From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 03:56:09 BST
Hi Steve,
Yes, I think of expectation as simply another word for morality. I used
expectation instead of morality because I thought there'd be less chance of
confusing it with only the social meaning of morality, and the
consciousness's expectation of all things would be emphasized. The
ontological function would also be emphasized.
The social meaning is the same kind of expectation and morality as all the
levels are, though it is not a society that has expectations, rather it is
individual people expecting what others would do, based on their
understanding of society. Their understanding of society is the product of
the patterns of the social level.
As I see it, a pattern is an expectation, on every level.
Johnny
>From: Steve Peterson <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD expectation
>Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:05:38 -0400
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
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 Aug 13 2003 - 03:56:59 BST