...re this, bill-diddly-bo-diddly: re these rich questions:
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
>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....
>
>And about this point I would not be surprised, but rather see the moment
>to be pregnant for Jay to emerge with something stunningly relate-ive.
>But as I might be surprised by earthquakes and blackouts, others may not
>be today, and yet, I'll be disappointed in stead, maybe a bit too
>attentive, and if not disappointed, then I'll be surprised by it.
>
>" '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). Should Massachusetts go into a series of
>blackouts this very moment, it would be a surprise -- there is no
>history of doing so, and further, we have not saturated our power grid
>quite yet with our demand. We understand the cause of some blackouts.
>It would be a surprise for the ground underneath my feet to begin
>shaking, not only because these events are relatively rare in New
>England, but also because our theory of earthquakes does not place NE at
>fault. Once we come to know something in its dynamics, we come to be
>predictive and expectant of its future forms. 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."]
>
>
"my doctor says i wouldn't have so many nosebleeds if i would just keep my
finger out of there. "
Ralph Wiggums.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 01 2001 - 01:01:14 PDT