Selbstbestimmung als Aufgabe

So, again - what is "the" mistake of the "normal planning mode" of learning?


16.07.2017 Part IV added. In a new menu:

you will find the history of versions prior to the present one, and at least two of these versions in english which was the original language they had been written in.

06.07.2017 Part III added

25.06.2017 some paragraphs added to part II in the end ("Not only "feelings" are transferred to more and most complex usages of devices ..." up to "The answer to that question does affect the most relevant aspect of all of these reflections: ...). In addition, some emendations in the last paragraphs.


Part I

There are TWO TYPES OF HYPOTHESES which have to be carefully differentiated between: The common ones (derived from experience), and the "optimum" hypotheses (religious faith being a spoiled version of them; but.. at least a version! that is the achievement in it..).

The element being shared by both is the possibility of falsification in the end: It MIGHT be such as supposed within the hypothesis - but you cannot take it for granted. (This remains true even if a hypothesis is being "confirmed" or has been so, for a long time, in many instances etc).
More in detail, this common element has some sub-categories like:
- it refers to the entirety of the experience and knowledge available at a certain moment to the effect that it is still possible to test the hypothesis - it has "not been falsified yet" (it ranks among those which this formula still applies to). So - there must be a certain "surplus" content considering this entirety of experience already available to you, a "not yet proven that it is not the case" (involving/implying an idea of what would have to be the case IF the assumed content "is not the case");
- this surplus by definition is NOT present in the actual experience but has to be drafted as a concept or idea in imagination;
- however, the genuine "reality" of that "not yet real and possibly never ever going to be real" is in a certain "doing as if" it was real - AND the world hopefully taking its part within that "play" - at least until it is proven that the world does nothing like that ie. collaborating, being the adequate "partner" and counterpart for a practice like that - to the effect that the hypothesis is refuted and falsified. This practice of "doing as if" has a wellknown denomination: experiment.
- You see: in dealing with hypotheses, there is a lot of thinking involved (traditional "empiricism" - even up to theories like Kuhns "paradigm of "paradigm" and "revolution" in the history of science - tends to ignore that portion): defining that playing "as if", defining one's own role and the world's within it, defining when the play is over, and, maybe, defining which hypothesis then is still open for being tested (and so, maybe, an entire series of hypotheses to be tested in a sensible order of succession).

And now comes the difference.

One sort of hypotheses is the wellknown "conventional" one, or the technical or scientific type.
Here, the pattern for constructing an experiment is derived from a series of facts (having been observed) - it does not matter if actions from our side have been involved or not - the experiment would consist in controlling one or more determinate elements of the objective pattern by manipulating them, HEREBY trying to control some determinate outcome. Both, the "causes" and the "effects", can be defined in negative fashion - by just NOT doing anything or trying to cause something NOT to happen.
We normally try to make the control work (such that the effect is caused) in a reliable manner, under all circumstances, with non-expensive methods for to bring about the necessary impact etc - unfolding the entire categorical apparatus of technology.
I think that science today is exclusively thought in such technological terms (such that I call it: "technomorph" science; in order to delimitate it from an utopian counterpart I would call "biomorph" science.)
There is need for further elaboration of this type but let me first introduce the other one.

You will not easily find any popular material I could refer to as an example for that type - except religious faith (which, in turn, has some very special qualities which would mark it off from other items of the same type - the question might be asked: which other types may exist? Not easy to answer in advance...).

First difference, in comparison to the technological hypotheses: These ones are NOT derived from experience. The reason for this is that they in fact form a concept of dealing with MISSING experience ("not yet knowing") and what to do then. Since in this case you cannot rely on "confirmed expectations" as to what will happen, you have to decide with which varieties of courses of events you would reckon "for now". In the end, this amounts to constructing a universe of possibilities - except those which have just been disclosed as such that canNOT be reckoned with any longer - at least if the world we are living in should make sense for us, or, which is the very same, that this world is such that WE can make sense in.
So in fact, a hypothesis of this kind in almost every regard consists in a definition of what we understand by "making sense" - it is a kind of outline of what global continuation of history (and of our lives, particularly) would be a possible material for a biography (our own, or someone else's) which would make sense - and which course of events would put an end to any sensible practice and make it senseless.
Of course, our definition of "making sense" - in order to be part of a "hypothesis" - must make some difference in terms of practice and its outcome - only then, a certain way to act (different from other alternatives) can be defined as "testing that hypothesis" ("doing as if it was true" - until it has been disproven) - and only then, there is a possible outcome of this "experiment" in the shape of "the world is not making sense any longer", and the overall-hypothesis of it as such that it makes sense (until the contrary is proven) has been falsified. Which need not be the end of testing because it may mark the transition to "the" (or one of the) next hypothesis; which suggests the idea of a possible set of such hypotheses with even some ranks - such that some of them would have to be tested preferably and in advance rather than others.
And this is the moment when the category of a possible OPTIMUM comes in: If among all possibilities, there would be some which would make kind of MORE sense than others (if they were true), we would prefer testing them in advance before transgressing to the (one or more) next "worse" in the ranking hierarchy. (This concept in some regards might remind you of what is called Pascals WAGER, and is conceived of as being an argument for christian faith. Actually, many "arguments" used by missionaries of any religious faith deal with ideas of what would make up a possible "maximum-optimum" - and so do many struggles between confessions and religious ideas deal with different ideas of what such an super-optimum might consist in... Even in the lives of single believers, there might be "doubt" as to whether their actual religion comprises THE most advanced optimum of all - or whether they should prefer to change that idea - which, normally, means being in a crisis of faith which mostly ends in adopting a new idea of what it means to be an "optimum" condition of the world as a whole (and the revelation or such which involves or suggests or entails that condition...)

The problem of giving a correct account in relation to "building hypotheses, designing experiments and trials" is that the terms which have been used in the presentation up to now have counterparts or just parts which are not at all easy to define.
The counterpart of "falsification" is "confirmation".
And part of every "doing as if" is: "doing".
I could add a third "partner" concept for one that was already introduced: You might test hypotheses - but you also throughout have expectations. Expectation (or prediction) - is that a "counterpart" of hypothesis (as confirmation is to falsification) - or a portion within it (as "doing" is in "doing as if"; expectations here being derived from what would be the case IF the hypothesis would prove to be valid ie. turn out to apply to facts, be true etc)
As you see, a lot of confusion is looming here... On one side. On the other... my impression is that all these pairs of concepts are intertwined and relate to each other.

A very basic one of these relations might be approached by considering "doing" in relation to "doing as if". (Of course the latter does not refer to cases of intentionally pretending to do sth in order to deceive or make soneone else (or even oneself...) believe...)
This usage of "doing as if" now is getting a certain taint of being artificial (in fact, it is part of my attempt to define "testing a hypothesis") because... if we study the real usage it always will apply to cases where a usual and ordinary language expression is already available: "doing while not being sure or assured or having doubts whether...or not". So the "testing a hypothesis" way of action might be considered as the most extreme of all varieties of acting under "doubtful" and risky conditions.
And of course this difference would affect the first pair of terms: confirmation is associated with "becoming assured" whereas falsification is related to doubt.
However, viewing exactly this parallel would lead us to a new difference. Because confirmation as well as rising doubt usually apply to cases where several attempts already have been made, some failing and some successful: The doubt as well as the degree of certitude will depend on the ratio of both types of cases.
That in turn refers back to "doing" and "doing as if": Whereas "testing a hypothesis" might be the most extreme version of "acting while being unsure of...", doing might be understood as the respective extreme on the "certitude" side.

Let me just try to clarify some details about "expectation" by referring to what has been said before.
The relation between "hypothesis" and "expectation" seems to be similar to that of "type, rule" and "token". Hypotheses appear to refer to series of possible events or courses of events that might be expected or predicted (under certain conditions), whereas any single expectation just is referring to the next single case of that type. The single token of the type "following a rule" is: a single action or "doing...". And this action or doing might be connected to a certain expectation (or set of expectations) for the time and relevant locations (mostly the immediate environment) when and where the action is taking place.
Usually we will have a lot of expectations (that could be belied, but nomally aren't) - in some sense, in any moment of doing something, we make use of the entirety of all expectations that are relevant and valid at that very moment. And hence... we simultaneously follow a huge mass of rules (if not "the entirety" of all of our rules) and test hypotheses that are still to be proven (until full certutude has been reached).

So - which expectations or rules or hypotheses might be associated with that maximum secure type of action - the "pure doing" core in every and any doing?
There is a very general statement that first of all can be made, namely: That these expectations, rules, hypotheses will contain a huge mass of indifferent cases - cases which would be referred to only for to say that no difference is made by them.
These cases are those where we use our general capacities to act (in the shape of the "pure doing" component within every action) in a special environment of techniques, instruments, for special tasks.
So my first thesis on this "most-confirmed" type of expectation/hypothesis is: It refers to what is present in every action as the immediate physical portion or element, as well as to the effects on the ongoing use that can be made of our capacities to act after this special action - as e.g.:
a. How exhausting was the action?
b. at which point or period of time within our daily life rhythm did it take place?
c. how was our fundamental physical condition (at least in terms of feeling) at the beginning, inbetween, and at the end?
d. which kind of basic feelings did we have that were motivated by the expectations we had during the action, like:
1 anxiety, incertitude (maybe with a connotation of "guilt" or "shame")
2 impatience/anger
3 depression/disappointment/frustration
4 hope/expectation of final success (even if it might last longer than had been expected at the starting point which might make us feel that we deserve a kind of intermediate reward etc - which in the end might lead to an explanation of drug use and addiction).) 

I call these four groups of expectation-based or -bound emotions "expectation affects". Whenever such affects occur it is a sign for what I call "OPPortunist" planning and leading one's life. This way of life is opposed by what I call "experimental" lifestyles, the most prominent among them being the "genuinely religious one" (the others being the genuinely modern and post-modern ones). The common quality of all experimental and non-OPPortunist lifestyles is: that they are totally free of these emotions.
However - is that possible at all? Can we just imagine such a mode of action (let alone realize it) without it being permanently tainted, slighty or not, by some emotional hue of one of the four just cited above (or a blend of them)?
If you look again over what has been said on the expectations/hypotheses referring to the "pure doing" portion within every action - there all of a sudden a second type of expectation has emerged - the expectations that underlie the affects named after them.
And these second ones are quite different. Why?
Because the genuine action-related expectations would start at pure and wellknown sensations which occur when our capacities are being used in actions - sensations which, in their entirety, would provide answers to the according questions of the types a.-c.
(the "pureness" of these sensations corresponding to that of the "pure doing" portion in every action).
Whereas the expectations (and hence, the according hypotheses) of the second and "emotional" type refer to what might be described the putative relation of our capacities to act (starting from their present condition) on one side, and certain challenges they would have to live up to, on the other; challenges originating from chains of events (happening by themselves, or having been effected by us, at least partially) the course of which we expect and predict in some relevant regards. So the subject and content of expectations like these is focused on matching or not of capacities to act (maybe including usage of reserves of these capacities) and courses of events in the future.

With all that in mind, I can express a first thesis:
The usual expectation regarding our "pure" capacities to act is always the same: They will work as they always do and have done.
If not - we would understand that as a malfunction of our body -
(cf. a.) an abnormal deficit or surplus of strength considering stress and strain we had been exposed to prior to that;   
(cf. b.) an abnormal occurence of drives and limitations to act considering the time of a "normal" day we experience them;
(cf. c) a general interference and occurence of sensations and emotions of all kind (eg. pain, nausea) which would not occur "normally" and which would affect (usually reduce) our normal capacities to act (incl. mental capacities to concentrate etc).
- which altogether are taken as "symptoms" and "afflictions" being understood as an expression of our being ILL.

The "impure" expectations of the "affect" type, by contrast, are no less than stable and steady - they are throughout in danger to change their quantity and degree as well as their quality - they can even change into each other, most often in a dramatic turn.
And that not only once but turn after turn, increase and decrease one after the other.
Expectations of that kind by definition as it were tend to be belied - in a positive as well as negative sense.
Which, again, is the contrary of what can be said of the other type: These expectations "by definition" are normally CONFIRMED.

The point is: That we have to take some sort of normalcy or routine for granted when we form expectations of the type that can be belied. Something in the "normal" and usual way of things and life must have changed - such that we are tempted to change that normal course of actions - but... we are uncertain to a more or less extent if that will work in a similar reliable way as it is or was the case with the original routine lifestyle or method. So the first surprise prior to all those following, is that a routine does not work any longer as it ever has until now. We may take that to be an exception which never will occur again (or so rarely such that it should not be taken into account as a new condition for continuation of our routine) - or, to the contrary, we can be scared, upset, confused - up to the point where we more or less question our whole practice and life (the same may be the case in cases of positive and lucky surprise - where sometimes a similar being upset, confused, shocked etc may start from the fact that we had no hint or incentive to earlier reckon with such an event, or even seek it... to the consequence that this luck turns out to be a source of irritation and despair being caused by that impressing lack of control over our fate, and facts so relevant for our being well or not).

Regarding hypotheses, this point may be read like this:
The hypothesis/es at the basis of the "body-related routine expectations", are the "exclusively, normally confirmed ones".
Whereas the hypotheses which the "affect" type expectations are derived from are a mixed type: Some times, they are confirmed (as our routine practice, most of the time at least... up to the point where everything changed, at least... etc); but often enough, unfortunately, they are falsified (which - as just has been demonstrated - even in the lucky cases often has a certain negative aspect...).

There is a second consequence of all these above reflections on concepts like hypothesis and expectation: There is, in fact, a counterpart of the "pure doing" or "body routine" expectations - that is: the expectations regarding the result of technical experiments. While in the case of the body routine or "health expectations" (as they could be named as well), there almost seem to be no hypotheses at all (but only expectations), in the most extreme case of experimental practice, there may be a leading hypothesis (according to which we build and device the experimental "doing as if"), but there is no special expectation regarding the "success" of the experiment. We don't know how its outcome may be. And... in most cases of "affect" expectations/hypotheses, in a realistic and prudent/calm perspective, there is no such knowledge either. But calmness is not the main virtue of OPP people....

Part II. (2nd version)

So far, some concepts of modes of action have been introduced; it may make sense to repeat them and present the relation between them a bit better than has been done yet:
The most fundamental of these concepts apparently is the continuous scale between two extreme modes of action, a "pure doing" and a "pure doing as if".
A second scale seems to be combined with this first one, that of the amount of reliablity of expectations with relation to managing to carry out the respective procedure as it was planned and figured before:
Any pure doing (according to that terminology) would be associated with the maximum degree of legitimate "hope" that it can successfully be implemented in the "usual" manner, whereas those actions which had been dubbed "experimental" would not allow for any special expectations as to their successful realisation and/or outcome.

Eventhough I had conceded that the "pure" mode of action is not the most frequent one, it can be claimed, though, that there are some instances of both types occurring within our daily practice (I did not mention examples yet, that may be done later; but to at least provide some clue, I could refer to episodes when we are presenting to others or ourselves that we are "able to perform yet, or at all" a certain operation, be it a pure body movement (more or less complex, as: to perform a handstand, jogging more than an hour, performing some sort of solo dancing etc), or a "purposeful" operation of craftswork, handling a technical device, producing something, or being able to identify, label and differentiate between things (as an expert); also mental actions and capacities may be included in this list, as being able to perform arithmetic operations, or remembering something and rendering it in a correct manner etc. The "pure doing as if", in turn, would be any experiment where there is either outcome equally possible - you don't know in any way which one it will be, and hence, you cannot but have have the expectation that by trying you may find out. - However, you would not try all and everything without some incentive or clue as to a certain gain or yield of a "successful" accomplishment of the experimental activity, starting with gaining interesting insight and having some hypothesis or prognosis "being confirmed"- that is all the more of interest if there were some ways of technical applicability of the effect that has been confirmed. And all of this is still true if that very effect cannot be controlled by us, because its quality is beyond our capacities to handle it such that "more knowledge" about it can only be used for making prognoses, either as to the occurences of the respective items themselves (they being causes of effects of relevance for our daily life, ie. production and reproduction), or for to use these occurences as signs for other events of such "relevant" significance. The more we can repeat all those "pure" experiments in a way that would confirm the originally purely "experimental" expectations (maybe learning more about preconditions of their being able to be reliably reproduced), the respective activities and/or courses of events will become not only confirmed again and again, but in the end they might even be candidates of "using" them as some technical or prognostical device or procedure (or part of such a device or procedure). An alternative expression for that process of ever growing reliability of the handling and/or knowing of such a causal relation, is to say: It is becoming more and more a part of our practical capacities - exactly as those we can present and perform as proof of what we can do. If something is "really" well known, performing the respective ability - be it in a "real" practical environment, or just für demonstrating purposes - would be an instance of "pure doing" no less than performing the body movements we manage to perform with absolute certitude.

So all these experiments lead from "pure doing as if" and exploring or experimental trying and testing to an ever growing degree of certainty such that the according ability to perform (or at least use as a prognostical device the respective regular causal connection) finally will become part of the entirety of our abilities, be it simple oder complex body movements, exercises, laborious activities, be it the entire variety of ways to use tools or operate devices or even machines, carry out complex working procedures and production methods, up to using wellknown and proven qualities and/or facts as signs or symptoms indicating some state of affairs of interest for us, that might already have happened, being just happening or being imminent in a relevant period of time. (In some sense, any kind of knowledge might be interpreted as being such an "ability" we can exploit and draw on in special situations, starting with simple perception and "knowing where something we just need is located" etc - every "knowing that" being able to be translated in some form of "knowing how" - and, hence, "doing" or performing, IF and WHEN wanted.)

Everything changes, though, once these IFs and WHENs are deleted, and the pure abilities-to-act (that can be paraded and performed just for demonstration purposes), starting with the "pure" body movements (rarely enough to be performed without some aim, starting with walking or seizing and holding something, or just without some "anything" to handle and operate or move etc), are being implemented and used.
The reason for that is simply: because we cannot repeat such performances and usages of existing abilities without consuming the underlying capacities to act. These capacities in a wider sense include capacities to REact - ie. to react in order to use chances and/or prevent or evade or cope with risks and imminent dangers all of which have a certain limited perod of time to last until the respective occasion is gone, without being handled in a purposeful manner.

So by arranging and really using our abilities, we have to deal with two decisive limitations: The limits, cycles, needs, condition for to use, to conserve and reproduce our capacities to act at all (in some sense this again includes knowledge of facts that might change such that it has to be updated in certain periods of time by repeated exploration, trial etc); and: the necessity of synchronizing our activities with events, things, qualities, facts, dispositions beyond our control - such that we either are unable to cause them to happen or form, or such that our actual capacities at that moment or period of time are not sufficient for controlling them in these regards. To the consequence that we have to set priorities which, in turn, mostly will move us into a zone of more or less risk - in the worse case because we live in an environment we cannot handle and cope with in general (with existential threads remaining) or, at least, because we don't know about the exact points in time when risks we knew about before will realise, how many of them at the same moment or near to each other in the same period of time, let alone yet unknown risks (these risks may include, to a lesser degree of "riskiness", chances that cannot be used beyond a certain period of time and hence can be missed).

And this would lead us back to the second form of hypotheses - those not based on experience in an accumulatively "confirming way" resulting in a growing certainty and assuredness about connections between causes (or at least signs) and effects (of interest for us) - such that the cautious "doing-as-if" character of trying such connections and rely on them in practice will fade in favor of the opposite character of "doing" in waxing degrees.
Just having reminded ourselves of that second type of hypothesis, we see the same old confusions regarding the relations of the concepts involved rising again - because of that:

All those trying and more or less forcibly "experimental" forms of establishing a practice that might deal and cope with the risks (even those of missing a chance) within our environment can be sucessful in the long run, in a fashion that might be compared to our ever better managing to handle tools (technical, prognostical ones) and learning by experience to rely on them (which might include learning to handle some decisive influences and preconditions for their staying operational in the long run, not to damage them by wrong use and/or protect them against any damaging influences).
So the hypotheses of the "to-be-falsified-only-type" begin to become similar to those of the "(accumulatively) confirmed" ones.

However, this is not the only obfuscation of original differences.

The so-called "pure doing" instances of body movements and the like, just have begun to get a double in the shape of all those tool- and/or forecast/recognition routines (first of all those relevant in our daily routines) the usage of which might be based on prior experiments but since long has reached such degrees of safety and perfection that we can say, performing these tool- or sign-associated activities has the same quality as similar "pure" body movements.
Again, the most "pure" examples of "doing", ie the body movements, be they presented in a "demonstration of abilities", or just as "the body part und portion within any practice", nevertheless are prone, too, to failures, weaknesses, malfunction, or even complete breakdown in cases we become ill or eg paralyzed on a physical basis (that might include psycho-physical conditions of depression, lack of motivation, exhaustion etc) - as any other using tools whatsoever, also this tool, the body, can loose its usefulness, temporarily or forever, and "handling" it means heeding the requirements of its reproduction in time, not exceedingly abusing the limits of its capacities, and knowing the boundaries of the strengths that can be relied on when using it in general. As we do with any tool in general.

With that equation in mind, we can complete the blurring and obfuscating of all the original differences between the three types of doing by saying: Well, in all three cases, there once may have been lack of practice or knowledge as to how to do and what to rely on (probing, testing, trying the given limits of usability, and the limits of moving those limits by exercise or whatever measure of bettering and accomplishment) - in the course of time and ever better knowing and practising the involved activities, we will have been learning to master the possible failures, reckon with them, prevent them (as far as it is possible) - but, in all three cases, a certain risk will remain that cannot be eliminated ever - we have to learn to live with it. And... just in case we have the chance or need to change anything within one of these great domains or dimensions of action, we are back again in the "learning" mode and have to be cautious and "experimental" the same way the original routine had been achieved more or less long time ago.

So far, we have successfully tried to expand the qualities of using tools (technical as well as prognostic ones) ie. "know-how" onto "pure body movements" (which, in turn, are involved in almost every technical or prognostic procedure) as well as onto the entire "experiment or attempt to reproduce ourselves and our means of production within the given environment (at least as far it is of interest for this reproductional routine of ours)". However, we can perform the exact same expansion measure in trying to expand using feelings as guides regarding what we are able and need to do - hereby gauging abilities and necessities to act and so having our entire practise being formed by "felt or experienced capacities or possibilities to act" on one side, and "felt or experienced needs and necessities to do something" on thr other. The qualities of these feelings are wellknown in both cases where they occur: The one being the "normal" or routine course of events, when we are feeling "everything is well and going as usual", the other being breaks within that successful routine, be they negative or positive, which will induce some "expectation affects" (depending on the amount of unexpected discrepancy in terms of enhanced or retrenched options between the "normal" course of events, and the interruption). These affects are the same in cases when our physical capacities to act grow or (way more important) when they suffer blow backs or serious restrictions - the original cause of that surprise may be purely physical, malfunction of a technical or prognostic device, or more or less large parts of our whole reproductional practice which our present and future existence and survival and well being is depending on. Of less interest, in this regard, is the precise taint of the affect - that will depend on how we interpret the chance to return to the previous (or modified) level of living: "Just a little more effort will do - move on and catch up!" may cause the wellknown feeling of impatience and aggressive tackling the failure, "oh my - possibly I will not reach my former state again, from now on I have to fight for it!" may be associated with the mobilisation of reserves as in the first case, but here as an expression of fear or concern; "it will never happen what I have been struggling for since so long a time - at lesst, it will not happen within the period of time I had expected that" - that will depress you and leaves you with the need to "get over it" by re-collecting all the strengths that had been spent in vain on that failed endeavour; finally, the phrase "that lasts longer than I expected first - but I can and will not cease to further pursue that objective (it still can be reached, and still is worthwhile it eventhough there is more effort to be recruited for achieving it) - so I need an intermediate extra reward, because just being tenacious and doggy does not please me in the long run" (this again and again having to be stated in the end will establish a certain mechanism in the shape of growing addiction - which is the current denomination for that 4th and last type of a (surprised) "expectation affect".

All these occasions of a possible surprise with such a heavy and predominantly emotionally tainted portion in it would originate from a starting point where the emotion being involved is way more discrete and kind of mute and invisible - it is that ubiquitous lifestyle or life situation when "everything is well, working as has been expected, expectations are realizing within limits of variation and failure that are reckoned with" etc. - in a more explicit, or even emotionally "high tuned" manner, the feelings occuring in that situation are hope, joy, euphoria - things then may succeed in a fashion that was not expected before. But this is the exception, and not the condition of an effective and prosperous daily routine. The name of such a well functioning daily routine which would comprise all aspects of it is: It is NORMAL, the name of the quality NORMALCY. In such a condition to be able to be surprised in a disturbing manner (which would include "positive" surprises which might have been seized way earlier and are recognised as having been overlooked up to now) is the consequence of multiple forms of "not being prepared" - and that is an "absence" which has no emotional representation whatsoever. Whereas missing or limited physical capacities in most cases show themselves by more or less strong feelings of lack of motivation, exhaustion, depression, irritablity, tension etc. - As in the "expectation affect" cases, these cases of limited physical capacities can occur suddenly, and that possibly due to either an inner cause within the body (maybe as a resulat of exhausting activities prior to that), or due to events in the environment which cannot be dealt with by using our "normal" level of physical abilities in terms of duration and intensity - which both, in the end, would lead to the same result, ie. a temporary or lasting disparity of strengths, and task to be accomplished. All these cases show similar or even the same qualities of emotions - according to the respective interpretation of the type of limitation the "normal" capacity to act is suffering from the special harmful effect in this moment - , and one might add that in these cases as well there was no "being prepared for that": You may activate your reserve capacities according to the extent of the imminent damage, you may even add further capacities, going to the most extreme of your stremgths, these may be sufficient for to overcome the threat, or not, and the exhaustion makes you stop and break down, at least for a while, in order to recover - if there is still something left to do for you. And... even if the task turns out as not being able to be accomplished except by providing endurance and patience, you would have to pause now and then, and have some refreshing moments for to go on labouring. Never, though, you would ever commentate these events by using a rationale like "all of these feelings (of being forced to activate... add even more efforts... being frustrated and exhausted, having to deal with long-standing losses of capacities that labouriously have to be repaired and made-up again, having doubts if all of that is even possible at all...having no doubts but it lasts way longer than had expected) - they are caused by the fact that I had thought to be entitled to expect that..., because it had been confirmed for so long that..., because nothing did indicate that... etc". Instead of all of that, you just would state: Yes, this course of events was possible eventhough I did not know if and when it would happen, and I also never would have been able to know, by any signs available to me, that and how and when it would happen - otherwise I of course would have been preparing in advance - however, this was not possible in that sort of event. And that will be your attitude even if the quantity of damage you are being confronted with cannot be assessed, the source and cause of the disaster that has befallen you is unknown, and you don't know which possible increase of losses and pain you or those near to you still might have to endure (this graphic description of a possible aggravation of the emotions involved might be extended to the other feelings which have been mentioned as occuring in a special course of events when dealing with catastrophes: the imminent danger may be growing to such an intensity that you have to struggle for your life - the losses and despair may be so final that you give up on any trials to better your situation, you resign, the labour and pain being imposed on you are so endless and consumptive that you become prepared to accept and use compensating "rewards" you never were used to allow yourself in a normal condition. Nevertheless, all of this (practically and emotionally) terrible worsening is forced on you by circumstances that are not in your control; whereas in the case of similar or same emotions (and conditions) of the "expectation affect" type, you always would add: ...I am in this terrible condition because I was not given a clue to expect something like THAT, or even: I was entitled to NOT have to reckon with something like that. (If so, I would have been prepared for it - actually not in a practical manner in general, but at least in emotional regards, saving my reserves for cases like that, working and operating in a way more careful and "experimental" manner...)

However, what is that special "right to not have to expect that (or at least not without clue)" being based on?
The general response to that is: on EXPERIENCE. And the more precise version of that concept is: It is based on a special experience of long-standing "success" and "functioning" of an entire practice - a practice which, as a whole, has been the guarantee that, performing all which is necessary for that, would result in gaining what you need and are able to proceed or even hope for more. For so long a time, things have been going as they were expected to go, at least after some emendations and adaptive changes.

So, this insisting on being enitled to have "expectations" with relation to the ongoing "well functioning" of our present practice of reproduction based on experience (which has been tried and tested and proven to be reliable over a sufficient period of time) is nothing but claiming that this practise can be treated according to the pattern of dealing with entities we get acquainted with following the "confirming" type of gaining knowledge ie either of these: dealing with it as with a technical device, method, or prognostical instrument; or dealing with it as with our own capacities to act, linked to our actual physical state (fluctuating within the daily periods of activity and disposition to perform viz. those of relaxing, eating, sleeping etc) - capacities as are represented within our actual feeling ie. more or less normal, well, activated, exhausted, tired, "unusually tired", irritable, uncomfortable, anxious, depressed, impatient, aggressive, needy/greedy/urged... (which all together are indicative of a certain condition of our capaicity to act bodily and mentally).

Now this is not the exact account, though, we would usually give of our daily life practice. In fact, we would not describe it as completely built up of elements that have been more or less confirmed, or being such an entity in itself. Rather we would say that we have not achieved this confirmation yet and are still trying - to the effect that there is space left for "experiments" to be made within that practice.
But... what kind of experiments?
The answer is: Exactly such as apply in the case of further testing and "optimizing" the usage of a technical or prognostical device (exploiting the well-known regularity underlying that usage), or the sounding out and probing of the boundaries of our capacities to act, and the preconditions of their being "operative" in a normal way, or in ways even better than normal (seeking methods for to improve them, or methods for to remove conditions which are detrimental to get to the full sprectrum of our abilities).

So - what have the reflections within part II contributed so far for to end the confusions about expectation vs hypotheses, routine vs experiment, to be confirmed/haveing been condirmed in a sufficient degree vs. nothing but to be disproved sooner or later if wrong? - I think the achievement of part II is, to more than before exhibit the role of the fact that the "pure doing" is divided in "pure" body movements, and the "pure" demonstration of technical and prognostical abilities - where, again, the "body" portion of the entire action (or ability to act) is embedded in; and, that the "doing as if" mode contains selected portions of applied (or realised) abilities to act (and hence pure body movements as well), which raises the question as to what is added in this embedding mode compared to the two modes embedded within it.

The last thought in part II showed some ideas by the help of which it was possible to interpret the "reproductional" "doing-as-if" as being some kind of technical and prognostical device - eventhough a maximum complex one - and that thought was based on the fact that there - as in the accumulatively "confirming" process in regard to seeking and achieving perfection in the build up of the genuine technical and prognostic abilities - experience is needed as well as used to optimize the actual system of reproductional rules (the "normal" way of reproduction in a given environment).
This thought, hence, amounts to transferring logical or conceptual characters of dealing with the development and optimization of technical and prognostical abilities onto the "actual experiment of reproduction". To the consequence, that this experiment of reproduction looks like just another variant of such an ability or technical method - the only difference being that this maximum complex device is assembled by a multitude of simpler such abilities and devices (technical and prognostical ones). The fact that "experiment" and "expectation" and "having been confirmed" must change their character if they are transferred to such a hyper-complex version of the same, is ignored; all the more the fact is ignored that we don't control a more or less big portion of factors with impact on that reproductional practice - a portion we can name "the remaining unknown" or abbreviated: RU. We just don't know and cannot assess the magnitude of that RU. And never will.

I already had suggested that there are more transfers like that, namely from dealing with feelings and the state of capacities to act expressed and indicated by them, onto dealing with technical and prognostic abilities - which is all the more easier done as the same transfer in the opposite direction seems to be natural and not far to seek: The body, then, is an instrument like others, eventhough the most important one, it functions well as long as the requirements of its operability are fulfilled, it can be optimized etc (see the according lines above). Now, feelings can be seen as a prognostic device indicating the state of the more complex entities our bodies change into when we are using tools or perform some technical and prognostic measures. This being so, why not carry out that transfer as well onto the most complex entity we change into on a regular basis - namely "we trying to reproduce ourselves within the given environment as far as the damaging and useful effects of it are of relevance to our reproduction".

Not only "feelings" are transferred to more and most complex usages of devices - the way we move our bodies, ie. in kind of "spaces" of adjacent or neighbouring positions of the limbs which we run through in each such movement - this concept can be transferred onto the same more and more complex usages of devices, up to the allegedly most complex one, the practice of our reproduction - or at least bigger chunks out of it. The idea here being transferred is that of a space of similarity surrounding each complex movement or series of movements (which can be seen as being a single complex movement, involving tools, circumstances etc) - you can run through this space in different directions, by using variants of the original action=movement and modifying it in at least SOME regard. The "regards" or variations of an original action are the various "directions" of that "space" - a way-more-than-3-dimensional one; each "beam" within a given dimension would order the varieties in a ranking of more or less big alterations compared to the original action - in this regard). According to this way of thinking, one of the most important steps in building hypotheses and trials that might be tested within your practice (eg. for to repair some failing parts within that practice) would be to find (by experience!) the relevant "regards" - and the extent of alteration that the original practice or action would have to be subject to. The language of "regards=directions" and "extent or variation= magnitude of excursion of a body movement" is an expression of that very transfer - the underlying ideas or categories are exactly the same.

Taken together with the usage being made of feelings, the whole transfer is tantamount to dealing with technical or even reproductional abilities and practices like dealing with with "pure physical (felt) capacities to act" (in mental dimensions as well) and/or "pure" body movements" or simple, single actions (of physical or mental character).

The only difference is: that "pure movements or actions" are such and remain such when they occur together with tools, effects, objects to be worked on, circumstances etc or even conditions of the qualities that were described in the list in Part I a.-d., combined with more or less successful attempts to carry out the steps (routine or experimental ones) that are believed to be necessary in exactly THAT environment where you are, under exactly THOSE circumstances that are realised in that very moment, for to try to live on and meet the requirements of reproduction in that moment.
So what is being added to the pure action (or, in more complex cases, a series of pure actions) in those more complex cases, in itself is no action; the complexity of the complex practice as using a technical device or doing something purposeful according to the rules of a proven method, or even performing a certain protion of action within your daily life (like "driving home after work"), compared to the "simplicity" of the "pure action" portion within the complex practice, is of complete other quality than pure actions are. And though, the idea of the transfer is really being applied by "normal" people - although it sounds incredibly insane when presented the way like it is being done here. How does that appearance of insanity occur - and when would it vanish?
(Of course, similar questions can be asked with relation to concepts as "portion of a reproductional practice" or "carrying out a special series of actions for to bring about a certain effect, or using a tool": Whereas, again, simple body or mental movements are involved in all of these, it can be questioned which of the special "reproductional" or "technical, prognostical, effect-related" qualities of the according types of actions can be saved when the respect for their being embedded within a special reproduction and/or the tools, knowledge, condition required for to execute the according technical action, are omitted. How far, then, is a body or mental "movement"/action still a type of "bringing about an effect - beyond the action itself"? Or, how far is it even something that might be important for success or failure on an existential level?)

The answer to that question does affect the most relevant aspect of all of these reflections: These transfers are never carried out in an explicit manner - because if and once that were the case we never would do such nonsense any longer. Instead, the confusion of conceptual ideas related to...
- "pure" body movements and capacities or "felt" dispositions, inclinations to perform them
- applying (by doing the respective body movements) technical tools and knowledge which are more or less well-known, tried and tested, reliably functioning etc and the respective abilities (to be demonstrated if and when wanted)
- doing that in using special such abilities in a certain order in time, at special locations and opportunities within that part of our environment that (to the best of our knowledge) is relevant for us, in order to survive and live and "reproduce ourselves", at least trying to do that as best as we can

...this confusion is just inherent in the most familiar hypothesis of ours: That in practising and going on doing that what has been tried and tested and working well since long (in a range of tolerable varieties and emendations), we are near to a hypothetical optimum condition of that state - eventhough we might not have arrived at that optimum yet - but the experiment and gaining "the" experience needed for that is going on. The name of that state of affairs is: "THE REGULAR or NORMAL (condition or state of affairs or course of events)". The content of the experience we still are missing, in turn, is focused on risks and chances hitherto unknown - and still to be discovered in (courses of) events that would reveal the hidden tendency or disposition for positive or negative turns in our lives in a "surprising" manner.
Which means: we were not prepared for that. But... we still are learning to optimize our being prepared - learning to differentiate between possible risks and chances we have to be prepared for - and those we are entitled to neglect. (The latter for now being all those we haven't been confronted with yet - and without a sufficient reason in the shape of having been emotionally overwhelmingly surprised (living through massive episodes of  expectation affects), we still are legitimized in neglecting them any longer, maybe forever. As we do with all those "unnatural" breakdowns of regular dispositions within our environment or within our bodies nobody is obliged to prepare for - and never rationally can: Because that is impossible.

Part III

"Pure body movements/mental actions" seem to be embedded within "using tools, applying technical and prognostic methods and knowledge", the latter in turn is embedded within an actual reproductional practise. Combined with that is an increase of possible irregularity and proneness to failures, eventhough there might be no unbridgable gap with relation to a general continuum of reliability and provenness. Rather, it is the number of trials, the extent of each entity's (i.e. the mode of action it is) having been confirmed (or surprisingly failed), its implicit regularity and operability which in completely equal manner would determine the degree of provenness in all three cases. So this set of categories and concepts referring to testing, trying, confirming the underlying hypothesis or original "experimental expectation" (that an imaginable action might be able to be reliably reproduced) seem to be the first and most relevant equal quality of the three types of action/practise. (Particularly, if - especially in the simpler two of the three cases -you don't consider the fact that "complex" actions can be built up from simpler ones (as a series of such, like in a dance, or in a complex production method) as making a big difference.)
(And now, remember the original claim on a fundamental difference between a type of practice which in principle is not to be confirmed but at best keeps on to not be falsified. Is there any basis for a concept like that? Is there anything left that might show that strange quality?)

When it is about "transferring conceptual characteristics" from one of the three categories to the others, the one in the middle between the others, the mode of applying, performing technical and prognostical methods, using tools and knowledge, looks as if it is the switchpoint between the other two. It was for that reason, that in former reflections on that topic one of the most used ways (used by me) to express a fundamental insight into the nature of OPPortunism or normal planning read like: The OPP mode of planning and learning is tantamount to dealing with the entire practice of reproduction as if it was (like using) a technical device. That is why the analysis of the confusion OPP planning and learning consists in must start from there.

First of all, usage of all those technical devices we know of or even use regularly in our daily reproductional lives has been proven, tried and tested since long - they are based on well-known regularities and causal relations we are "entitled to expect" to keep on working as they have been until now. Similarly, we know that "feeling normal and disposed to work" (or being tired "in the normal way", at the end of the day or after an exhausting labour) would mean: our capacities to act, our strength etc is available "in the normal way" as well - we know what we can (and where our limits are), and we are "enitled to expect" that to go on IF... there is no abnormal feeling, bad feeling, feeling tired and exhausted without reason etc (or other irregular events happening within or on our bodies) - which would mean that we already are or are becoming ill. Which, in turn, would make us question what might have caused that disturbance of the normal course of events - in terms of the "normal function" of our bodies.

At this point, I would like to correct my original reconstruction of OPP thinking: They don't treat the entirety of their reproductional practice according to the model of "a technical device", but more precisely, according to the model of "using a technical device" - a concept that immediately would have to be completed by the term " normal circumstances (of usage)". With this emendation, I can ask the question: At which point does this concept miss the completely different character of the inevitably "experimental" nature of a reproduction practice? Or, to put it in other words: Which aspect of that practice is ignored if you try to represent it as being the kind of summed up entirety of all single measures ("usages of technical and/or prognistic devices") occurring within it - as though it was a single huge such measure, a ever repeated procedure, being assembled of numerous sub-procedures - the resulting overall procedure being performed within the environment (as far as it is relevant for us), in other words: "" normal circumstances (of (its) usage)". A set of circumstances (the entirety of which would make up what we had called "normalcy", the regular course of events) which have been treid and tested and proven to be reliable since long - because they are the way of life we grew up within, and which never did stop working - within a more or less broad or narrow range of varieties (in this or that regard).
So, this expectation of a certain regularity, provenness (within that range) is the contribution of the "technical device"-compound of the underlying metaphor; but there is another portion in that seducibly plausible comparison of the entirety of the reproduction practice to the character of the elements which make it up, that other portion is the fact that we not only recognise the extent of (ir)regularity in trying to perform necessary steps (or some varieties hereby adapting to some changes within our environment) but do feel it, too: by the intensity of the expectation affect (tainted according to the practical and physical situation when the course of events begins which is surprisingly different than had been expected) that is provoked by any deviation from "the normal course".

Whereas this compound during the normal flow of work is kind of mute, almost the reverse is true of the other compound in case of surprising deviations:  For OPP persons, as for everybody else, it is possible to fall back on renewed technical experiments, exploring the proper causes of the respective failure or of the unexpected success - in order to repair the malfunction or prevent it from happening, or in order to reproduce the conditions for that special sucsess (such that one would not have to only rely on and wait for a repetition of the favorable coincidence) and build further on its (reproducable) happening. Now, for everybody operating and thinking beyond OPPortunistic "normal planning" methods, this orientation towards a purely "object"-related approach to something unexpected and new (which simultaneously affects our practice in a relevant regards) would be the only possibility to react to it. OPP people, however, have some additional possibilities to process the respective experience - and that is the consequence of a much bigger range of choices available to them for to CLASSIFY the according event: whether to ignore it or not; what and how much to do about it, how urgent that is; possible causes and/or preconditions and/or signs preventing it from happening or making it happen; considering possible series or common qualities which would make it belong to certain sets of precedents (which would have to be treated similarly) - look for the regularity in it; what does it mean for the whole of our capacities to act (and not only the physical ones; although the parallel is striking) - for what do I have to be prepared as from now?
Or, to put in somewhat different words:
1st, is this an exception, or is it the manifestation of a change in (our knowledge of) rules and regularities in a relevant regard? And if the latter one,
2nd, so what change is entailed by that as to the entirety of the practical rules or recipes (at least those of relevance for our reproduction practice) we will be following from now on,...?
3rd,  ...and what does that mean particularly for the entirety of risks and chances we have to be prepared for in terms of reserves of capacities to act and strengths?

The question which in turn is to be raised within this theoretical reconstruction of the way of "OPP" thinking is: What kind of categories do they use in classifying (and processing) surprising events like that?  
And, not to forget about this one: What important or even decisive aspect is being missed in this approach?

The key concept from which any response to these questions has to start is: normalcy. The ongoing impression that "everything in our lives is running normally, regularly, as ever (with only variations in this or that regard, within the expected limits), and above all: as it is expected" - this impression or experience is interrupted and kind of breaks down in the case of a surprise. And whatever OPP people do from then on is directed to the aim of restoring, regaining normalcy - not necessarily the same one, but one that would be equal to the genuine one except for one or more smaller or bigger fragments that have changed - fragments of the niext, the more perfect normalcy - one that appears to be appropriate to the entirety of our experience (made up by former normalcy, maybe some "disturbing" or "surprising" events (ordered according to some asprects they may have in common) in the past; and the new and last one). And how OPP people are asking is a symptom of what idea of "normalcy" in general they have.

Fundamentally, the understanding of OPP people of what a normal and well-functioning practice of reproduction might be will not be any different from what everybody (if there are any such left outside OPP thinking) would call such. A well ordered and operative reproduction practice would be a system of practical rules to perform, in a sensible order, and with space left for reactions to positive and negative events (starting with weather events, eg) that should be dealt with in a maximum useful manner (and which to be happening is to be reckoned with, with a certain frequency and quality - all of that within certain "normal" limits). So that is what we are prepared for in whatever we are "doing" within that practice; the part of "doing as if" within the practice might be guided by a kind of overall hypothesis like: "... doing as if what we are prepared for to happen (the ordinary as well as the extraordinary) is exactly what has to be expected as something of relevance to this very practice in this very environment at all; as long as it has not been falsified...". - Surprises, hence, ARE falsifications of that hypothesis; the question is: facing that - what shall we do next?

In some regard, the account was not quite accurate I just had given of what non-OPP people (in contrast to OPP ones) would do when confronting an unexpected breakdown of their mental and physical capacities to act, viz. of the "normal" function of a technical and/or prognostic device or method. Of course, they would start explorations as to possible causes, conditions or at least signs for these events taking place - but the big difference compared to OPP people is: The non-OPP or people with an "experimental" approach to reality were PREPARED for anything like that - at least in emotional regards. As a consequence, except for real catastrophes or emergency cases when it is about mobilizing reserves for to prevent life threatening dangers or possible damages against people or important production assets, they would show the according emotions of increased efforts (beyond normal tiredness), maybe even heightened to the utmost extent possible - or they would take "rewards" because of the attritional nature of labour and hardship they have to endure over a long period of time - or being depressed and having to cope with huge losses in improtant regards that would impair their entire way of life. None, however, of these emotions ever would be caused by anything like an "expectation" that nothing like that might happen - because experimental people DO know that it is possible every moment in their lifetime. And as much as a person can be prepared for that - THEY are! They are prepared in never giving away reserves of their physical and mental capacities to act in order to spend them on possible successes they are more or less convinced they might accomplish (another word is: hope, with more or less assuredness). They never would spend those reserves without real need - ie. threats to their lives and lifestyle. Their entire lives and lifestyles are designed as being experiments - facing the fact that coincidences as well as yet unknown dangers and risks still loom within our environment - we are far off from being able to control all and everything, to foresee what will happen, to prevent it from happening, and to cope with the consequences. To a lesser extent, the same insights are true regarding opportunities to seize a chance (which to omit would be labelled by OPP people as a token of taking a risk, a case of negligence, let a damaging event happen without active resistance).

The difference between "experimental" and OPP approach to the world is not in that the OPP one can not be viewed as being an experiment or "doing as if" as well. The difference, however, would start with those two definitions of "doing as if" (or hypotheses) I had introduced at the beginning of part I: Those based on experience which usually are more and more confirmed and then would lead to some possible technical or prognostic usability; and those which can be falsified in some way or other, but never can be confirmed and in the long run cannot be "used" except in that regard that "doing as if" they were correct makes sense.

Within an experimental lifestyle, always an actual usage of the available capacities to act is being made (hereby consuming them up, in accordance with the natural cycles of (limited) activity, relaxing, rest, sleep) - this in combination with technical and prognostical devices, measures, methods, knowledge - aiming at exploiting chances and preventing/avoiding damages when and as long as they occur, be it to be foreseen (as to the when and where) in advance, by the help of signs, or without such. In every moment, this complex precariously composed of three compounds is in danger to disintegrate because of an actual or lasting failure of at least one of the compounds to the consequence that you would have to proceed to search for relevant relations between events, to try and to test ("confirming" the respective hypotheses, learning more about the conditions for the according causal relations being reliable), optimize measures to (at best) repair that failure, or otherwise to cope with it in some way or other. Each compound in case of a failure has to be dealt with in a suitable manner, the expected illness or unusual exhaustion other than technical or prognostical failures, and these other than changes in relevant regards within our environment.
The entire reproduction practice, the whole of life throughout is being viewed as a cautiously "doing as if" the confirmed information the practice is being based on, as well as the attempt to use it in an optimum combination, local application, timing of single actions, is "sufficient" for being able to continue as until now - however, that only as long as it is not "falsified" by a sudden failure - experimental people always will be prepared for such at any moment (dealing extremely cautiously with their reserves in any regard).
For experimental people, too, there are dimensions of reliability and usability of parts of their experience:
First of all, there is the question: what can we do at all? which parts of the world are we possibly in control of at all? "Control" here meaning all degrees starting from "being able to be there or make disappear, move wherever and how often one wants, modify in any dimensions and regards whatsoever, prevent from and/or make happening (at least one of the two), using signs as to when and where something of regard will occur, knowing how often and about where something of interest will occur etc".
The next question is: To really make use of that control power (which is available in principle) - how expensive will it be in terms or resources consumed up in that use? How many risks with which frequency can occur in using it such that they add to the original cost - how much, how likely? How many risks may occur in terms of secondary damages done to other pórtions of our actual reproduction practice if this practice is being fit in?
The third question is: How much do we really know about the causal relations and frequencies which are established in all these claims? How reliable, how stable are the facts themselves - and how comprehensive was the trying and testing before?
It is the same kind of questions as OPP people would ask, but referring to the ELEMENTS of the entire reproduction practice - or even, the elements of the elements: NonOPP people would explain why a surprise (surprisingly favourable or failing event or course of events) occurred - they would identify the responsible cause in terms of: something within our capacities to act has changed - or something within our tools and methods has changed - or something within the environment.
OPP people in fact have the same possibilities to question and do research as well, but they have way more to choose, and by far more important ones from their perspective. Because for OPP people, analyzing a "proven" practice regarding the elements which make it up (used capacities to act - tools, methods - the position of that particular practice within the whole of the reproduction "cycles" - and: the environment where that reproduction is taking place) is not obligatory at all, quite to the contrary: To them, it is way more natural to proceed the experience availble to them up to that moment from a perspective where failure or a surprisingly favorable turn of events is being explored with relation to the possible conditions, signs, frequencies and rhythms (regularities) of happening, or even opportunities to prevent (the failures) or generate them (the favorable turns). To nonOPP people, this is not an alternative at all but just the consequence of whatever they think they know about the elements involved in the practice - a consequence which would propagate itself up to the level of possible favorable extension or damaging and deteriorating options within the overall reproduction (in that given environment) itself. And again, OPP people would not hesitate to do the same - the only difference being that they never would unconditionally accept the quality of the entirety of the reproduction practice (or even the chances for progress and risks of backlashes in the future) as just being the consequence of what has been learned so far about the fundamental ingredients (more or less reliable up to now, more or less confirmed and hence "justifying their feeling entitled to expect" etc) - and nothing else - except the fact, that every such consequence, every composition of such ingredients cannot be more than an experiment and ongoing "doing as if" - because the entirety of conditions within bodies and tools and, above all, relevant parts of the environment still is unknown (not being controlled) to us. To be more precisely, OPP people even would agree that "not knowing enough" is very relevant to them - if they were able to tell the difference (sometimes they are), they would say: They only want to find out and determine the DEGREE in which not to know enough really does affect them. Or, to put it the other way around, they try to explore the degree of reliablity and "ability to be tried and tested to be such" portions of their entire  practice can achieve - due regard being given to possible causes, conditions, signs, temporal or spatial rhythms of occurence for preventing or fostering the respective item.
To the consequence, that the three fundamental questions as to:
- manageability, controllability (and level of control) in general
- affordability (in terms of possible costs in a possible reproduction design for achieving and retaining such control in best and (more important) worst cases - considering the entirety of our resources)
- certainty and degree of acquaintance with and proven reliability of the underlying regularity (at a given level of experience in a special environment)
are being applied to all and every part of a current reproduction practice in a special environment - as if they were "elements" themselves and might be explored besides and in addition to the parts or portions down to the real "elements" they are composed of.
The quality of having been proven and "confirmed" of such non-elementary fragments or even the entirety of a practice is no other than what above already had been designated as "normalcy" or "provenness", it is the (presumed) quality of that practice as a whole (and a fortior of its fragments) of "to an optimum degree having been tried and tested". - The experiment, then, OPP people are conducting throughout their lifetime is aimed at exploring and establishing how far that quality may reach, where (under which circumstances) its limits are, and how to possibly move these limits.  

Part IV.

OPP people use a certain set of concepts or categories in order to characterize the way how they reason or how they get to conclusions as to how and when, facing which experiences, they would have to change (or just continue) their practice. In a first approach above I had compared that kind of reasoning to the way one would talk about using a technical or prognostic tool, device, method (hereby fitting together and letting cooperate an objective mechanism and chain of causes on one hand, special and often highly selected and skilled body (and mental) movements ("doing the right thing at the right moment, at the right place") on the other). The conceptual properties shared by both, reproductional practice and usage of technical methods and devices, on first sight are striking: Both may have been uncertain, but have passed through a more or less longlasting process of trying and testing and optimizing, hereby accumulating experience as to favorable and unfavorable circumstances which might disturb, damage or even completely make impossible to successfully carry out the according actions (circumstances which might be able to be controlled to a certain extent within certain limits) etc.
And that comparison appears to be even trivial because of the fact that a reproductional practice is nothing but the series of single usages of technical devices etc which have been selected for that overarching practise - seemingly no other than in combining technical and prognostical (or measuring etc) procedures as single steps in order to bring about and keep running a complex technical device or effect in general.
So what would be the difference between such a complex technical device or procedure, and a reproductional practice?

As I just have said, a reproduction practice is a composition of single technical usages or measures. Whereas every technical action, be it "experimental" or (after having been confirmed to a sufficient degree) more or less "routine", is part of a reproduction practice (in the most extreme case, it is part of an attempt to build up such a practice within an unknown or destroyed environment) - the reverse case is not true: Every reproduction practice is more than the sum, or even "sensible composition" and timing of all those single technical measures and steps that would make it up. Why is that? Because in a reproduction practice, in carrying out one of the scheduled steps after the other, you at the same time would be consuming up your capacities to act - they are limited, only available in portions, at special times of the day, and not very much more so beyond those limits (reserves have to be restored after having been used up). The same applies to all other scarce resources (which may or may not be available at certain times or seasons, like products of agriculture, or at certain places which are not easy to get to, like minerals in mines etc). So you have to economize on your resources of all kind, you have to be in time, at the right places in order to use the favorable conditions there, and to avoid being present whereever damaging effects can be expected (or you have to provide something to prevent them from happening, saving reserves for compensating for possible damages etc). And that being in time at the right location, and knowing (eg by signs) how and when to find, obtain, keep the necessary resources is not even sufficient because you in addition would have to use them in a special way such that you bring about a lot of effects you have to build on in order to reproduce the foods and instruments and everything else necessary to repeat (or appropriately vary, or experimentally extend the number and qualities of) all those steps - including the most important "instrument" of all: yourself, ie your capacities to act physically and mentally.
Are OPP people really so stupid to simply ignore that fundamental difference between "using (or trying and testing9 a technical device" and "the entirety of an actual reproduction practice"? And if they aren't - what is still missing in my description of their account of how they are thinking?
Let me start from the presumedly most important detail within that difference  - a detail which is recognized and regarded by OPP people, too: Losing control of a technical device due to some malfunction and/or damaging circumstances in most cases is not an existential risk, whereas "existential threat" in most cases is tantamount to "losing control of one's capacities (in some regard) to reproduce in one`s actual environment". How do OPP people react to such catastrophes? The one and only response they have for that is: To ask why they had not been prepared for that. If everything within their version of normalcy had been correct something like that had not been possible - not with that not being prepared for it. And that is why OPP people would seek an at least hypothetical explanation as to the missing preparedness - something in the past MUST have been wrong with their way to build expectations from experience - such that they look for the "optimum" change of their maxims as to what they have to be prepared for, and for what not (same is true for surprisingly lucky events - so lucky that not being prepared for them (or even not being able to fully exploit them, make the best of them etc) is a catastrophe in itself, namely the catastrophe of missing out on obviously existing opportunities.) - OPP people would not assume that they can expect all and everything just in favor for them, or cope with all and everything damaging within their environment; they just assume and make it the base for their way of processing experience: that there MUST be a set of rules to build expectations derived from (surprising) experience (depending on conditions, times, locations, each alone, or in combination: core ideas of what makes up superstition) they finally can rely on. The very core of these rules would be: how to proceed, or rather: how to understand and interprete those cases when something seemingly reliable turns out to be otherwise: Is there a change in the world, and if so - what is the pattern behind it? Could it be that the underlying knowledge was not sufficient for to be certain - so how UNreliable and risky might cases like this (but which are the "like" ones?) be? And, even more generalizing: Is this riskyness limited to this special set of cases (conditions, circumstances, locations, times etc) - or are more surprising events looming out there (of favorable as well as unfavorable character) - and would we have to change our general attitude towards the environment we have to live in, and to deal and cope with?

So the most general prejudice (one may call it their "optimum hypothesis") of OPP people is: There must be some variety of "reliable expectations" to the effect that we can base our routine of reproduction on it (however small and miserable and shrunk it might be, compared to a starting point in the past). In other words, OPP people CANNOT believe that there is nothing reliable in their world, and that they are doomed forever to conduct that big overarching experiment as to whether reproduction is possible within this environment (at least possible in that way they currently have shaped and scheduled that reproduction).

With relation to "reliablity of a practice", three fundamental categories are involved:
1st the general capacities to act, physically and mentally - as far as we are experienced in using them (and knowing the possible causes of their enhancement and/or deterioration, exhaustion, illness etc);
2nd the inventory of technical and prognostic devices, tools, methods we currently have in our command (know how) - at least in that we can make them available with the current means by building and producing the necessary instruments, take the necessary measures für to (re-)establish routine usage of them after a change in technologies etc - this may be called our technical abilities in the limited scope and frame of our present material capabilities incl. knowledge; in fact, this is the possible entirety of a given reproduction practice (in a given environment, and a given stage and level of experience gained about it) with its fringe of alternative options for single steps (and the methods, tools, devives that are currently being used at that step - the seriesof steps themselves can be seen as a kind of method, alternatives for it being a similar but varied method; the method which actually has been adopted and chosen  is the plan or system of rules of a factual practice which might have been executed for a more or less longstanding period of time) 
3rd the entirety of materials, dispositions, facts within our nearer or wider environment which we don't have in our command and which yet are required to be there in sufficient quantities etc, or would have to function in the usual (eg cyclic) way, or give us signs for events of interest to us to be going to happen in the future such that we can prepare for that.
Whatever practice then is designed from any actual level of knowledge and capacities of these three types (and every "real" practice within its "given environment" just IS a special composition or kind of making use of the entirety of capacities of the three types) - and however proven and reliable that very practice might have turned out to be over a long period of term - there still are uncertainties looming out there, in special conditions, or due to future courses of events which may make it look unfavorable to have chosen this one of all options: Something yet unknown may enhance or decrease, deteriorate our capacities to act as well as the usefulness and appropriateness of our methods, those we more or less routinely apply for problem solving and producing effects within our actual practice, and beyond that all the more or less wellknown facts, dispositions etc we have rely on in our environment in order to keep on being able to (re)produce and predict whatever we have to.

As far as only a current "real" routine practice of reproduction is considered, we would not recognise much of anything more than "doing" (eventhough some episodes of trying and testing one detail or another still might be fit in now and then - just for to optimize certain technical details). However, it is the remaining risk as a consequence of the remaining yet unknown possibilities which inevitably dooms this doing to be just part of that "overarching experiment" we are forced to conduct during our entire lifetime - a never ending "doing as if".
As just had been said above, OPP people would not at all deny that. Their special way to deal with that fact is being based on a special response they would give as to why and when a surprising event with obvious consequences (favorable or damaging) for their current practice has occurred. And that special interpretation of theirs would lead to the consequence that they constantly view the so-called overarching experiment as being one that delivers partly confirmed results, and partly falsified ones.

The special understanding of how their practice is working regularly starts from a point where nothing can be said but: Everything is in order, well-functioning, runs smoothly - the practice is going as it is expected to do. Every "successfully" absolved step or entire cycle (of such ever to be repeated, within a given environment; possibly with some emendations as scheduled now and then) is a "confirmation" or increase of "provenness" of the practice - which includes the manageability of what we believe to be able to manage as well as the affordability of that "management" activities. Whereas not so much, if at all, is proven as to the usefulness (or inutility) of what we are NOT doing.
So what is possibly falsified when we experience some serious backlash or failure, at least in terms of "expectations" and hence "preparedness" - how would what has been confirmed up to then be shaken?
The most simple reaction might be: It has not to be shaken at all, the incident (to OPP people even a lucky surprise they are not prepared for is such) can be ignored ("once doesn't count.") - particularly, if it can be interpreted as just a portent and symptom which does not entail immediate need for action. But let us assume it does, either on a subjective or even objective base. Then...
...the three categories by which we assessed the quality of our practice before now all of a sudden split from each other, and each offers a possible explanation and according practical and research strategy - all starting from two different and very fundamental point of views:
1st the new condition is due to some fault within the former practice, or
2nd it is due to some change in the environment - which, in the end, is a fault in the pattern we follow in building our expectations, too.
The point is: that these fundamental perspectives - though looking different in the beginning - both will lead to changes in exactly the same regards - possible changes in the "value" of one or more of the three interdependent dimensions which had been "mute" during the period when all went well, namely either
a. the value of manageability and level of control in some regard; if there are clues as to which technique might be in need for improvement or has to be replaced by some other method which would perform the same effect, some practical tests and trials may be take place in order to regain the original level of control (or to at least achieve some lesser or higher level, to which we would have to attune the values of all parameters depending on that new level); or (or in addition, respectively)
b. the values of risk assessment (incl. the risks of neglecting opportunities) and hence the scheduled reserve capacities of all kind assigned to certain sub-tasks within the entirety of our reproductional routine (to the consequence that the complete amount of resources to be spread on the entirety of tasks may increase (and then possibly turn out to be less than required), or remain the same, or even can be diminished; that, again, accompanied by changes regarding the sub-tasks themselves such that the present routine practice has to be changed to a more or lesser degree); or (or in addition, respectively)
c. the values of overall "easiness" or "hardship" of the current way of life and reproduction in general - in terms of: what we have to reckon with in worst and best or just most cases; the most important part within that assessment being the degree of reliablity ("provenness") or uncertainty and (apparent, or even obvious) unfamiliarity with portions of our environment that possibly are relevant for our being well or ill, for "prosperity or adversity" in general (which does include some resignation as to our current (and maybe future) ability to control, foresee, prevent, procure, modify relevant facts etc - with consequences as to risks and hence again the general level of "easiness" and "reliability" of the important parameters of our lives.

In all three cases: level of control or manageability (in principle) - affordability (with current resources) - provenness, a guess or estimation is involved as to what might happen if possible further practical consequences have to be drawn when better knowing that part of the environment which is undiscovered and unknown as yet ("the remaining unknown" RU). This is still true when as in case a. it is about construing some trials and experiments - even there is a guess as to when the amount for further research appears to be "too big" which is tantamount to "there will nothing to be found out there - at least not in relevant periods of time".    

However, in each case not only a quantitative guess is formed but a qualitative one as well: The present practice is THE practice per se, there are no alternatives - not only is no such knowledge of alternatives or technical capacities available at all, it is not even seeked or researched for by systematic experiments - that would presuppose a certain idea of what might be found out there in the world or environment - which from an OPP perspective is only worthwhile to think about if there is some relevant precedent and the possible "experiments" (or alternatives for a fragment within the practice) can claim a certain similarity (in some "relevant" regard) to those precedents (which are viewed as such only by that operation to lump or classify them all together as being a class of its own). In that case, the idea of similarity can even extended to quite bizarre magnitudes - in cases of urge and emergency (something very important suddenly is missing, a substitute has to be found, there still is no limit for continuing the "research" in terms of possible methods which might be tried and tesetd), all and every possible classification can be considered in order to try "something similar to what has been effective in other cases of that (? next classification!) kind". In cases of practical doing something to achieve effects you are being in urgent need of, this is the offspring of magical practice; in cases with reduced ambition and/or just the need for being prevented of stepping in dangerous conditions, avoiding them in advance, it is the start of heeding superstitious warning signs.
Of course, one has to concede that the technical rationality of OPP people is the same as in every person (all the more since almost every person belongs to them); the difference occurs when real technical means have failed and no proper substitute is available. OPP people deny resigning in such cases; instead they start to squeeze more possible opportunities to control out of the entirety of their actual experience.
However, the efforts they would spend on these tasks are limited by the emotional of affective estimation as to how long this still is worthwhile, and how relevant the respective fragment of the practice is such that it has to be substituted by almost any prize. That is why the often hectic and preciptated research in urgent cases comes to an abrupt end when the emotional frustration (being based on the original expectation as to the provenness, the "right to expect that actions like THESE cannot fail" etc) signals: it is not worthwhile any longer, the emotional reserves have been consumed up. So there is no room left for real and continuing research in an average OPP life - unless there is (by which (mostly historical, cultural) development ever) some evidence indication that such research might be useful if not "a tried and tested practice (at least for some purposes or lifestyles)".

So that "what has been normal and proven until now",  to OPP people indeed forms their fundamental attitude towards the remaining unknown within their environment, determining what kind of experiments ("similar to..") when ("when there is an occasion, incentive, cue in the shape of something happening other than had been expected") how long ("until the pre-determined reserves have been consumed up") has to be carried out in order to deal with the missing knowledge. The outcome in every case cannot be otherwise than a new version of a "normal practice" (with expectations, a system of rules that is tried and tested "at least from now on" etc) - allegedly being based on "the entirety of experience which has been obtained within this environment by oursleves as well as our predecessors who have been living here for so long a time and passing on their knowledge over generations etc".) In fact, much of that experience gets lost and may be re-discovered again and again - because the progress and alleged enhancement of experience consists just in as much dropping and forgetting about former elements of practice (and the underlying knowledge) as in increases and bettering: New fragments of practice mostly are not added but only replace and substitute the "failed ones" - without establishing in most cases as to why the failure occured and in which circumstances it would be appropriate to still use that type of action that was dismissed at that occasion.

Whereas these findings contain the most important common qualities of the categories from which OPP people use to mount their actual "normal practice, with all those legitimate expectations relating to it", the following remarks will refer to the differences, namely a-c and 1+2.

a, b, c:
c. is almost completely "emotional" (however with the overall assessment of "easiness" as an essential measure as to how much effort can be spent at best on trying to find a substitute for portions of the actual practice that would enable to continue work as before and get over some isolated breakdown or, in case of sudden favorable occasions and perspectives, set free resources, the usage of which in the present way would hamper a bigger rebuild of the present practice into one that would make use of the new perspective.
The scope, in turn, of alternative methods (including those found by trying "something similar to something that worked to such effects as now are needed") in a. is of purely practical nature,
Finally b. - the arrangement of practical steps consuming resources (and saving reserves for possible damages or favorable perspectives) within the practice in terms of times and location and possible interfering circumstances obviously is a combination of both - which is cause dby the fact, that resources as well as reserves are composed of physical and mental capacities to act on one hand, and technical devices, tools, facts, disposition and material with limited capacities for usage, on the other.

The only difference between 1st and 2nd is:
If we suppose the 2nd possibility, we have to define a new rule as to when to expect such changes (by which signs), and a certain system of technical rules in order to deal with opportunities and risks given the conditions "before" and "after" - even beyond that, we possibly have to define principles for the expectation of changes "of that kind" (which kind? try to find the "according" precedents and tell the "decisive" similar quality in all of them...). No difference is being made between unforeseen and as yet unpredictable external changes (which appeared for the first time), on one hand, and our not knowing enough about dispositions and conditions for such changes, appearances etc, on the other.
If we take the 1st interpretation of the surprise, that would need a new rule of building ideas as to what makes up normalcy - the same step as just has been said about an additional second measure to be taken when dealing with the 2nd possibility. No difference is being made between knowing that there is no chance to cope with certain circumstances - at least when spending so little efforts and resources on it as are available at current for doing so - on one hand; and: not having tried and tested enough for to be able to decide which amount of resources, time etc is necessary for which degree of control,
So the 2nd perspective on "surprise" is a combination of steps as we know it from installing and establishing or re-arranging the regular procedures of making use of a given technology - procedures we schedule within the entirety of actions necessary for our reproduction and which we repeat in cycles; a special portion of that installation consists in providing sufficient parts of our capacities to act for to carry out these special procedures. The 1st step just omits the "technique" part of the technical installation and directly refers to the actual way we spread the (presumably available) capacities to act we need to perform the entirety of our reproduction or a special part of it - the change is done by assigning single portions of these capacities to special tasks. This might (but has not to) lead to re-arrangements of single usages of technologies; the same way as that "dealing with possible changes in the environment which affect our ability to carry out necessary stepf with our reproduction" might result in re-arranging the fundamental assignment of strengths on tasks and even the level of saving reserves for possible risks and opportunities.

Both interpretations are ways of dealing with the OPP person's cognitive and emotional relation to their yet unknown parts of the environment and the fact of their not knowing enough and not being sure enough.
The difference obviously is in priorities of changes to be made: In 1st, it is going from c>b (and maybe >a); in 2nd, from a>b (and maybe >c).
Trying to obtain more knowledge in both regards (conditions for changes; necessary expenditure in terms of capacities to act, resources, time) as an option is not completely excluded - eventhough it is rarely being chosen as a routine way to cope with surprises; to the consequence, that it is equally rareley found when OPP people seek for "precedents" as to the question which might be a possible option facing a certain surprise of type 1 or 2. The experience that relevant benefit can be derived from obtaining knowledge, hence, is almost always combined with the impression that uselful knowledge of all kind can be gained only coincidentally. To the effect, that there is no chance for OPP people to at least gradually enrich their practice with experimental and exploring strategies - unless there is some space left for such "unuseful amusement", and for some reason or other, it is part of the according OPP person's idea of a proven "normal practice" they have become used to.

Part V.