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