From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 07:22:06 BST
Hi Steve,
>Hi Johnny Moral,
>
>You said:
> > Anything that happens, happens because, at the moment of it
> > happening, we expect it.
> > We may not have expected it 15 seconds prior, but our
> > > expectations change as our experiences change. Expectation doesn't
>come
> > > from us, it comes from outside us.
>
>How long is the necessary time lag between the expectation and the
>experience?
At the moment reality hits, the moment that feels like now, is exactly what
we expect now to be. A few moments prior to that, our expectations are
pretty close to reality, but we still could be wrong. I described it to
Platt as like a football game. Before the game, you expect Green Bay to
win. It is morally right that Green Bay would win, according to your
perceptions of reality. Even up till the final play of the game, you don't
expect Favre to throw an interception and have it be run back for a TD, but
he does. Favre didn't expect it either, but as he saw the ball deflect off
the linebacker's helmut his expectations changed. At that point, you see it
too, and it becomes expected that Detroit will win, and that indeed is the
reality that you experience, along with, as expected, the rest of the
country. The reason expectations change is because we have a very strong
expectation that you and I will experience the same outcome, along with
Brett Favre and the other players. But Brett saw before anyone, he knew
that he threw it a little low, and since it's his arm, his expectation
counts a lot more than mine does, watching the game on athe east coast (this
is a strong expectation, that I do not control the outcome of the game by
shouting at the television). So the rest of us will have to have our
expectations changed before reality strikes to match Brett's. Changing
expectations in consciousness to match the emerging shared reality is the
role of Dynamic Quality.
>Who is doing the expecting?
The same "who" who does the experiencing. Everyone does their share, and
the shared expectations fill in the blanks. The shared expectations are key
- they are the enduring static patterns that we hold to be most certain -
and one of them is the expectation that there is one reality that we all
share, Detroit won the game. If we find out we were wrong about
experience, like say we read Green Bay won the game the next day, we expect
an explanation, and it turns out that I was actually watching a taped game
on ESPN Classic, and not the game at all.
When we see something happen unexpectedly, like say we see a stationary
object suddenly begin to move, what is happening is other people's
expectations, including the enduring shared expectations that things will
make sense in the future and to the past, have caused the object to move.
Stronger than our expectatoin that the object will not move is the
expectation that there is a reason for everything, and it will make sense
when we investigate and correllate it to other people's experiences So if
other people had strong expecations that the object would move (because they
were pulling it with a string) and our experiences have to match in a single
reality, and yes, my investigation into history will show that they indeed
tied a string to the object and pulled it, then my expectation will be
overridden.
Now, my investigatin into history could show that the object moved on its
own, but I'd be taken as a loon by everyone else, who wouldn't believe me.
>You seem to be using the word in an unusual way (e.g. when I say "cat" what
>I really mean is "dog.")
When I say expectation, I mean both the rightness of realizing that
expectation, and the probability that the expectation will be realized. The
same meanings as the words "should", "suppose", and the original meaning of
"moral", which used to refer to the mores of a culture. Also I think the RT
words are synonyms, the word "straight" means "continue in the expected
direction" and also "proper" or "truthfully", right means the expected
answer and also the good, usefull answer, etc. When Johnny was expected to
do his homework, it was the right thing to do, and also Johnny was going to
do his homework. Because this is what kids are expected to do. Perhaps
Johnny was brought up to become a delinquent, and no one expects him to do
his homework. Edwards referred to a "particular beauty" and a "general
beauty", as a way to describe how some things can be harmonious with reality
in a particular sense (Johnny being expected to be a delinquent because his
dad was a drunk and that's what we expect) but not in a general sense
(Johnny not being a good boy).
I wish you would stick to MOQ terms or relate your expectation to the MOQ
somehow. I suspect that "expectation" is a lot like the more MOQish term
"experience," and like "experience" it has the problem of presuposing an
experiencer and what is experienced. Or perhaps your expectation is another
term for static quality in which case I wish you would use the MOQ term that
we all understand.
Yes, it's alot like experience, but it is the thing that creates the
experience according to it. Yes, it's entirely based on static patterns, a
static pattern is nothing more than an expectation. I like the term
expectation for a lot of reasons. One, it makes people think about the
probability/rightness dual interdependent meaning, which is not thought
about enough. Why do patterns contniue? Because they should. Why should
they? Because they probably will.
I certainly use the term static quality, when it makes sense to use it, I
don't usually translate it to expectation. I sometimes find an aside where
I can slip in an expectation reference, which I do because it happens to
occur to me, and I think it may be an avenue to understanding me better than
a long post like this one. But if that causes a delete key respnse, then I
will refrain from doing that so much. I'll keep the Expectation=Morality
stuff to a few threads like this one that I started (and which was not about
expectation at all!), and maybe see if those AI guys want to play with me :(
>Perhaps you could take another crack at convincing me that expectation has
>something valuable to add to the MOQ. To be honest, I don't like it and
>tend to hit the delete button when I come across the term in you posts, but
>since after many months you're still pushing your usage of the term and if
>you're willing I want to try again to see if it has value.
>
>Thanks,
>Steve
Well, it's a good way to undersatnd patterns, I think. A pattern is what is
expected to be repeated. There is no pattern if it is not expected, the
moment of pattern recognition is realizing that you have an expectation.
And it then joins patterns to morality. I don't think the MoQ explains why
patterns are moral patterns, what is moral about them? When they are seen
as expectations, as "shoulds" and "supposed to"s, then suddenly the other
meaning of expectation comes out, and they become patterns of morality, not
merely patterns.
Thanks for giving it a try again. I do think it holds water.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 07:23:12 BST