On 10/15/2016 05:49 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: > On 10/15/16 12:49, Chuck Guzis wrote: >> >> I can read about using arsphenamine to treat syphilis, for example >> (historically important), without contracting the disease and >> treating it myself just for "the experience". > > Well, thanks for not drawing a *direct* comparison between those of > us still more engaged in collecting and those suffering the > debilitating mental effects of syphilis... ;)
My point blew right past you, apparently--yet I stated it as clearly as I could. So please permit me to try again: When was the last time an audience reacted the way they first did in 1913 upon witnessing the performance of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring"? Probably never again, as nearly as I can determine. Now, the work barely raises anything more than the standard mandatory standing O--regardless of the performance quality. My use of Ehrlich's treatment for a venereal disease as an example was entirely on-point. Once a treatment for the disease had been discovered, it would never be viewed the same way--the world and its perception had been permanently altered. On the other hand, reading Ehrlich's writings gives us a clue to the way he felt about what he was doing and the significance of his results at the time. Collecting hardware in hopes of repeating the original experience is an exercise in futility. When was the last time you ooh-ed and ah-ed over a color television broadcast? Yet, for me, I recall seeing that NBC peacock display at a friend's home on his RCA set was nothing short of spectacular. While it's no longer spectacular, I can still read accounts of the people behind the technology to get an idea of how significant it was. We are all, hopefully, human and the nature of our minds and existence has shown that we can't go home again. --Chuck
