[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: Backward documentation
Poster: email@example.com (Doug Munitz,Sven Olafssen;Maria Munitz)
>Poster: Carol_O'Leary@ed.gov (Carol O'Leary)
> Greetings to all at Cheapside! I have been following the discussion
> of cordials and documentation with some interest and wish, with
> absolutely no disrespect intended to Lady G or her work, to point out
> a relatively common fallacy in her search.
Let me make this clear. I made a cherry rose cordial from pure
inspiration, for the artistic sake only, for the enjoyment of my friends
and family. I had no forethought about entering it into competition nor
any concern over whether or not it was period. Later someone said I should
enter it in an A&S competition. So I thought to try some documentation.
If nothing comes up in the search, oh well, I'll have learned other
valuable information in the attempt.
I once was told by an expert in the East Kingdom that I had managed to
recreate a 14th C Polish cherry cordial (sweet and fruity), and I had based
what I had done in this recipe on what I had accidentally fallen upon in
that last batch. He had mentioned a source at the time where I could
document it, but after 6 years I can't remember what it was. It was based
on this old information, that I thought it was worth the attempt, since I
knew the source was out there somewhere, and I was hoping that source would
pop up with any others that might be sent to me. But I knew that there
Already was a source on which to base any documentation.
Some people do this sort of round-about type of learning (take a good
look at science). As a teacher, we find inductive learning as valuable as
deductive learning. They are both learning. Neither is a fallacy. And
inspiration is the best learning of all. It is, after all, Creative.
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
Admin. requests: firstname.lastname@example.org