Salsa > In defence of patterns

Discussion in 'Salsa' started by don_svendo, Jun 12, 2004.

  1. borikensalsero

    borikensalsero Moderator

    A hidden touch of a back straight helps energy freely travel through the body. There is nothing to "speed bump" the energy, hence, the reaction of the brain... the invisible controling the body, the body reacting, the mind given an incentive of which to feel good about... at least in my opinion...
    Yeap, we give away so many things just by our body's reaction to our inner feelings, or surroundings. It is a heartbreaker to feel when nothing is returned, yet, the joy felt for we had a chance to love. :D Even if the result wasn't the smiliest possible.
     
  2. Genesius Redux

    Genesius Redux New Member

    The key thing in what you write here is "takes the girl exactly where he wants." That's not leading, that's forcing. And there is no connection. A lead is a connection. I still say the word "pattern" is more or less useless in terms of what you are describing--you're describing, IMO, a faulty, non-connected lead. I think people should criticize dancers in terms that precisely describe what they're criticizing.

    One more suggestion--if I were paying top dollar for a coach, and was told only that my mind needed to be more engaged, but that everything else looked really good, I'd cancel the check. In my own experience, the coaches I've had focus on very particular things. It's through doing all of these things well that what you call connection is established. It's not through proper mind-set that people can suddenly, magically dance well. The spirit can be plenty willing, but if you don't know how to move your feet, you ain't gonna dance.
     
  3. borikensalsero

    borikensalsero Moderator

    Well, the ones I've seen haven't been forcefull, exaclty the opposite , the girls say, he is just such a great dancer, he is smooth, leads effortlessly, but there is nothing there!

    We are talking about a half connection when we speak of physical connection. If we take the soul/mind out of connection then there is nothing left, except good sex instead of great love making. The reason why love making is such is because emotions/body/mind are involved, not because the two individuals are on the same physical page, with every cause he does is followed by a desired reaction in her.

    The ultimate goal in all connection is to feel a connection that goes passed sking deep. It is a view that simply isn't seen as true in a mainstream american dancer. To a dancer in the US, a connection is generated through exactly your worlds, to a person whose sees the physical self as just means to express the inner self, a physical connection will always be incomplete, if there isn't a connection that grabs both dancers and takes them a palce very few dancers experience. For he seeks the love/mind/soul connection that love making gurantees but the bestest of lustful sexual encounters will not have, even if different partners act exactly the same.

    The difference between a human being and a machine is the soul. A machine can connect to another machine like nail to a thumb, but will never ever, be able to elevate the connection to a world where a willing and able human can take it. Remember that the seemingly unisom working of a conveyor belt isn't truly connection...

    dance as per? you are defining dance as per some predefined notion. When two people are together, there need be no rules to dance, they just are. When you connect, you connect, the other person is there with you, even if they can't dance a sequentionaly defined dance as mambo, yet they are still dancing.
     
  4. borikensalsero

    borikensalsero Moderator

    GR, all that the body does is defined by the mind, if the mind doesn't know about it the body won't do it. The physical connection you speak of is only achieved because they brain has learnt why/what/when/where and how of lead and follow. The body just executes it. Before anything becomes physically real the mind must first "invent/learn" it.

    Every technique of body movment will first go through reasoning by the mind, when it makes sense, and the mind telling the body to try try and try until it gets it right, is the mind satisfied.

    Everything we today are and do is beacuse the mind has taken the metaphysical world of thoughts and created a physical reality.

    How good of a dance will you have with someone how is a great follow but all her mind is doing is thinking about that lost love? Even players say it all the time, my mind just wasn't there, it just wasn't there, even after they've lead all scores. Because they know, something was missing.

    After you've connected passed sking deep, no other connection satisfy. Just like when you find love, you know who you really didn't love to the same level, and whether this on is comparable to that one... A state of being always helps surpass all physical states... The ultimate achievement would be to use the mind so well that it becomes transparent and find yourself in a state of all feeling, or agapeo if you will... Then you have supremely bypassed all physical connection and stumbled upon an absent world in many's opinions.
     
  5. salsaholic

    salsaholic New Member

    I'm probably guilty of NOT being a pattern dancer. Three or Four bars
    after I lead a move, sometimes even one bar later, I've forgotten what
    I just lead. And if I'm asked to repeat the move, I really dont have a clue!

    That said, I have certain habits that will come out in my dance - Usually
    involving my partner going round and round in circles really quickly, my
    partner suddenly finding themselves upside down or me standing in the
    middle and making my partner dance round me. These habits sometimes
    fall into a pattern, especially if I'm not in an inventive mood. But every
    girl i dance with will get a different dance. Not all girls are:

    a) capable of going upside down
    b) light enough that my fragile back can cope
    c) capable of 30 consecutive spins
    d) impressed by 30 consecutive spins
    e) inventive enough to make walking round me while I do nothing look
    exciting.

    So I will change my dance style to suit my partner's abilities. Also, if I'm
    dancing with the same girl again and again and again, I need to conciously
    force myself to try different moves, otherwise, we both get bored very
    quickly. So I believe a balance needs to be struck between totally off the
    wall, unpredictable, made up on the spot routines and preset patterns. By
    combining the two, and choosing the best base pattern to suit the song,
    and the dancer, you can have a really good dance.

    Thats what I think anyway!


    Graeme
     
  6. borikensalsero

    borikensalsero Moderator

    I like that salsaholic, btw, WELCOME!!!!

    Especially the part where you say that sometimes moves fall into a patter, which as I see it, and understand what you said, just because we fall into a patter, it doesn't make us a pattern dancer.

    A habit can become a patter yet when applied as you describe it ceases to be a pattern as its lonesome state, and being part of the whole makes it part of the experience... the good old we can't look at a given ingridient and say its bad until we have tried it with union the rest of the ingridients....
     
  7. Genesius Redux

    Genesius Redux New Member

    Hey Boriken--

    First off, uh, interesting new avatar. Looks like my aunt. Kinda scary.

    You seem to come at this from an almost neoPlatonist position--I don't really believe in the primacy of mind. I'm a materialist. I think action comes first and then mind grasps it--as in the evolutionary schema, self-consciousness comes relatively recently.

    Soul to me is a creation of the body, of action combined with perception turned in on itself.

     
  8. DancePoet

    DancePoet Well-Known Member

    This thread continues to fascinate me.
     
  9. ketchup

    ketchup New Member

    I agree, Boriken. But my interpretation might be a little different...

    I personally do not want to be governed by any kind of "should" "has to" "is supposed to", which many of us assign to dancing, consciously or subconsciously. They are all "rules" to me.

    "You have to consider the musical element of dancing...."
    "You need to establish connection with your partner...."
    "You are supposed to let the music call for your moves...."
    "Mambo should be about sensuality...."
    "Dancing has to be fun...."

    .... all these are "rules" to me.

    When I follow some of these "rules," that is my choice. Thus, I am not "governed" by them. They are more like "belief" in that case.

    The only "rule" I would be happy to be governed by is those that have to do with the fundamental structure of the dance. Simply put, I want to dance what people call mambo, instead of so-called "free-style" dance.

    I mean, if someone said "I like dancing mambo, oh yeah, I love it," and what he is doing looks like nothing but East coast swing to me, I would just assume that he is not happy to be governed by the same "rule" as I am. I would still believe that no one has the right to tell him he is not dancing mambo, though.
     
  10. MacMoto

    MacMoto Active Member

    Hi Graeme, welcome to DF! Nice to see you here. :D

    c) capable of 30 consecutive spins -- not me :oops:
    d) impressed by 30 consecutive spins -- :evil:
     
  11. borikensalsero

    borikensalsero Moderator

    William Blake speaks eloquently of something he doesn't know, and couldn't not prove by experience, but rather reason and logic, which yields no understating of the subject but rather "thoughts" of what sounds and is true to an ego looking for outmost supremacy. I/the body governs it all!

    William Blake's comments are true to an "atheist" in all Judeo-Christian societies. However, simple words from lack of experience, like a little boy talking about sex.


    Expanding on Mr Blake's points...
    1- That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.

    This shows a complete misunderstanding of the metaphysical us, and a striking give-away of his belief system (Judeo-Christian), which he should have known, wishes not to explain the metaphysical us to us. He sees them as 2 when all metaphysical principles, anyone who is into spiritually knows this like kids know Mc Donald’s. He might have read, but surely didn't understand, and didn’t understand because he was never given the tools to understand. I wouldn’t expect the skill of addition to solve quantum math.

    One (soul) is the physical display of the same (body). We are all one, but the view of the physical world with an Ego makes it seem as I, I, I, and I. Hence, a division that can only look at a world, in a Judeo-Christian world, along with its dualistic beliefs, as 2 entities...

    2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.

    Here he proves the root of his shortcomings in tackling the metaphysical world by using a belief system that doesn’t teach the skills to understand it. As well as his belief system, governed by Judeo-Christian thought, hence, making it apparent that he disregards thousands of years of spiritual history by other societies, which again, isn't his fault for we know that Judeo-Christian thought in its essence desires the egotistical view of only one and mighty BLANK. The remaining philosophies aren't even a distant thought... Which means, that his attempt to grasp a view of energy from a belief system that separates the two, and makes no attempt to explain the metaphysical but in means of heavely (god), and earth(us), will always yield the shortcomings that a man crated religious ethos yields.

    His logic system is bound for his use because of the society he lived in, he could only come up with what that society’s governing rules of thought and rationale can manage, yet fall short to understand even the simplest of concepts that everything is energy and energy is neither good or evil. It just is. The mind is the one that makes the distinction between good and evil... Just like it is the mind that helps break all the unconscious rules that govern our thinking, hence our actions and reality. Nothing will ever mean anything without the use of the mind. The best comparison I can make here is that he is going to Taco Bell to speak eloquently about Mexico.

    3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.

    Mr. blake is an educated man that never learned that past the island he lives in, way across the ocean, there is another world. Again, he is still only seeing that that same train of thought he tries to tackle (explained by a religious system) never tried to explain anything, but hide "something" about this very world, hence never teaching him the tools to tackle such a feat.

    He "rebels" from his societies teachings yet didn't realize he is using the very rules it taught him to attack it, he will run in circles until he learns that to understand something, he must first experience it. Merely speaking eloquently, generated by the most profound rules of logic, study and reason, will only yield, skepticism, for to truly know something we must become it first. How is a newby going to understand the feeling of the ZONE if he has never been there? He can say all he wants based on other’s opinions and how marvelous he thinks it is, but not until he is there, can he say. I KNOW FOR A FACT. Until then trying to prove the metaphysical world without being there, is, well, …. Just like an atheist saying he is atheist without first knowing God to deem him, not extant, for he must first meet him to deem him a hoax. Not until them will he have any base that it isn’t so, but, hey his eyes don’t see, hence it isn’t true…

    He is doing the opposite of proving the bible by reading the bible. He acts like society did Galileo, condemned for believing in a heliocentric universe when his society told him we were geocentric. The truth of mankind, nothing exists to anyone until they are told it is so.

    Mr. Blake displays an utter misunderstanding of the subject. He is so confused that he thinks spirituality and religion are the same. He basically looks at an institution created by man, defined by man to build ethos to control man, looking for the metaphysical world in a world governed by man, to say hey they are wrong. He is tackling his society thinking, not the metaphysical reality. His actions will only result in the same mistakes he committed. He found out that the mind does control the entire physical world. Even the way he sees that world.

    I blame him not, it is very apparent that he was using his addition skills, to understand quantum physics. He did the best he could in a society that teaches nothing about the understanding of that beyond the physical connection of a dancer. He was into something, he just didn’t find the right tools to fix it, before speaking about it.

    To understand his shortcoming we must first understand that which governs his thought process in the form of a Judeo-Christian belief system. His 3 so stated "errors" of religion, are errors of man, he merely looks to prove it with more errors. There is nothing more he could have come up with about the metaphysical world for he simply wasn't prepared to. It's like having a dentist do brain surgery, then think because he is a Dr. his actions and words should be able to do, regardless of his mind being ready or not.

    My views are as old as the stars in the sky, yet learned through experience, hence, not my philosophy but my reality, however, I know that my world is "fantasy" for this society I live in, says my views and lifestyle are impossible. They will be so until a dude holding a microscope, in a white robe, says, yeap, he might just be onto something. Now, we can all believe, go search.

    Boy, did that have anything to do with dancing!! BTW, I see I’m not the only one with charming looks… your aunt must be a star..
     
  12. Danish Guy

    Danish Guy New Member

    What a great thread. Especially the first part, it seems to drift at in a philosophical genesis.

    I thought I might be guilty of being a pattern dancer, but it seem like I go free. :D

    To resume the signs of a pattern dancer we seen to agree on:

    Leading long pattern combinations from start to end
    - Without regard to the skill of the follower.
    - Without regard of the floor space available due to other dancers.
    - Without adjusting the patterns to slow or fast songs.
    - Like at perfect robotic lead, missing the mental connection.


    Then there’s the statements
    - Without letting the music call the moves.
    - Without the salsa soul.

    But to me this seems to be more like the ultimate salsa experience, than characteristics of a pattern dancer.
     
  13. Danish Guy

    Danish Guy New Member

    I always use whatever I can of small emergency breaks and evading opportunities to avoid collision and protecting my partner. The same go if she can’t follow my lead trough at pattern, then improvising a move out rather than try to force it through seems only natural.

    But there might be something about the known patterns pieces combined with the music can lead to new things. After leading something at the latest live concert she said she never have seen this move before. And never had I. But it worked, and what a feeling.
    :bouncy:
     
  14. Danish Guy

    Danish Guy New Member

    I’ve tried a teacher at the ending of a workshop commented something like.
    “Many of you didn’t get the pattern. It doesn’t matter. You don’t need the pattern. Bits and pieces might pop up when you dance, and hold your hands a certain way, and you can use it there”

    The guy is right, but if you get the pattern on the “spine”, it’s much easier to break down, and use the pieces other places.

    Got another teacher who started the lesson with crossed hands, left on top. Then we got 4 different ways out. Then two ways in, and we could combine it and practice.

    This was a great way of showing there is always different paths to take, every time you reach a familiar handhold or connection.
     
  15. mellody43

    mellody43 New Member

    Holy smokes! I was skimming this thread (honestly at this time of day -- 5 pm Friday! - I don't have the mental energy to absorb this level of conversation! LOL! -- and I noticed "Indiana University". That is my alma mater! Is it yours?

    I attended from 1989-1993. Oh, so long ago. *sigh* You? Where did you live on campus? You can PM me. :)

    I attended a concert by David Baker, and spoke with him afterwards -- my father is a musician who loves jazz, and I also took oboe lessons at the music school... we chatted briefly. He was a lovely guy!
    Melissa
     
  16. ketchup

    ketchup New Member

    Boriken, at the risk of embarassing myself, I need to ask you questions(sorry, I am not proficient in English... :oops: ).

    First, I am assuming that by "he," you are referring to W.B. Am I correct?

    Second, if I am, I feel that you and W.B. are in (at least, partial) agreement that "1- That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul" is false (or an error), because W.B. clearly states so as follows:

    From the above alone, it seems that you and W.B. both are basically in the same position:"1- That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul" is false . Am I correct?

    ----------- ---------------- ------------ --------------

    However, I also see that you and W.B. do not share the exact same reason for opposing the "soul AND body" view, because you say:

    (This, I am not quite sure yet that I understand, though.)

    when W.B. says:
    On the first look, you two sound the same to me. However, as I read on, you said:

    And this made me wonder if I really understood what you meant.

    My overall impression is that, as I mentioned earlier, you and W.B. are in agreement in the sense that both believe soul and body are not seperable, however not for the same reasons, because:

    W.B. says, "; for that call'd Body is a portion of Soul discern'd by the five Senses," (---- I am tempted to wonder if he is claiming Soul's supremacy over Body, in this statement alone), whereas your statement "One (soul) is the physical display of the same (body)" sounds like the total opposite of W.B.'s view.

    Could you clarify your position (or/and W.B.'s position) for me again?

    P.S. It could be that I am confused, not because of my inability to read, but simply because of your new avatar!!!!! It's not fair to hypnotize me by your new look, when I am trying to THINK!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
     
  17. ketchup

    ketchup New Member

    My sentiments exactly!
     
  18. borikensalsero

    borikensalsero Moderator


    Oops, I messed up, there aren’t 2 entities, there is just one. Different states of the same, something like water in the form, of a solid, liquid, and gas. (Yes, I am referring to him W.B).

    In metaphysics there aren’t 2 existing principles but one. The same is seen as different states.

    All his bible codes are really one philosophy(Judeo-Christian), which minutely differ in thought. Which means he lacks information under the statement ALL BIBLES.

    Yes, and No… yes, because body and soul aren’t distinct, but yet goes on to counter his same statement by saying the body is a portion/part of the soul. No, because soul and body are different manifestations of the same, not portion/part of, but the same. The soul doesn’t need inlets, if one, it can only be the brain, not the "middle-men"(senses). The soul is already omnipresent, in the form of a body, what it needs is awareness of its metaphysical state, by its solid state (body). Kind of like water, knowing that it too is ice, not just liquid.

    Yes, we are in partial agreement to the extent of “not separable”. We can be seen as generally sharing the same view. I see them as one, where he doesn’t. He seems to sees them as 2, by means of portion and "hidden" view of supremacy, bonded together living harmoniously, where the sense create that difference. The body and soul I see as one, where the senses don’t have anything to do with that difference, which means they live what they are told to live by the brain (ultimately the soul), the discern is truly the brain, and how it controls what we taste, touch, smell, hear, and see… Partial agreement it is...

    My stance is that the body (solid) is the physical representation (no separation/no portion) of the soul (gaseous state) in a world where there is need for a physical representation to experience what it needs in path to…

    I think that what he meant is that the senses differentiate the part of the soul that is the body, hence my simliar view to yours of supremacy. how can the soul and the body be differentiated if they are one and the same? Awareness. Which is where the mind comes in, since it truly is what makes the difference between body and soul.

    In all, we would both fall under the same umbrella view of not separable. I think he seems supremacy as well, where to me they are the same, hence no real supremacy in the world where he sees as duality, and I don't... One entity, different manifestations of the same...

    Imma have to get that book, was it a book? read it and see how far off I was with my statements.

    That avatar of mine has got me thinking in all weird, I can't even think staright anymore :bouncy:
     

Share This Page