MISTAKES VS. UNEXPECTED OUTCOME  One of the biggest confusion arises when one doesn’t see the peculiarity of the situation that occurs and approaches it probabilistically. That is : he takes a new situation for something which seems similar to him. This way he ignores some details which seem unimportant to him. As a result, he faces unexpected outcome.

MISTAKES VS. UNEXPECTED OUTCOME  A much more challenging problem arises when there are no statistics, stochastic programming or sequential analysis to generate probabilities, considering especially that sequential analysis starts with some a priori probability distribution and may take an incredible amount of time or resources to produce an optimal solution. Additionally, there may be unique situations that by definition preclude any reliance on frequency of events whatsoever.

MISTAKES VS. UNEXPECTED OUTCOME  In this case, rather than observe a highly uncertain behavior of individual objects, we look at the behavior of the total ensemble formed by these objects, since the latter, generally speaking, are more amenable to statistical patterns; in other words, we reduce a unique situation to some previously known one by stripping the former of its specific unique features. This, however, is a pretty risky procedure since the specific features of a unique event could be quite significant, and eliminating them might result in a drastically distorted estimate of the likelihood of the situation occurring. (Concept of Indeterminism 27–28)

LORENZ  One of the most important discoveries was made in 1963, by the meteorologist Edward Lorenz, who wrote a basic mathematical software program to study a simplified model of the weather. Specifically Lorenz studied a primitive model of how an air current would rise and fall while being heated by the sun. Lorenz's computer code contained the mathematical equations which governed the flow the air currents. Since computer code is truly deterministic, Lorentz expected that by inputing the same initial values, he would get exactly the same result when he ran the program. Lorenz was surprised to find, however, that when he input what he believed were the same initial values, he got a drastically different result each time.

LORENZ  By examining more closely, he realized that he was not actually inputing the same initial values each time, but ones which were slightly different from each other. He did not notice the initial values for each run were different because the difference was incredibly small, so small as to be considered microscopic and insignificant by usual standards. The mathematics inside Lorenz's model of atmospheric currents was widely studied in the 1970's. Gradually it came to be known that even the smallest imaginable discrepancy between two sets of initial conditions would always result in a huge discrepancy at later or earlier times, the hallmark of a chaotic system, of course.

MISTAKES VS. UNEXPECTED OUTCOME  A mistake presumes that there were rules which, for some reason, were neglected or forgotten by one.  An unexpected outcome means that there was no method or rule for determining the best course of action.

THE GIFTS OF THE MAGI  “The magi, as you know, were wise men--wonderfully wise men--who brought gifts to the Babe in the manger. They invented the art of giving Christmas presents. Being wise, their gifts were no doubt wise ones, possibly bearing the privilege of exchange in case of duplication. And here I have lamely related to you the uneventful chronicle of two foolish children in a flat who most unwisely sacrificed for each other the greatest treasures of their house. But in a last word to the wise of these days let it be said that of all who give gifts these two were the wisest. Of all who give and receive gifts, such as they are wisest. Everywhere they are wisest. They are the magi. “

Positional & Combinational Sacrifice

The Last Leaf: Thinking in probabilities Behrman was a failure in art. Forty years he had wielded the brush without getting near enough to touch the hem of his Mistress’ robe. He had been always about to paint a masterpiece, but had never yet begun it. For several years he had painted nothing except now and then a daub in the line of commerce or advertising. He earned a little by serving as a model to those young artists in the colony who could not pay the price of a professional.

The Last Leaf: Thinking in probabilities  Old Behrman was a painter who lived on the ground floor beneath them. He was past sixty and had a Michelangelo’s Moses beard curling down from the head of a satyr along the body of an imp.

CONDITIONAL/UNCONDITIO NAL VALUES IN LITERATURE  A literary character can be analyzed from two different perspectives: from the point of view of his conditional importance (revealed through aspects of his everyday life, such as his status in society, his current position, and his relationships with friends and family) and his unconditional weight (appearing as a result of his interactions with the universe in the capacity of demiurge).

CONDITIONAL/UNCONDITIO NAL VALUES IN LITERATURE  The conditional evaluation of a character is based on his function in particular episodes. Conditional valuations of characters are revealed through the analysis of characters’ current achievements, their relationships with others, their present status in society, and the like.

CONDITIONAL/UNCONDITIO NAL VALUES IN LITERATURE  Names and or characters’ appearances often take the place of their unconditional valuations. The symbolism of names and/or appearances conveys a notion of the characters’ influence on the development of their universe, their ability to leave a trace in the memory of society.

CONDITIONAL/UNCONDITIO NAL VALUES IN LITERATURE  The integration of these two types of evaluation gives a richer understanding of the character’s predisposition, which cannot be exhausted by examining his momentary advantages or disadvantages.

CONDITIONAL/UNCONDITIO NAL VALUES IN LITERATURE  To integrate conditional and unconditional valuations of the character, one must compare all particular information with the unconditional weight of the character. The integration requires the ascription of weights, not the establishment of the average of given characteristics.

The Last Leaf: conditional evaluation  “He drank gin to excess, and still talked of his coming masterpiece.  For the rest he was a fierce little old man, who scoffed terribly at softness in anyone…  and who regarded himself as especial mastiff-in-waiting to protect the two young artists in the studio above.”

The Last Leaf: unconditional evaluation  Moses and satyr  Moses and imp

The Last Leaf: the metaphor for Satyr  Satyr  Satyrs belong to Dionysus’s retinue. Dionysus is a god of wine and agriculture.  Dionysus is a dying-reviving god.  Bear-Dionysus. Dionysus, was transformed into a bear.  Satyrs spent time on drinking, dancing, and chasing nymphs.

MOSES-SATYR

The Implied Space  Unlike the space of action (such as Verona in Romeo and Juliet, or Sorin’s estate in The Seagull) which is determined by the artist, the implied space is created by the interpreter through various metaphors. Using different styles and methods, the interpreter establishes efficient and semiefficient linkages between artistic and nonartistic structures; as a result, new objects appear to form an implied space.