It really does help Brian. The separation of expectation and occurrence explanation jives with where my mind went and wanted to go. It makes very efficient sense compared to my wandering musings. Thanks.
I think that expectations and reality are often at odds, but it is when we are heavily invested emotionally that the distance between pushes us to some type of action. Filed and done. Confirmation.
I really like these definitions as well. This is less opaque for my sensibilities. Let me know if this works:
Potential has to do with the possibility that:
reality and desired reality are "have your cake and eat it too" (cannot coexist). Thus, one must destory the other for a Throughline to be balanced (happy, Zen, whatever);
reality and desired reality are complimentary to each other in such a way that a third thing (compromised reality) can come to be that completely exhausts, or lessons the potential (energy) for conflict between the original reality and desired reality.
Current could be represented by physical activities (physics) or mental activities (psychology) directed at a reality (universe) or desired reality (mind) to either:
completely remove the reality in question;
completely remove the specific desire in question;
creating a third reality that satisfies the original reality and original desired reality via compromise. This making the current dormant or slowed considerably.
Outcome or Power is any remaining potential that still exists that could be affected by a catalyst or inhibitor or new context but is resolved (at least temporarily or for the time being);
the reality or desired reality has come to be dominant and the other is destroyed;
a new reality forms that is balanced (a workable compromise).
I suspect what you are talking about is true, but I see the practicality of choosing a dominant mental sex.
I wonder if mental sex can be simplified (greatly) by saying one sex looks at the micro outcome vs. the macro outcome. Or that one looks at the gain vs. cost and the other the gain vs. the total cost. It's seems simple enough.
I've seen mention of dominant senses in some of readings as of late and I think the practicality exists there as well. When setting a scene, we could very well hit a reader with sensory input from all five senses but choosing two works in our favor as it saves time and it defines our characters by exclusion or preference.
It took me a long time write this. So your comment @jhull just showed up for me (as I scrolled down). For some reason this description really clicks for me. Thanks all.