, and Campbell was on that, too.
Life, a story , a play, are mediums based in time, not space. What is the minimum number of structural points needed for time-based stability is thw question. Aristotle identified three: a beginning, a middle and an end. This should be self-evident. A story with a beginning and a middle but no end is . . . well . . . not over yet. A middle and end with no beginning? That’s when you come in late to the movie. One must not overlook the repeated use of the word “whole” in this passage. One of Aristotle’s big concerns was to determine what creates cohesion in a dramatic work. He was posing the notion of a beginning, middle and end as a starting point for making sure a story has “wholeness.” He then ventures a definition of each that relies on the use of cause and effect. He is saying a story starts with a cause (that is not the effect of some other thing before it), and ends with an effect (that is not the cause of some other thing to happen next). In between there is a series of causes and effects, constructed in such a way that they gradually lead to that final effect at the end. This is his elaboration on what is necessary for cohesion -- not only that there must be clearly marked boundaries of beginning and ending, but that everything in the middle needs to proceed one to the next in a logical manner. Again, a fairly fundamental idea. And a rather liberating one.
Comments