Note: This student seems to have missed some of the point of the article, but no matter: she is using a few paragraphs to try to grasp what the article is saying.
The current article, Phenomenology as a Rigorous Science, is very interesting. I found myself enthralled by the notion of "unusual" vs. "strange". What is unusual, I ask myself? To lose ones teeth in this way is, in fact, unusual…what is more "strange" is to come upon a crowd all gathered to either form an audience, or as participants in aiding the poor soul who flung them from his mouth. It is always strange when a crowd gathers to assist, rather than view, an event…on the other hand…it is more succinctly human to form an audience than to participate, isn't it??
On the gentleman who seems to garner some personal satisfaction by repeatedly asking for directions, one must ask whether or not this man is a)crazy b)lonely c)literate in English. Further, one must inquire as to how much time the audience views such a performance as to ascertain its strangeness.
It is, indeed simply strange to be human, and without extraneous information that adds to the overall theme of the dramaturgy of the situation, it almost always will appear to be mundane.
Situations demand background information, personal empathy/sympathy or enough patience to figure out what's actually going on. Is anything really strange? Or do we simply not allow ourselves enough time to ingest what is occurring, and why.