Re: MD Two theories of truth

From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 05 2003 - 21:58:04 GMT

  • Next message: johnny moral: "Re: MD quality is ...?"

    Hi David,

    >Nice to have someone like my post.

    I know what you mean :)

    >I am interested in the use of expectation.

    Thanks for the interest. To the others who were around the last time I
    brought this up and will probably click the delete button now, I first
    apologize for continuing to drone on about it to whoever will listen, but
    also encourage you keep an open mind and to take my zeal as a sign of how
    well this rewording and reconception of Quality as Expectation works for me
    in understanding Quality. I think you could have similar illuminations, and
    eventually see the beauty and power of Expectation and start to use it
    instead of Quality.

    To the inevitable and understandable question "whose Expectation?", the
    answer is the same as for "whose Quality?" It is the source and preceeds
    and forms the consciousnesses who experience it, just as Quality does.
    There is nothing anyone can say about Quality or Morality that isn't true
    for Expectation, broadly understood. The relationship of Quality and
    Expectation can be stated as "Quality is experienced by realizing
    Expectation", or just "Quality is the Expectation". For example, a quality
    motorcycle mechanic does what a motorcycle mechanic is expected to, a
    quality chair does what it is expected to, etc. A glass is expected to hold
    together, and - this is key - that is WHY the glass holds itself together.
    It isn't the atoms that do it, it is the expectation, or, since the
    expectation is Quality, it is Quality that does it.

    Could a glass be expected to just fall apart, or say hover in the air or
    something strange like that? No, it really couldn't be. Expectations are
    determined by experience - aka again Quality, reality, the whole of Morality
    - and are not arbitrary. They are rationality and reason itself. The
    stronger the expectation, the higher the quality. Thus, gravity is
    extremely high Quality, reason is extremely high quality, language is high
    quality, etc, because there is great confidence in the expectation being
    realized. (A language where you couldn't expect a word to mean the same
    thing it did last time would a low quality language) The outcome of a coin
    flip is low quality, though that it will be heads or tails is certainly a
    very high quality pattern. The idea that reality exists "out there" is high
    quality, because we reliably expect reality to exist out there. This is the
    same as saying, as Pirsig does, that we expect reality to exist because it
    is a high quality idea, but I think it is more shocking to contemplate and
    less fuzzy and empty a statement (WHY is reality a high quality idea??
    Pirsig doesn't say, but we can now say because the expectation is strong,
    because the pattern is strong.)

    Oh yeah - a pattern is just an expectation. 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and then we
    expect 32 to follow in the pattern. If 35 follows, then we have no pattern
    and no expectation of what's next. The inorganic pattern of a rock and the
    social pattern of a ritual are expectations of the rock continuing to exist
    and the ritual to be followed. It is the expectation of the pattern
    continuing that carries the rock along with us into the future. If there is
    no expectation of the pattern carrying forward, the pattern wouldn't carry
    forward. Expectations are formed by experience of patterns.

    Oh yeah - value is expectation, a dollar bill is only valuable if it can be
    expected to buy us something, and every expectation we have is valuable to
    us, it is by expecting that we are able to live. Value implies an
    expectation that there will be a future in which to cash in what is
    valuable, if we don't expect a future, nothing would have value. Value
    comes from expectation being realized.

    truth is expectation: when we say it is a true fact that the Civil War ended
    in 1865, we are saying that we have an expectation that Encarta will say
    that the Civil War ended in 1865, we expect Howard Zinn to say it ended in
    1865, we expect all the evidence to correlate. We also expect that if all
    those sources say it ended in 1820, then it must be true that it ended in
    1820, and all further inquiry we expect to agree with that date. If that
    expectation is broken by our friend Steve, we have a low quality situation
    because we no longer have a strong expectation of what other sources will
    say, and we don't know what is true. The stronger the expectation, the more
    we believe something to be true.

    It is also easy and enlightening to relate Expectation to Morality, and
    helps demonstrate that the moral order of the universe and the morals of a
    culture are made of the same stuff. A person is expected to behave in
    certain ways, to behave morally, and rocks and tree are expected to behave
    in certain ways too. It is the same process at work: expectation being
    realized, because expectation being realized is Quality, and is what is
    expected. The meaning of Expected is both a moral imperitive and a
    description of static pattern. A pattern continues because it is expected
    to, and it is expected to because it already exists as a pattern. (Think of
    the words "should", "supposed" and "expected" and "moral" - they all contain
    two intrinsically linked meanings: a description of the way things are, and
    an imperitive to behave that way. Neither meaning came first, things
    wouldn't be the way they are without the imperitive, and there would be no
    imperitive if things weren't that way already.)

    >Seems clear to me that DQ's activity
    >is about reducing the multi-possible
    >into the actual.

    Wow this is very similar to what I say about DQ's activity - that it somehow
    combines all the various expectations, which are only possibilities until
    actually realized, and of which some may be in conflict and mutually
    exclusive. It actuallizes the possibiities, realizes the expectations. And
    it does it in the way that satisfies the greatest amount of expectation (so
    it is really determined by the expectations). In this way DQ determines
    which patterns are left in its "wake". High quality patterns, those with
    strong expectation, are probably going to be actuallized by DQ, low quality
    patterns may be thwarted if another higher quality pattern is in conflict
    with it. (Sometimes a low quality pattern may thwart a high quality
    pattern, like the underdog beating the favorite, but that must mean that
    there are even higher quality patterns that trumped the expectation, like
    the pattern of a quarterback getting a concussion when he is thrown really
    hard to the ground and having to leave the game.) DQ puts all these things
    together and creates the most reasonable, harmonious and beautiful future
    from it all.

    >Like choice and reason
    >are possible only by being aware of the future/possible
    >i.e. expectation. Expectation seems to be key
    >to evolution, without some kind of choice the cosmos
    >seems to be impossible (if you reject initial design)
    >as it is. Also in quantum theory the double slit
    >experiment of Young, can be interpreted as a single
    >electron being influenced by the presence of its
    >possibilities, so that a interference pattern is formed.

    Ah, yes, I've experienced the double slit experiment myself. Too many
    possible slits sure do produce interference ;-) Reminds me of the swami
    telling Peter Tork the nature of the universe in Head: "Choice is misery".
    (Meanwhile, Mickey and Mike were outside wagering on whether or not a guy
    was going to jump off a building to his death). Quality is when the choice
    is clear, when expectation is so strong it is invisble, like gravity and
    true love.

    >Is quantum probability what enables there to be a future?
    >Without an open future there would be no DQ.

    I don't think the future is open as far as the whole is concerned, but I
    think it is open from the standpoint of individual consciouses which have
    limited experiences and hence only have partial and often ultimately
    incorrect expectations. But since each individual conscious had its
    expectations implanted in it by the Morality in which it was formed, these
    expectations all make sense - even the wrong ones are understandable and
    forgivable - and wind up being reconciled again to the necessary present.
    I'm with Einstein on the God doesn't play dice theory, ie, I don't think
    that there can be anything that happens without a reason, any arbitrary
    results. I do believe that knowledge is always limited though, so
    expectation (reality) is always just a probability.

    >regards
    >David M

    regards
    Johnny

    _________________________________________________________________
    Great deals on high-speed Internet access as low as $26.95.
    https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)

    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 : Wed Nov 05 2003 - 21:59:17 GMT