[MD] Speed of Lighting, Roar of thunder...

[MarshaV]

Adrie,

Details are important, I find them fascinating, but if I had to track down 
the details I'd never experience the flight.  Other people love detail; 
its what makes their heart go pitter patter.  I know well that men were 
thinking about gravity before Newton, they brought the problem to him 
asking for a solution.  And I know well that men were thinking about 
the origin of species before Darwin.  Do fill in the details, I for one, will be 
grateful.  As long as it is understood these details too are conceptually 
constructed.   


Marsha



On Aug 26, 2010, at 5:41 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:

> Its in the finetuning of words, thinking;,..one of and the major error in
> thinking is shortcutting.
> 
> Gravity and the effects of gravity were present before Newton, they only
> became existing after bieng observed
> Evolution and the effects of evolution were present before Darwin, they only
> became existing after being observed.
> 
> The mistake is not big , but the effects of the mistake are dramatical
> 
> I will make an example.
> statement...
> "COLUMBUS DID DISCOVER AMERICA"
> 
> False---, in fact it was like this, Columbus sailed to find a passage to the
> West-Indies,dicovered the carribean islands
> and called them , the West Indies, the naming is sometimes used until today.
> This it wat he dicovered , the West Indies , and they do not even exist, he
> sailed in the wrong direction.
> Only after finding the continents North and South-America after this effort,
> all science from that days had as an effect that discovering America was
> forever connected to Columbus, but in fact discovering it was only a
> side-effect of discovering the West-Indies.
> It was an event generating a cascade of events.the endconclusion of this
> proces is used.
> 
> 
> It is shortcutted eversince, as Columbus did discover A.....etc
> Shortcutting is a bad habbit , everybody is doeing it , i'm also, its a
> people's habbit.
> 
> greetzz, Adrie
> 
> 
> 2010/8/26 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> In other words, no way did 'gravity' exist before Newton, and also no way
>> did 'evolution' exist before Darwin.  What do you suppose 'conceptually
>> constructed' means?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 26, 2010, at 4:27 AM, MarshaV wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The apple as we know it is a very modern invention developed by science.
>> Centuries ago most apples were puny and not very edible.  Before the time
>> of Newton an apple falling was understood as an event in the seasonal life
>> cycle of an apple tree, the apple falling was part of a process rather than
>> the results of 'gravity.'  Before becoming an isolated, independent force,
>> falling was part of a natural process.  Gravity was an objectification of
>> science (an intellectual static pattern of value).  Imagine that!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> parser
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___