General Theorem of Existence

[Raulgr]

Originally posted by Suki
Raul, thanks for replying so eloquently to my post. All of your points are well thought out and have solid logic behind them. But unfortunately, like a lot of scientific thought it brings up more questions than it answers. For example, all of us are mortal, our cells will degenerate and we will die. That is the ultimate destiny of all mortal beings. Why would we be programmed (in our cells) to resist something that is as natural as death?

Just a quick mind teaser for you Raul. Something similar to that Macedonia anecdote you mentioned to underscore your point on the shift from mystical thinking to reality thinking. What if our five senses, our possessions, romance and all the other things in life exist in order for you NOT to notice that which is eternal about your original pre-birth state? I know it sounds wild, but consider this a moment. According to accepted scientific thought, energy can't truly be destroyed, it can only be transformed (changed). And as humans we have internal temperature, electrical activity in our brains. We have energy. Where does that energy go? If according to this observable material world energy or matter can not be destroyed, just transformed. Why should it be different for obviously energy-based organic beings? Where does our independent energy go? We are basically dead once our brain waves no longer register activity. The energy that kept that activity going--how is it transformed?

See what I mean how science brings forth more questions than it can answer. The search for answers through scientific methods, is what makes science so dynamic and creative.

Well, on the social question. Yes, I am a big mambera....In my teen years I wanted to be a professional dancer. But destiny is destiny. In college my theater professors thought I should drop my Anthropology major, and become an actress, they thought I was very good. Unfortunately, I loved Anthropology too much. Though I miss the acting and dancing a lot now. Raul I live in Denver. Here it is basically dead for Mambo clubs. Just a lot of Mexicanos dancing vaquero-hacienda style quebraditas, to horrible norteno music. I love Eddie Torres. Too bad I live so far from the Mambo action. Love talking to you. Carino. Suki.

Suki,

I don't see us as "programmed" to resist death. In the most basic sense, cellular activity is just a series of sustained chemical reactions, albeit elaborately and intricately orchestrated. The only ultimate "purpose" of these processes is to carry on the processes. The key to immortality is cellular regeneration. That process breaks down over time through a loss of RNA encoding (errors in copying and alterations arising from exposure to natural radiation and chemicals). The spanish word for death, difuncion, is more descriptive of the process. As cells fail to regenerate, we gradually cease to function, but not for lack of trying.

With regard to conservation of energy, we are internal combustion engines that oxidize nutrients to produce the enrgy required for muscular and sensory activity. These activities create heat that dissipates in the form of infrared radiation. When we cease to function, that energy is no longer generated and we continue to lose heat until our body (corpse) is at ambient temperature. In other words, there is a complete accounting for all of the energy that we take in and release.

Wow! I happen to like nortenas, but I still keep my collection of cuban music handy. Here in the island, just as on the west coast, everything is salsa. Younger generations have no idea what mambo (rumba) is, or that the rythmic timing and feel of dancing on clave is entirely different from that of salsa, the latter having the rhythmic structure of Puerto Rican plena. As it turns out, that rhythm of the plena is identical to the rhythm of cumbia, the traditional music of much of central and south america. That is the reason that south and central americans (eg, colombianos) have adopted salsa on a grand scale. They take to it like fish to water. When I was dancing on the west coast, people were intrigued everywhere I went, as they had not seen latin dance using afro-cuban dance timing. I also prefer the music of the original mambo, the creation of the legendary Lopez brothers (Orestes and his younger brother Israel - Cachao) in the late 1930s at the time that they were playing in the fabulous charanga of the great flutist/bandleader Antonio Arcano (La Primera Maravilla del Siglo - or simply "las maravillas", as they were known at the time). Unfortunately, only the name "mambo" made the 90-mile trip from Havana to the US. The music that was adopted as "mambo" by the big bands in New York in the 1940s was actually the son-montuno of Arsenio Rodriguez, played in the conjunto style that featured trumpet, tres, and a constellation of percussive instruments. For my money, the rhythmic syncopation and counterpoint of the violins and flute in a charanga is unmatched by the sound of most big band orchestras, except that of the incomparable Machito, who used saxophones to accomplish pretty much the same rhythmic effect. I get excited just talking about this stuff!

Aren't there any university positions in NYC in your field? Curator for one of the museums of natural history? (Don't mind me - just thinking out loud.)

Regards, Raul

[Eddier1]

Originally posted by Suki
Consequently for all of society's members to have complete agreement on what subjectively interpreted truths are is a hard concept to defend.[/b]

Suki, you obviously have misread what I originally wrote to you, and you have generalized what I said on public agreement among accepted authorities in a respective field as necessary and sufficient to the acceptance of truth, and you have applied my statements to "all of society's members". That is not valid reasoning on your part, and if you reread what I wrote to you, and I do consider it as stating what I meant to state, then you may come to see that I did not mention anything about everyone in society recognizing the truth, but instead was quite specific about public agreement being among the authorities in the field.

Whatever the public as you entertain it to be says about absolute as opposed to its significant opposite of relative truth did not enter into my original discussion with you at all. What I did say! was that all contradictions must be resolved in order for us to reach the consolations that philosophy can give us. Again I am not speaking about all the members of society as you said, but am specifically referring to professionals who may or may not be authorities in their respective fields. However, to obtain the truth, all authorities in a respective field must be in public agreement about it. Understanding that, then I say to you who cares what all the other members of society, i.e., the so-called "public" say about it? In other words, if they find it to be fun or entertaining, or not, doesn't really matter at all.

Regards Boricua,
EddieR

[Suki]

Eddie,
Philosophy by its very nature is not a "hard" science. It doesn't sufficiently narrow its study to one natural law or a specific observable phenomenon, therefore it is subject to a social values related "subjective" interpretation.

Your philosophy on any given subject whether of nature or of society then would be open for debate and questioning simply because philosophy is an invitation to knowledge. The rough definition of philosophy is philo-offspring or son and sophy-ancient Greek word associated with Sophia the goddess of knowledge (and nature). The offspring of knowledge could be the observation of nature and natural laws, but making and testing theories based on those observations falls into the hard science categories.

How you have experienced life and how based on those life experiences and on how you have coped with the challenges life has thrown at you Eddie is your basic philosophy (but it is subjective) and could be either unique or shared by others. It is still going to be the "truth" to you. But it might not be the "truth" to others.

On the question of professionals agreeing...professional scientists, doctors, and others in the past have been notorious resisters of change or of change of doctrine or practice, in short...almost dogmatic. Yet only when the new contributor to knowledge's theories are time-tested and give consistently superior results are these new schools of thought become more universally accepted in any academic or professional field.

Eddie, the laypeople sometimes disappoint us in terms of being easily influenced by powerful "media" and the interests of the overclass and the elite. But we should not discount their life experiences and their existences when we want to create social change. Instead, those of us that have had the priveledges of better educations have the responsibility of interacting with them and serving them with absolutely no self-interest except to help them to accept a higher-consciousness and social awareness level.

Sometimes laypeople have the sharpest and freshest perspectives on things. I enjoy talking to you Eddie, I hope we have more lively discussions in the future.

Warm regards,
Suki

[Eddier1]

Originally posted by Suki
Eddie,
Philosophy by its very nature is not a "hard" science. It doesn't sufficiently narrow its study to one natural law or a specific observable phenomenon, therefore it is subject to a social values related "subjective" interpretation.

Your philosophy on any given subject whether of nature or of society then would be open for debate and questioning simply because philosophy is an invitation to knowledge. The rough definition of philosophy is philo-offspring or son and sophy-ancient Greek word associated with Sophia the goddess of knowledge (and nature). The offspring of knowledge could be the observation of nature and natural laws, but making and testing theories based on those observations falls into the hard science categories.

How you have experienced life and how based on those life experiences and on how you have coped with the challenges life has thrown at you Eddie is your basic philosophy (but it is subjective) and could be either unique or shared by others. It is still going to be the "truth" to you. But it might not be the "truth" to others.

On the question of professionals agreeing...professional scientists, doctors, and others in the past have been notorious resisters of change or of change of doctrine or practice, in short...almost dogmatic. Yet only when the new contributor to knowledge's theories are time-tested and give consistently superior results are these new schools of thought become more universally accepted in any academic or professional field.

Eddie, the laypeople sometimes disappoint us in terms of being easily influenced by powerful "media" and the interests of the overclass and the elite. But we should not discount their life experiences and their existences when we want to create social change. Instead, those of us that have had the priveledges of better educations have the responsibility of interacting with them and serving them with absolutely no self-interest except to help them to accept a higher-consciousness and social awareness level.

Sometimes laypeople have the sharpest and freshest perspectives on things. I enjoy talking to you Eddie, I hope we have more lively discussions in the future.

Warm regards,
Suki

Suki, you are a very bright lady, and it is a distinct boon to me to discuss philosophy or other topics with you. But let me correct you on what the word "philosophy" means, and from the classical viewpoint of authorities in that field.
The classical definition, if you will. of philosophy is simply the "love of wisdom". Philos means Love and Sophia means Wisdom. That is the classical meaning of Philosophy which is publically agreed upon for centuries upon centuries by authorities in the field of Philosophy. Your definition, on the other hand, is based on a modernist revision of the word which is inaccurate. And this I say based on the logically accepted validity of what is called Argumentum ad Veracundia, which also has been publically accepted by all the authorities in the respective field.

Now I venture to say that you are letting your own subjective feelings control your thoughts, so much so that you fly in the face of reason by even saying that my philosophical system is but a reflection of my own subjective viewpoints. This is not the case, because I have amply pointed out to you that it is based on the public agreements of the recognized authorities in the field of Philosophy. As to your deference to the "publique", I too as a scientific socialist work with the masses also, but I am not gullible at all, as to their faults and inabilities to comprehend the truth. Not all persons from the masses can understand and accept the truth, Suki. And these "lumpen proletariats" do not amount to a hill of beans in the destiny of the philosophy of science nor in philosophy proper either. I am not being condescending towards them by saying that, what I am saying is that what they opine or act upon doesn't really matter at all, because it will fail. Most of the time, I have discovered that their "lema" is to make trouble, fail, make trouble fail again, until their doom.

I am optimistic that the above will help you understand where I am coming from, because as I said I consider you to be a very bright lady, and one who is a plus to discuss matter with.

Regards,
EddieR

[Suki]

As always Raul when I read your thoughts I can follow where that fertile mind of yours seems to be leading.

Interesting, I reread some of your original theorem of existence. I must ask you a question, if all matter is composed of basically the same thing "matter", then why does biology distinguish between "living cells" and "non-living cells"? Why do viruses essentially hijack healthy red blood cells and force them to start reproducing other virus cells, while bacterial cells can reproduce independently if given the correct environmental conditions?
Why does nature use such a variety of strategies for reproduction and defense mechanisms in such a wide array of living things?

We have come a long way from the original toxic gaseous soup and simple cell organisms we once started off as...all this constant change and adaptation...what purpose does it serve?...for it is obvious that we are in a process of change and in evolutionary development as we speak (as you say moment-by-moment)?

Computers are man-made machines...they are programmed and they are constructed to serve our needs a biological (naturally-occuring life form)? Can they eventually evolve to become completely creative and program themselves in the future? Or are they the reflection of our human need and thirst to learn more and more...

Socially speaking, when I read your interest in mambo and Cuban music I smiled. I have 493 CDs, 400 are exclusively different types of Salsa, Cuban music, and Puerto Rican music of every variety I could think of. I have biographies of Machito, Beny More, Anacaona, Cachao and others on my bookshelf. The rhythms of these masters are very unique and distinct. I would say they reach into my soul, but maybe for you Raul they reach into that beautiful fertile mind of yours and capture your imagination. What an interesting man you are! You have many layers to your personality. Interesting. Hope you wrestle with some of my impertinent questions. With affection, Suki.

[Suki]

Eddie,
I stand corrected, philosophy is love of wisdom (it is very similar to son of knowledge or offspring of knowledge). Love is "objective" or "subjective", did you love your father Eddie? prove it. Love is difficult to prove but to many it is real. What is wisdom? The other half of philosophy. It is not education. It is not age. It is not time. It is making decisions based on previously learned experiences and knowledge,then, distilling that knowledge and making new decisions that are hopefully more in accord with natural laws and socially healthy values. That is my definition of wisdom (not the dictionary's why? Because the hillbilly from Bairoa continually defines dictionary definitions of words and it still has failed to make him wiser or a better listener [hahaha] anyway. Don't you think an individual's experiences can be something "subjective"?

Sure there are some aspects about philosophical thought that are mostly objective. For example, I believe wholehearted in what Marx defines as the inevitability of class struggle. Marx defines the economic interests in society in very objective ways. In Marxist thought we are in a capitalistic society literally serving the "needs of the owners of the means of production". Marx's definition of the "lumpen proletariat" is interesting and has some objective truths attached to it. Marx was a master at analyzing capitalism. No one can match his perceptiveness at analyzing the flaws in Capitalism as well as he did (F. Engels had to help him write because Marx was unwieldly and awkward in his phrasing).

But Marx failed to predict certain important things such as he felt that industrialized countries would be the first to adopt Marxism, and that Capitalistic societies such as the one he was exiled in (England), would become Marxist. Instead the first societies to adopt Marxism was Russia and China, largely third world agrarian based societies with underdeveloped industrialized economies. Marx thought the peasants and peasant people were too individualistic and simple to believe in Marxist theory, yet their governments were the first to adopt Marxist and Leninist and Maoist thought. Though to give Marx credit he thought socialism wouldn't really work in societies that skipped the developed economic infrastructure stage and jumped right in to Marxism. He thought that the oligarchy and the class structure needed a fully developed and industralized and successful capitalistic economy first, then class struggle would arise, the revolution and then a new society one were the proletariat would have equal and valid stature and recognition. In Utopic Marxism and Communism the government would no longer have a need to exist because the community would be egalitarian and could effectively govern itself. Obviously we have not reached that utopian concept.

The criticism Marx had with the lumpen proletariat was their lack of, or aversion to being organized and having a social conscience. Lumpens refuse to be loyal to their class, are opportunists and do not have any positive, productive or socially redeeming value except to be opportunists, parasites and basic burdens to their respective societies. According to Oscar Lewis's La Vida and the Children of Sanchez and his culture of poverty (of which many in the social sciences including myself have discounted)he makes a distinction between "the working class" and the "culture of poverty", one has many redemptive and socially valuable qualities such as :members of organizations, ability to act with social consciousness, etc. etc.

Yet even lumpen proletariats over time can become more aware of the value of membership and organization. Sure most people do not give a damn about anybody and can not conceive of another economic or social reality than their own limited society provides for them. But ideas and people have a strange habit of transforming themselves when the time is right.

No cometas "hubris" Eddie. Let others listen to you. Deje que otros te quieran y que te acepten. No seas defensivo. All you need is yourself, but isn't victory sweeter when it is shared? Muchas gracias, Suki.

[Eddier1]

Suki, no way am I a victim of "hubris". Pride is not my problem at all.

In your former post you asked a specific question, which after rather sober reflection I am now prepared to attempt to answer. You asked if all professionals must agree with respect to the truth. Now, let's set the stage for my answer to that by taking a couple of steps forward and perhaps one back, but always making progress toward the limits of human understanding. First, of course, all bona fide recognized pros or authorities in a respective field must reach public agreement about what is true in their fields. That said, let me refer to your field of endeavor which is anthropology. Now, we all know about the great work, for example, of Louis Leakey, in his findings of the fossil remains in Africa of a woman he calls "Lucy", and we all know of the conclusions which he came to based on his findings. To my knowledge, I understand that all the recognized experts or authorities in anthropology have publically agreed as to the validity of Leakey's findings and conclusions. What I would like to ask you is (and here we may have to take one step backwards, lol) whether or not you agree with those experts or authorities? If you do not I don't see how you can make advances in your chosen career of anthropology, since you would be locked into a time warp that would stultify any further progress in anthropology.
Let me go to a more classically viewed field, which would readily serve in broadening the horizons on the question I asked you. You know of the geocentric theory and the heliocentric theory that was finally clinched in favor of the heliocentric supporters in the 20th century with man's voyage to the Moon. We clearly had photographic evidence that the world is an Oval and not Flat, and that the Sun is the center of our galaxy, and not the Earth. Now, you may opine that the recognized authorities are in contradiction, because first they all agreed on the Earth being the center of our universe, and then later after the great work of Kepler, Copernicus, and Gallileo they contradicted themselves and publically agreed to the Heliocentric truth.
But let us look at the specifics in this case, and ask who were those or agreed on the Geocentric position, and later who were those who accepted publically the Heliocentric position? Obviously, the specifics show that those supporting publically the Geocentric were not scientific philosophers, nor astrophyicists, but were Theologians who all agreed publicly based on what the Bible told them, and not what scientific experimentation proved to be true. So yes, making this significant distinction between two different fields of study, one based on ignorance and superstition and the other based on scientific method, we see that the principle of arriving at the truth is not truncated in any way, shape, nor fashion by that great classic controversy, and that the findings and conclusions of all recognized authorities in their respective fields are heeded to by all those who want to expand to the limits of human knowledge.

In your field of anthropology, the same is found in that the anthropologists all stand on the shoulders of the giants in their field, like Louis Leakey was. And if you as an anthropologist can't reach his or any other giants shoulders in your field, I think it behooves you, if you want to make progress in your career, to be humble enough to walk between the legs of those giants ever looking forward into the future for new knowledge.

Regards,
EddieR

[Edited by Eddier1 on 6th September 2001 at 01:18]