Quote:
Originally posted by 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
|
No,umm no Suki I am not just slightly older than you are. I am way older, and to give some notion about how old, I participated actively in China prior to the actual invasion of the Japanese, and had the honor to meet with and fly with some of the famous pilots of the Flying Tigers. Then after the Japanese invaded through Manchuria, I actively participated in the 2nd World War on basically two fronts the European, inclusive of the Russian front who as you know were allies. And then later, on the Pacific front in battles of the Coral Sea and the invasion of Iwo Jima. I was always closely associated with both our Russian and Chinese comrades, and was rewarded by them with an Order of Lenin and by Mao tse Tung with the Mao Badge as a "hero of Socialist Labor". From the U.S. I got some medals too, mainly the DSM and ,of course, the usual Purple Heart. But enough of this, it should give you a good idea of my age though.
Now, as to my question, I think you have answered it by what you said about respecting the experts and pioneers in your field. So you did essentially understand my question. As to you labelling yourself a cultural anthropologist, the only thing that I can compare it with in my studies of anthropology many years ago, is to what I would call a Social Anthropologist. But since you have illuminated me as to the mixed or soft lines between physical and cultural, I understand lots more about your field of endeavor.
About you thinking that I was saying you could never achieve what the giants in your field have achieved that is a misinterpretation of what I said. Note, that what I said was framed in a hypothetical mode, and it said that if you, and others too, ever are unable to stand on the shoulders of the giants in your field, because they tower too high to reach, then you ought not give up your quest for knowledge but proceed into the future through the plateau that is suitable for your talents. However, only time will tell if you will become one of the giants. And you sure have the zest and the smarts to accomplish great things IMHO.
Let me be reflective once again, and this time I categorically state it is in the hypothetical mode. As to your support of subjective viewpoints over objective ones, I conjecture that you must have spent considerable time in college when the great all out attack against objectivity took place. All objectivists who held to absolute truth were ridiculed and even had their classrooms invaded and were confronted on a one-to-one base with attacks against all objectivity in education. I opine that that was the ambience that most influenced your line of thought from those days, and it shows greatly in most everything you write. You can tell me that I am mistaken, and that will be okay, because as I said all that I am now saying to you is hypothetical anyway, and is merely an exercise on my part to try to put all the pieces together, and understand you better.
One more thing comes to mind, your use of the word "shattering" of the premises that the likes of Louis Leakey, and others have brought into repute. Don't you think that word shatter is a bit too strong, or maybe reaching a bit? Or can you demonstrate to me what new findings and conclusions are actually doing this to the giants of anthropology? I really would love to learn more about Social or Cultural, and Physical Anthropology, because as I said when I was a youngster I read avidly in that field, and it was very stimulating and enjoyable. And. of course, now that you have brought your dynamism to the forum, you have awakened in me the thirst for more knowledge in your field.
Best Regards to You Boricua!
EddieR