This comment has been removed by the author.
The first part of the quote is great. If the second was true, it would be an even greater quote. But I do not believe that it is true.This story sounds like the Ford stories: Ford askes "Why everyone eats chicken eggs and not goose or duck eggs?" Because the chicken gaggles after laying an egg. This is the pro Ford story which teaches us the importance of commercials.Ford buys a wooden carved sculpture by a native artist and askes him "Please make me 5 other sculptures, exactly the same way." The artist answers "Then you have to pay me more for each further sculpture, since I loose the pleasure of creativeness while repeating 5 times the same work. This is obviously the anti Ford story (and a pro native story).Both these Ford stories contain wisdom. But I do not believe them to be true. More than true they are theirselves examples of creativity! And this shows us that creativity is not this wonderful thing that in a standardisized society cannot not be worshipped, but has as well a dark side: creative people often lie like Karl May and Karl Marx!And I would bet with the creative Mrs Fitz-Gibbon that the thousands of "caligae" found by the "Vindolanda Trust" are all with right and left symmetry. And if I win the bet, then she is an unethical person. We have already enough illusions. One shall not create and promote further illusions taking advantage of peoples's ignorance. This makes me sad. So please show me that I am wrong and that Mrs Fitz-Gibbon was right and honest.
Creativity is...seeing something that doesn't exist already. You need to find out how you can bring it into being and that way be a playmate with God.Michele Shea
Rechts-Links-Unterscheidung (Wiki)Was aus heutiger Sicht selbstverständlich anmutet, nämlich die bereits durch die naturbedingte Fußform vorgegebene spiegelsymmetrische Form der beiden Schuhe eines Schuhpaars, war lange Zeit nicht üblich. Obwohl schon bei Griechen und Römern in der Antike bekannt, ebenso selbstverständlich wie im Mittelalter, ging diese Form im Laufe des 17. Jahrhunderts verloren. Auf die daraus folgenden Fußschäden machte erstmals der holländische Arzt Peter Camper 1796 aufmerksam, doch erst rund 60 Jahre später bewirkte eine Streitschrift des deutschen Medizinprofessors Hermann von Meyer die Rückkehr zur Rechts-Links-Unterscheidung im Schuhbau.
O.K., I didn't loose literally my bet, but nevertheless I have to change my mind on Mrs Fitz-Gibbon.So the distinction between left and right shoe was common in antiquity and during the middle age and renaissance as well, but DISAPPEARED during the course of the 17. century? This is quite surprising and deserves attention and a more detailled examination. Because this is even more surprising than what Mrs. Fitz-Gibbon has told us. Did the distinction disappear all over Europe? Only in nothern Europe? Only in parts of northern Europe? What can have caused the disappearing of this distinction? Must we really imagine the people in the time from Bach to Mendelssohn with shoes without this distinction?I am still carefully questioning. The Candid Camera exists not only in TV!! Bernard Henry-Levy became victim of a very similar trap.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Botulhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_legend