Just an other note on "attentive" and "surprise". I believe that
microcultures that stimulate the openness to surprise and encourage focus
and attentiveness (for instance, Pierre Curie's home schooling and his
collaborative ideas during his and his brother's engagement with ponds)
contribute to what I have mentioned (via H. Gruber) as the construction of a
creative life. I would add the notion of co-construction of creative lives
to Gruber's term. These are greatly varied, they are not limited to the
famous and societally successful; they include participation in communities
of practice which support attentive-ness, and delight in "effective
surprise" Jerry Bruner's definition of creativity.
Vera
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Hodges <dhodges@ceo.cudenver.edu>
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 12:05 PM
Subject: trees & forests con'td
>...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 - 01:01:15 PDT