Lots of things to consider here. To be honest the thing which drew me to this thread somewhat was the fact that it reminded me of the scene in "Singing in the Rain" where one of the protagonists is taking linguistic lessons -
his toesis are roses, Moses supposes
Don't know how that can apply just yet but I keep thinking about the complicantions of knowing what, when, which, who, how and where. In many ways it connects to what Bob S has been trying to figure out in "Their dreams come true" thread - his overall conclusion (one which has had many advocates and signs on Lost) is simplified into two 'sides' - light and dark on a playing field which might be summed up as 'the Island' or the human soul (both as an individual and as a race). Dualities in other words, just as Up and Down or stay or escape are similar and possibly often the same kind of conflict or battle.
This simplified base conclusion plays out quite well, with Homers meta-conflict coming to the fore (the bad guys do indeed wear suits) - the off Island and On Island conflicts juxstaposed to each other. But there are so many intricacies with all the bit parts and the how and why of it all, that to over simplify in such a way maybe a bit bias. My original understanding on the conflict was that there was a macro and micro alternative outlook - also an internal and external conflict and this primarily had something to do with morality and sensibility. That is to say there are those who play the game and then there is a singular event that occurs where the choice isn't one of winning or loosing but whether one still retains some aspect of their humanity at the end of it regardless.
There is another kind of supposes here - that is a moral, ethical one.
You are not suppose to do certain things regardless of the sensibility of how it occurs in the overall game because it is the 'moral' thing to do - the means justifies the end over its inverse - the ends justifies the means.
That's one way of looking at it. In regards to macro/micro what this really means is that there is a major conflict between 'groups' and agenda's occuring here and then there is a smaller one, an inner world that is occuring in mirror to the greater and this also has to be taken in to account and is just as important. The individual characters and their struggle to understand themselves and the world is juxstaposed with the struggle of the Island and it's groups. The past is juxstaposed with the present and now the future.
The supposes is an element that must account for all these various conflicts.
Desmond for instance saw a 'future' where a certain action resulted in him finding Penny but meant that Charlie would have to die. He knew what he was 'suppose' to do - what pattern he had to follow to achieve a certain end or co'ordinate. However he chose to save Charlie - a moral choice - this is what he was suppose to do to remain human. I don't think Desmond will see Penny in the same sense as he would have done should he have let Charlie die. Charlie too eventually sacrifices himself for 'the greater good' - once again a moral choice. What one must do in order to save both themselves and others in a world where the ends justifies the means - this is usually the most narratively defined way in which the protagonist can retain 'free will' in the face of pre-determined tyranny.
Off coarse that doesn't mean that it wasn't part of the game plan regardless. Espeacially when the players are often pawns themselves, often of their own mechanism's.
I recall a conundrum posted awhile ago about actual knowledge and possible knowledge - that is to say that the higher Ominpient God in 'knowing' the actuality of future events is in some ways 'enslaved' to that knowledge if indeed (in being all powerful) God is aware of its 'actual' existence - God in being the 'creator' of all that is MUST therein 'make it happen' as it were, even if that includes 'evil'. Thus god's divine plan is infallible - it's actuallity has already occured (but it inturn enslaves God to its own divinations regardless of its outcome). If the Jedeo Christian God only knows the 'possibility' of a future event (thereby precluding that there are other futures) this in some way limits the constraints of such a being which therein creates fallibility - which is not a defined property of such a being but of a 'lesser God' - (one of the answers to this conundrum is that God has an 'opportunity' out side the constraints of time and space in which to choose to create the Universe or not and that this 'one time' deal is only in this 'beyond' place - complete with picnic table).
This conundrum also applies to our losties and our 'Island' in how much they and it knows of the future as 'actual' and how much they know as a 'possibility'. Desmond forays into the past and what he 'knows' are more aligned with actuality (since he has already experienced his awareness) but he can make minute changes that have 'already happened' or will happen in his future (as long as he is unaware of them up to a point - like his phone call to Penny). His future 'flashes' in the present however are more in lign with possibility and he can make corrections to his present that he must continue to make untill the time is right.
(In this sense Charlie was meant to die all along but he was 'kept' alive so that he could play his part in munipulating the board and fufill his destiny).
Locke too is plagued with the conundrum of doing what is right in terms of being human and doing what is right because the Island tells him too - what is he 'suppose' to do in light of this - he plays a dangerous game between the two 'supposes', one which often leads his followers to harms way either because he 'gets it wrong' or because what he 'believes' (the island) in is not ethically concerned for the welfare of lesser beings on a micro level OR possibly it is important that people 'choose' their descision, their overall sacrifice (for the greater good).
There is also another type of conflict, another type of supposes I might add - the writers themselves and the constraints of writing a T.V series - I'm sure Eko was 'suppose' to do a few more episodes at least but he had to leave the show and so was killed off. The writers write things 'open ended' which is part of the problem - and eventually it's solution. But mainly it's a problem because all our theories are talking about a possibility then - the actuallity of LOSTS future is still in the realm of possibility - though I'd like to think there is an overall pre-determined 'END", the past is open ended enough that the bits and pieces can change along the way creating entirely knew ways of 'pervieving' that end and who or what might be involved.
That's enough for now I'm tired but heres a few dainties from Bob's TDCT thread now buried deep in it's recesses. Hope it helps - also adds a bit of color.
How events are 'munipulated' in season ONE - the supposes in action.