From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Aug 12 2003 - 16:05:38 BST
Hi Johnny,
When you think about "expectation," do you think of different types as in
the four static levels? I tend to read it "expectation" as what is expected
by society, as way of describing social patterns of value.
Thanks,
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
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 Aug 12 2003 - 16:05:02 BST