[Suki]

I hope I have gotten your question's essential premise correct? You think that religious fanatics are the ones that held the view that the world was geocentric and not heliocentric, and you say that today professionals are more scientific and do not make the same mistakes? And that I could never hope to aspire to Leakey's greatness and therefore must humble myself before his gargantuan contribution to physical anthropology?

Since I do not quite get the question I will answer how I have interpreted it. Louis and Mary Leaky and their son Richard Leaky have contributed greatly to my field of study. "Lucy" named after a Beatles song that was playing on the radio in the camp in the Ethiopian desert before her "miraculous" discovery ("Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds") was not even defined as a homo sapien (modern human being) or not even a Homo Erectus or Homo Habilus, but an ancient half-way point between a primate ancestor and the beginnings of an erect walking version of ourselves. She was unique at the time because she proved that a human like ancestor from the primate branch was much more ancient than the "pros" in the field at the time had accepted as scientifically true. Eddie that was way back in the late 1970's, now many controversial and hotly debated new pieces of evidence are emerging daily in Anthropology. Most of them instead of solidifying our initial premises are shattering them. It just reinforces my point that pros and experts in a field of study do not necessarily have all the answers.

Anthropology is a strange science, its part hard science and part social science. It means the study of man or (not to be sexist) human behavior. Since like what I mentioned to Raul earlier, human beings over the course of our modern recorded history have been consistently irrational and unscientific. And since I am a cultural anthropologist and not a physical anthropologist (which some of my best friends are, and in which I excelled in ) but the physical aspects of anthropology did not ignite my deepest interests even though I was very good at it (archaeology still holds a lot of thrilling explorative aspects for me). I compare cultures, religions, philosophies, societies and do ethnographies. Studying living cultures in their natural settings is what I like the most. I especially like doing Urban Anthropology and studying why people in modern societies act and think and respond the way they do. This takes a lot of effort and spills over into a whole panoply and spectrum of different sometimes unrelated fields of thought. Philosophy and having these stimulating conversations with you and Raul makes me rethink some of my theories about urban life as well.

Ofcourse I am eternally grateful to all the original thinkers and pioneers in my field. I owe them much. But they would be the first to say to new ways of thought "bring it on..."Eddie there are few women anthropologists, fewer cultural anthropologists and even fewer Puerto Rican female anthropologists studying urban peoples and their lifeways. I hope to humbly add my small grain of sand to human knowledge. At the same time I hope to bring you a person in which to dialog with. You are slightly older than I am, and have had an interesting life. I think I could learn from your "philosophy" your love of wisdom. And I hope you can learn from me. Because I miss my Puerto Rican people very much.

Con amor,
Suki