Surprise!

From: Bill Barowy (wbarowy@lesley.edu)
Date: Wed May 09 2001 - 10:38:22 PDT


Did anyone know that it is Judy's birthday? Not me!

   Ay, madam, it is common.
                             (Hamlet)

surprise, as the encounter with the unexpected, the toppling of unawareness, disappears in knowing the conditions of its emergence. to apply it within at is to relate it, delineate it, hence know it, know it better, and thus whatever it is that was before labeled as surprise becomes less so unexpected, less so 'it', and 'it' passes through knowing to be less useful for explanatory power. Is it not that surprise has any explanatory power except to put a label, in part, on our reaction to the loss of our innocence -- what we do not know or expect is a surprise. That is not to say that surprises will not continue, but that with each development in our understanding we preclude some of them.

Hamlet et al.'s initial and subsequent reactions to 'it' tell of the collective sense-making about what was the cause of their surprise. And then, about the play within a play, Claudius was quite surprised, but not so Hamlet, the latter having written the piece.

bb

>of course it makes sense, since before polonius 'it' has made sense.
>
>the question is, is it of use within AT?
>
>Judy
>
>ps -- Bill, are you also saying that once 'it' becomes useful, it isn't it
>any more? which is not quite where i would land
>
>
>
>At 08:42 AM 5/9/01 -0400, you wrote:
>>At 12:01 AM -0400 5/9/01, Judy Diamondstone wrote:
>>>
>>>perhaps in the take-up, which is where improvisation occurs
>>>the surprises are 'there' for the attentive....
>>
>Bill writes
>>
>>" 'tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity;
>>And pity 'tis 'tis true: a foolish figure;
>> (Polonius in Hamlet)
>>
>>I think Phillip's expression "against all odds" brings some definition to
>"surprise", and I'm wondering this morning if the very act of its
>definition precludes its appearance. Events flow smoothly in YE's
>activity theory, with present tensions having evolved over historical
>changes in a system and its neighbors, due in turn to prior tensions and
>disruptions, and with the present preceding those to come. What we see as
>a surprise is something that violates our expectations for what is to have
>happened. (I hit "save" on my computer this moment as I think of what is
>to be written next).
>snip
> We look forward by looking backward (the ghost of prolepsis reminds me),
>and a theory that looks backward so well cannot help but help in driving
>away what is not expected to happen. 'tis pity tis true.
>>
>>"That we find out the cause of this effect,
>>Or rather say, the cause of this defect,
>>For this effect defective comes by cause:
>>Thus it remains, and the remainder thus. Perpend. "
>>
>>I am surprised to read a cry for a collective theory, when one is
>underneath our magnifying lens, but perhaps this is because the lens is too
>close, and the theory is too large to be encompassed at any time by a
>single lens that can reveal any detail. But anything beginning with, and
>keeping faithful to, the original ideas of Vygotsky and Leont'ev and so
>and so and so on and so on, could not be anything else, n'est pas? When we
>are close enough to an elephant to touch it, we think it's a snake, or a
>tree. And how do we really know it's an elephant -- ask it? Sorry, it
>doesn't speak our language. Would we be surprised to see an elephant if
>we could only remove what blinds us? We might need to realize first that
>we are blind, and then develop the sight, and in doing so, we would begin
>to re-cognize what we see, and that upon finally seeing an elephant, we
>would have had a history of seeing such things and not be surprised. It
>*is* a snake, AND it *is* a tree, and much much more.
>>
>>Does any of this make sense?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
>>Lesley University
>>29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
>>Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
>>http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
>>_______________________
>>"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
> > and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
>>[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
>>
>>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:14 PDT