General Theorem of Existence

[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

[Eddier1]

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

[Leticia_g]

Raul,
A little off the topic but in sequence to your interest in Salsa/Mambo, The World Salsa Championship is being held this September 13 - 16 in Lake Buena Vista Florida. It so happens that Eddie Torres is one of the featured people among several others. If you are interested in more information, let me know, since I am also into the Salsa competition network and receive a lot of information on it.

Regards!

[Raulgr]

Originally posted by Leticia_g
Raul,
A little off the topic but in sequence to your interest in Salsa/Mambo, The World Salsa Championship is being held this September 13 - 16 in Lake Buena Vista Florida. It so happens that Eddie Torres is one of the featured people among several others. If you are interested in more information, let me know, since I am also into the Salsa competition network and receive a lot of information on it.

Regards!

Leticia,

Thanks for the heads up! Boy, would I like to get on a plane for Florida! Unfortunately, it isn't going to happen for me this year. I imagine that someone is going to video the competition. I would love to get a copy, particularly Eddie's performances. Also, if you happen to know of a way of contacting Eddie in New York, I would appreciate having that info. I had his home number when we were communicating between California and NY, but lost contact, and haven't been able to locate him.

I take it that you are a dancer, Leticia? Small world, isn't it? Have you ever attended Eddie's workshop. I don't know whether or not he is still teaching, but, if he is, I can definitely recommend it. It's a real kick! Typical New York style sink or swim approach, however.

Regards, Raul

[Raulgr]

Originally posted by Suki
. . . if all matter is composed of basically the same thing "matter", then why does biology distinguish between "living cells" and "non-living cells"?

Suki,

Why indeed? I believe that abiogenesis, as discussed in the following article, holds the key for resolution of this issue.

Article by George Johnson
One of the most important science discoveries last year sheds light on origin of life

In the past year, science has made important progress on one of the truly big questions in biology: the origin of life.

Most scientists accept - tentatively - the theory that life arose spontaneously here on earth from inanimate matter, as associations of molecules became more and more complex.

The logical way to test the spontaneous origin theory is to repeat the process. In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey assembled in a glass flask an atmosphere similar to what the early earth's atmosphere is thought to have been like. It was a smelly sort of atmosphere, composed of hydrogen-rich molecules like hydrogen sulfide ("rotten eggs"), methane ("swamp gas"), and ammonia ("smelling salts").
Bombarding the mixture with lightning in the form of sparks, Miller and Urey found that within a week 15 percent of the carbon originally present as methane gas had been converted into other carbon compounds, including amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and nucleotides (the building blocks of nucleic acids like DNA and RNA). They concluded that the basic building blocks used in the construction of living organisms could indeed have arisen spontaneously.

The next step predicted by the spontaneous origin theory has not been so easy to test - that these building blocks spontaneously linked together to form the large molecules of which cells are made. Somehow, the individual amino acids produced in the Miller-Urey experiment must have linked together in chains to form proteins, like pearls coming together to form a necklace.

This linking-together presents what at first seems an insurmountable problem: Theory tells us that it is chemically impossible for amino acids to aggregate spontaneously in water. The basic problem is that water will tend to push the chemical reaction backward, toward breaking up proteins rather than forming them.

One way out of this quandary is to imagine that life first arose away from water, say within a clay or mineral. While a little zany, this idea has attracted serious consideration, at least to some degree because it is hard to think of other water-free alternatives.

Another way out of the quandary is to step back and look at the problem from a different perspective. There is lots of water in each cell of your body, and yet proteins get assembled in your cells with no difficulty. Water presents no problem there, because in cells the process of protein assembly does not actually occur out in the water. Instead, it is carried out within great contraptions called ribosomes, and there is no water inside a ribosome. Ribosomes are very complex cellular machines. Each ribosome is made of more than 50 different proteins, as well as three chains of RNA composed of about 3,000 nucleotides. RNA is a nucleic acid similar to DNA, but single-stranded.

It has been traditionally assumed that the proteins act as enzymes to facilitate the amino-acid assembly process, with RNA providing a scaffold to position the proteins properly. But if proteins in ribosomes bring about the linking together of amino acids to form new proteins, then where did the ribosome proteins come from? Last year we learned the answer to that chicken-or-egg question, and a surprising answer it turned out to be. Over the past 12 months, several research groups have used powerful X-ray diffraction to determine the complete detailed structure of a ribosome at atomic resolution.

The researchers found that the many proteins of a ribosome are scattered over its surface like decorations on a Christmas tree. The role of these proteins seems to be limited to stabilizing the many bends and twists of the RNA chains. The proteins act like spot-welds between the RNA strands they touch.

Importantly, there are no proteins on the inside of the ribosome where the chemistry of protein synthesis takes place - just twists of RNA. This was totally unexpected. The ribosome's RNA, not its protein, must bring about the joining of amino acids. Science, the most widely read scientific journal in the United States, chose this revelation as the second-most-important scientific discovery of 2000 (runner-up to completion of the Human Genome Project).

This discovery that RNA facilitates protein synthesis dissolves the quandary of spontaneous protein assembly. RNA nucleotides produced in Miller-Urey experiments can link together to form chains, and these chains can act as enzymes to bring about the linking together of amino acids to form proteins. There is a great deal we don't know, but the theory of spontaneous origin seems to have passed another hurdle.

George Johnson is a biology professor at Washington University.

So, researchers have now determined that it is the RNA, not the proteins, that act as enzymes in linking amino acids to form proteins. This discovery that RNA facilitates protein synthesis dissolves the quandary of spontaneous protein assembly. RNA nucleotides, such as those produced in the Miller-Urey experiments, can link together in chains, and these chains can catalyze protein from amino acids. While much remains to be known, the proposition of abiogenesis has been advanced significantly.

Now, here is the $64,000 question. If, in fact, “life” has evolved from “non-life”, exactly where in that long, slow evolutionary process of myriad infinitesimally graded steps is the BRIGHT LINE OF DEMARCATION between those two alleged states of existence? Of course, as presented in my thread General Theorem of Existence, the question is rhetorical. The answer is the obvious one – the line of demarcation is non-existent. Our separation of the “living” from the “non-living”, and our fascination with the former, is nothing more than egocentric nonsense of the sort that, at one time, placed us at the center of the universe.

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?

The most definitive explanation for earth’s bio-diversity of which I am aware is given by Richard Dawkins in his book “THE BLIND WATCHMAKER”. If you go to my thread “Not so fast there, Manny!” in the religion forum (last post August 12) and bring up my post of March 25 in that thread, you will find exerpts from the book that set the stage for and summarize his presentation of the key discoveries in evolutionary science. I believe that you will find these both illuminating and remarkably elegant in their formulation and statement.

Viruses are clearly an early evolutionary form, whose continued development has been halted, or significantly curtailed, by the phenomenal success of their predatory survival strategy. Bacteria, by comparison, seem to be a more evolved form.

Another book, “MICROCOSMOS” by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, examines human biology from the perspective of the microbiologist – incredible is the word that comes to mind!

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)?

Steven Weinberg (http://www.physlink.com/essay_weinberg.cfm) puts it this way:

"I'd guess that if we were to see the hand of the designer anywhere, it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena. We don't know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life. There is no life force. As Richard Feynman has said, when you look at the universe and understand its laws, 'the theory that it is all arranged as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems inadequate.'

True, when quantum mechanics was new, some physicists thought that it put humans back into the picture, because the principles of quantum mechanics tell us how to calculate the probabilities of various results that might be found by a human observer. But, starting with the work of Hugh Everett forty years ago, the tendency of physicists who think deeply about these things has been to reformulate quantum mechanics in an entirely objective way, with observers treated just like everything else. I don't know if this program has been completely successful yet, but I think it will be.

I have to admit that, even when physicists will have gone as far as they can go, when we have a final theory, we will not have a completely satisfying picture of the world, because we will still be left with the question "why?" Why this theory, rather than some other theory? For example, why is the world described by quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is the one part of our present physics that is likely to survive intact in any future theory, but there is nothing logically inevitable about quantum mechanics; I can imagine a universe governed by Newtonian mechanics instead. So there seems to be an irreducible mystery that science will not eliminate."

I have to say that I share Weinberg’s doubt about the existence of an ULTIMATE PURPOSE in the universe, or, if such purpose does exist, that we have any hope of ever knowing what that PURPOSE is. On the other hand, I regard myself as anything but purposeless. On a day-to-day basis, I can find all sorts of reasons for my existence.

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...

For the answer to that, I will refer you to two books by Geoff Simons, “THE BIOLOGY OF COMPUTER LIFE”, in which he argues that computers are alive (actually, an evolving life form) because they are like us, and an earlier work, “IS MAN A ROBOT”, in which he argues that we are not (alive) because we are like them (the premise of my General Theorem of Existence). At best, it’s a “glass half full or half empty” sort of matter. The bottom line, in any event, is that, clearly, we are robots. We are in essence no different from the crude replicas of ourselves that we construct.

And, while I’m at it, I might as well throw in my two cents regarding the very interesting discussion of OBJECTIVITY and SUBJECTIVITY that you have been having with Eddie.

It seems to me that REALITY, of which there is only one, is synonymous with TRUTH, that which we can know objectively. In this I have to come down on the side of Eddie. To speak of “my truth” and “your truth” is meaningless because truth must be grounded in reality. Truth is a universal benchmark, unique and immutable.

On the other hand, what is there in human experience that can be said to be subjective, and IS IT WORTHWHILE? While our objective understanding of reality (truth, or knowledge of what is true) will undoubtedly be indispensable to our survival and add to the quality of our existence (keep us healthy, enable us to have the things we need, keep us out of harm’s way), our SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE amounts to all that makes our existence worth the struggle. It consists of, among other things, our IMPRESSIONS arising from intuition, our THEORIES (conclusions) drawn from bits and pieces of incomplete information, our INCLINATIONS and PREFERENCES which reflect the conditioning of our prior experiences, and our EMOTIONS (that which is not linguistically or logically reducible).

These subjective ideas, perceptions and misperceptions, preferences, things that move us, and so forth, might be woven into the fabric of an individual’s “philosophy”, but I would say that, to the extent that they are, they are at odds with the philosophical objective – the discernment of truth. I think it important, therefore, that an individual separate these subjective ideas and inclinations from whatever knowledge of reality he or she might possess. On the advice of Carl Sagan, I keep my baloney detection kit close at hand. I don't leave home without it!

The ability to separate (distinguish) objective ideas (knowledge) from subjective ideas and impulses having nothing to do with knowledge, that is to say, the ability to RECOGNIZE REALITY, requires that we know the RULES OF EVIDENCE. For example, there are those who would include the Bible or the Koran in REALITY because they fail to understand that neither the Bible nor the Koran are admissible under the rules of evidence. The BOTTOM LINE is that most of us must rely on the consensus conclusions of scientists for truth – our understanding of reality at any point in time.

Whew!! Did I get it all, Suki? And, why do I have this feeling of being under a microscope? Is it a touch of paranoia, or one of the hazards of keeping company with SCIENTISTS? (Just kidding, of course!)

Well, Suki, to recap, here’s my ALL-STAR reading list:

MICROCOSMOS Lynn Margulis/Dorion Sagan (1997)
Paperback: Biblio $7.50; Borders $13.95

THE BIOLOGY OF COMPUTER LIFE Geoff Simons (Birkhauser, 1985)
Paperback: Biblio $10.00

IS MAN A ROBOT? Geoff Simons (Wiley & Sons, 1986)
Hard Cover: Biblio $42.00
(no paperback ed. – try state university library system)

THE BLIND WATCHMAKER Richard Dawkins (1996)
Paperback: Biblio $4.50; Borders $12.71

THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD ** Carl Sagan (Ballantine, 1997)
Paperback: Biblio $7.00; Borders $11.90

** Otherwise known as THE HOLY BIBLE

Biblio = Bibliofind [www.bibliofind.com]

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 . . .

Speaking of latin music and dance, I have to say that dance is the means by which I give EXPRESSION to what I FEEL in the music. And what I feel is the RHYTHM! While I have quite a lot of material on various step patterns, the focus of my dance workshop is on learning the four main latin dance timings: (1) mambo (the “quick-quick-slow” version of rumba, in the parlance of ballroom dance); (2) son Cubano (the “slow-quick-quick” version of rumba, again in ballroom nomenclature); (3) salsa (the Johnny-come-lately of latin dance, the rhythm of plena dressed in the attire of Cuban music); and (4) cha cha (a minor variation of mambo dance timing).

So, what do I mean by DANCE TIMING? In order to define it, a few basic concepts with their particular terminology are needed.

First, latin music is written and played in 4/4 time (foxtrot), which means that one musical MEASURE consists of four musical COUNTS, each count denoted by a quarter note. Secondly, latin music is written and played in TWO-MEASURE REFRAINS of eight musical counts. All of the instrumentation, the coro, et cetera cycle on eight counts, or some multiple of eight counts. It should not be surprising, then, that we dance to this music on eight-count refrains. In salsa dance timing and in both versions of rumba, three steps are taken in every four musical counts. The count on which no step is taken is the TRANSITION COUNT, so named because the foot is moving (in transition) to step on the subsequent musical count.

The final concept is that of BREAK STEP. When dancing any of the latin dance timings, it is possible to dance continuously forward, continuously backward, continuously to the left, or continuously to the right. When changing (breaking) the direction of dance, the step on which the direction of dance is broken is the BREAK STEP. When dancing FORWARD or to the LEFT, the break step is always taken on the LEFT foot. When dancing BACKWARD or to the RIGHT, the break step is always taken on the RIGHT foot.

Each of the four principal latin dance timings are defined by their TRANSITION COUNTS (two in every 8-count refrain) and the counts on which the BREAK STEPS are taken (also two in every 8-count refrain). ARE WE HAVING FUN YET?

In MAMBO dance timing, the TRANSITION COUNTS are counts 4 and 8, and the BREAK STEPS are taken on counts 2 and 6 of the 8-count musical refrain. In the dance timing of the SON (Cuban shorthand for “Baile del Salon”, or parlor dance), the TRANSITION COUNTS are counts 2 and 6, and the BREAK STEPS are taken on counts 3 and 7. In SALSA dance timing, the TRANSITION COUNTS are, again, counts 4 and 8, and the BREAK STEPS are taken on counts 1 and 5. CHA CHA dance timing is a minor variation of MAMBO, wherein two quick steps (the cha cha) are taken on the mambo transition counts (with tempo one-half to two-thirds that of a typical mambo). Due to its leisurely tempo (pace) and likeness to mambo, I often use cha cha to introduce beginners to mambo dance timing.

You’ll note that learning these four latin dance timings requires only two things. First, you must be able to count from 1 to 8 (in English – try counting the musical counts of a Tito Puente mambo in Spanish). Second, since you don’t generally have the musical charts available to you on the dance floor, you need to be able to HEAR COUNT 1 in the music. After all, if you are not able to find your place in the music, you can’t very well claim to be “dancing to the music”, can you? This second requirement is the only part that presents difficulty for some people. No one can teach you this. If you can’t hear COUNT 1 today, listen to the music, and sooner or later you will. One of the objectives of my dance workshop is that participants will come to know these four latin dance timings like they know the backs of their hands.

You will also note, as already stated, that it is not necessary to use CONTINUOUS BREAKS with any of these dance timings. For example, in MAMBO the man does not have to change his direction of dance from forward to backward on any PARTICULAR COUNT 6. He can just continue to dance forward, space on the dance floor permitting. HOWEVER, WHEN HE DOES CHANGE FROM FORWARD TO BACKWARD, HE MUST DO SO ON COUNT 6 OFF THE LEFT FOOT! THIS DEFINES MAMBO! The same rule applies when changing the direction of dance from LEFT to RIGHT. Similarly, in changing the direction of dance from BACKWARD to FORWARD, he must do so on COUNT 2 off the RIGHT FOOT. The same rule applies when changing the direction of dance from RIGHT to LEFT. These rules apply equally to each of the other dance timings, except, of course, that the breaks are taken, in each case, on the musical counts specified for the break steps of that particular dance timing.

One final note. In MAMBO there is a specific PROTOCOL for STARTING THE DANCE. The man takes the woman in closed dance position and marks the musical counts. On COUNT 5 he shifts his weight to his RIGHT FOOT. On COUNT 6 he steps forward (the break step) on his LEFT FOOT. On COUNT 7 he steps in place on his RIGHT FOOT. On COUNT 8 (the transition) his LEFT FOOT travels BACKWARD (in the air) to step back on the LEFT FOOT on COUNT 1, and so on. In certain clubs in New York City frequented by aficionados of mambo, it is well to keep this protocol in mind!

I love this stuff!!

Regards, Raul

[Edited by Raulgr on 11th September 2001 at 04:54]

[Suki]

I most definitely will get this reading list and try to get these titles from the Denver Public Library (which is near my house).

Your entire essay-like exposition to my questions just reaffirmed what I said earlier about the dynamic qualities of science, but it always brings up more questions than it answers.

Have you read a great book by Michio Kaku called "HYPERSPACE"-A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension published originally in 1994 by Anchor Books. It got rave reviews by the New York Times Book Review. Kaku is a scientist and a physicist who stretches his extensive knowledge of Physics and just makes your head spin and revolve through his own version of the Theorem of Existence.

It took me a couple of reads to grasp his essential line of reasoning and about 3 more to get some of his more complex explanations but it was worth it!! You might have already read it but it is VERY INTERESTING.

There are parts of the book that support my argument against Eddier1's notions about scientists having to rely on publicly and professionally agreed upon truth. Though I see the arguments for objectivity in your favor. Sure, there are laws of nature and in the Universe that are reality and therefore essential truth and can not be trod upon or disturbed by human "subjectivity", I just happen to think humanity has not reached a point in time and space to be able to perceive all the mysteries in our world and give pat explanations for all living phenomenon without some big AGUJEROS in our original premises.

I will give Eddie lots of info on what us crazy Anthropologists are up to on many fronts. It is just that I am getting very busy at work, and I believe in trying to get current and up-to-date studies. (I have to do my homework [and reading] first). I wish I could see Eddie's face. He has such a strong personality. As for me, I have premature gray hair (for a 35 year old) and I die it a natural dark brown like when I was younger. It is curly. Everyone says I have huge, glowing dark brown eyes. I have light skin. Strong eyebrows. Clear skin and my mother says I have elegant hands. My husband thinks I am beautiful, but he is prejudiced he loves me too much.

I wish soooooo muccch to be a participant in your dance workshops Raul, I think I would die from the sheer pleasure of all that keen mind dedicated to such an ironically emotionally satisfying enterprise. Leticia g would be wonderful to watch dance as well. Alas, duty calls first.

I had some additional questions about these experiments that you quote. Mind teasers again... But I will leave them for next time, Raulito. What a priveledge it has been to meet both you and Eddie in this strange electronic cafe. "Manny" as you put it has pissed me off in another thread and so I subtly suggested he was a religious "hypocrite" I think I have made an enemy for life in that crazy guy. You seem from the limited experience I have of him to dialog better with him then than I do? Me cae super mal. He is constantly attacking me personally but I ignore him and give him backhanded criticism talking to others instead.

It certainly has added a dimension to urbanism (this computer anonymity exchange of thoughts and ideas). Adios. Con mas carino aun, Suki.

[Eddier1]

Originally posted by Suki
I most definitely will get this reading list and try to get these titles from the Denver Public Library (which is near my house).

Your entire essay-like exposition to my questions just reaffirmed what I said earlier about the dynamic qualities of science, but it always brings up more questions than it answers.

Have you read a great book by Michio Kaku called "HYPERSPACE"-A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension published originally in 1994 by Anchor Books. It got rave reviews by the New York Times Book Review. Kaku is a scientist and a physicist who stretches his extensive knowledge of Physics and just makes your head spin and revolve through his own version of the Theorem of Existence.

It took me a couple of reads to grasp his essential line of reasoning and about 3 more to get some of his more complex explanations but it was worth it!! You might have already read it but it is VERY INTERESTING.

There are parts of the book that support my argument against Eddier1's notions about scientists having to rely on publicly and professionally agreed upon truth. Though I see the arguments for objectivity in your favor. Sure, there are laws of nature and in the Universe that are reality and therefore essential truth and can not be trod upon or disturbed by human "subjectivity", I just happen to think humanity has not reached a point in time and space to be able to perceive all the mysteries in our world and give pat explanations for all living phenomenon without some big AGUJEROS in our original premises.

I will give Eddie lots of info on what us crazy Anthropologists are up to on many fronts. It is just that I am getting very busy at work, and I believe in trying to get current and up-to-date studies. (I have to do my homework [and reading] first). I wish I could see Eddie's face. He has such a strong personality. As for me, I have premature gray hair (for a 35 year old) and I die it a natural dark brown like when I was younger. It is curly. Everyone says I have huge, glowing dark brown eyes. I have light skin. Strong eyebrows. Clear skin and my mother says I have elegant hands. My husband thinks I am beautiful, but he is prejudiced he loves me too much.

I wish soooooo muccch to be a participant in your dance workshops Raul, I think I would die from the sheer pleasure of all that keen mind dedicated to such an ironically emotionally satisfying enterprise. Leticia g would be wonderful to watch dance as well. Alas, duty calls first.

I had some additional questions about these experiments that you quote. Mind teasers again... But I will leave them for next time, Raulito. What a priveledge it has been to meet both you and Eddie in this strange electronic cafe. "Manny" as you put it has pissed me off in another thread and so I subtly suggested he was a religious "hypocrite" I think I have made an enemy for life in that crazy guy. You seem from the limited experience I have of him to dialog better with him then than I do? Me cae super mal. He is constantly attacking me personally but I ignore him and give him backhanded criticism talking to others instead.

It certainly has added a dimension to urbanism (this computer anonymity exchange of thoughts and ideas). Adios. Con mas carino aun, Suki.

Hi Suki and Raul;

It seems I had to take a little hiatus from the forum, and got the chance to give your themes some sober second thoughts. And then all hell broke loose at the WTC, the latest breaking news, and not far from where I reside. Gosh, when I read some of the threads, by that guy Manny, I was presented with my name being associated with all Independentists, whom he labelled "terrorists" responsible for the horrible act. You know it made me think of the early Independentists of the Republic of America before it adopted democracy as its system of gov't. In those days, the Tories or the colonists who supported the Brits protested too much against the Independendists, and it made me think that it was because they had a sense of guilt feelings over the way they as lackeys of the Brits had treated so badly their Independentists neighbors. And to update this, it made me think of Manny who has protested too much slandering not only me, but all Independentists as terrorists responsible for that heinous crime. It too could be that he has a guilt complex as having once worked for the FAA, over not having the wear-withall to have prevented what happened. And so he transfers the guilt to all us Independentists, and it is no joke but a sick expression of his diseased brain.

But on the lighter side, it is nice to see that both of you enjoy tripping the light fantastic as mamboists. For me, its been so long that I last danced that I wouldn't know my right foot from left foot on a dance floor. But to get to your incisive posts on scientific matters, let me say Suki that I also took time out on my brief "vacation" to do some reading in Social or what you now refer to as Cultural Anthropology. My word! how things have changed since last I read my social anthropology books. In my books, there was a strong emphasis on the place of religion, basically, animism in the development of culture, but in the newer material I read animism with its fetishes and material symbols are hardly mentioned. Old Suma gets a passing wave from the modernists, even though they actually invented written language, and even though they actually worshipped the RAM as their god.

Your australopiths figure very large in the modernists explanations, and I was taken by your comparing Manny to one of them. When I consider Homo Habilis, the first toolmakers, I am embarrased that Manny was compared to them because he is not a toolmaker of any type, but spent his time in the FAA inheriting the wind above and below the wings of airplanes, and immersing himself in the variety of Wind Tunnels around the globe. Is it any wonder that this country has such disasters happen involving aviation when the FAA employed such sick individuals like Manny? I'm fairly certain they hired him for political reasons, and not because he was any good at the job. And so they have to take the blame for their poor performances, and not blame anyone else but themselves.

Suki and Raul, I have written much for the moment, and I will next time address your interesting posts on scientific matters, philosophy, and abiogenesis.

Regards Boricuas,
EddieR