Subject
Re: [NABOKOV-L] An armless painter and coincidences
From
Date
Body
Tori Alexander: "...Coincidences are really a lot of fun, if you let them be coincidences. Take another look at Nabokov's writings on mimicry with this in mind and he'll make you laugh. It's hysterical, really, the jokes that nature can play on us. Nabokov got the joke!*
JM: I loved Laura Buxton's "red balloon story" and other reports about coincidences.Some of the commentaries from the site follow Arthur Koestler's observations in his book "The Roots of Coincidence." - namely, that statistically predictable events touch people differently when examined at an individual level: some enjoy the joke while others see it as a signal or a blessing. I suppose Nabokov was affected in both ways and selected humor when he, as an author, played God...
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
*V.A added: "Your comment is spot on" [...] "It's interesting to note that...scientists argue using probability theory that such coincidences are to be expected to occur every so often, and it is just a coincidence, remarkable though it may seem and no other explanation is necessary. NeoDarwinists, in contrast to these scientists who do appreciate the jokes that chance plays on us, believe that the coincidence that one butterfly might look like another needs an explanation. (This is not very remarkable, since all butterflies share a common wing "groundplan" that can only be altered within limits.) NeoDarwinists suppose that predators gradually (more or less) select for more similar forms and so "create" the mimicry...While butterfly prey may select for a similar form once it is in existence, natural selection is not needed to explain how it arose in the first place. It arises by a fairly likely chance."
JM: Spot on! ...an interesting choice of wording - because it came from you.
I began, at last, to understand one of the NeoDarwinistic readings of natural selection, set in contrast to other scientist's views on the effects of chance. One must now reconsider Einstein's exasperated comment "God does not play dice" and Mallarmé's preface about "Un Coup de Dés jamais n'abolira le hasard." Thanks.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
JM: I loved Laura Buxton's "red balloon story" and other reports about coincidences.Some of the commentaries from the site follow Arthur Koestler's observations in his book "The Roots of Coincidence." - namely, that statistically predictable events touch people differently when examined at an individual level: some enjoy the joke while others see it as a signal or a blessing. I suppose Nabokov was affected in both ways and selected humor when he, as an author, played God...
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
*V.A added: "Your comment is spot on" [...] "It's interesting to note that...scientists argue using probability theory that such coincidences are to be expected to occur every so often, and it is just a coincidence, remarkable though it may seem and no other explanation is necessary. NeoDarwinists, in contrast to these scientists who do appreciate the jokes that chance plays on us, believe that the coincidence that one butterfly might look like another needs an explanation. (This is not very remarkable, since all butterflies share a common wing "groundplan" that can only be altered within limits.) NeoDarwinists suppose that predators gradually (more or less) select for more similar forms and so "create" the mimicry...While butterfly prey may select for a similar form once it is in existence, natural selection is not needed to explain how it arose in the first place. It arises by a fairly likely chance."
JM: Spot on! ...an interesting choice of wording - because it came from you.
I began, at last, to understand one of the NeoDarwinistic readings of natural selection, set in contrast to other scientist's views on the effects of chance. One must now reconsider Einstein's exasperated comment "God does not play dice" and Mallarmé's preface about "Un Coup de Dés jamais n'abolira le hasard." Thanks.
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/