some serious queries: pundit ka iyotheedas AKA ayothidasar, prof dharmaraj, our social-scientists(!!), our ‘professional’ discourse & ethics – notes

11/01/2021

A long time pal (who is neither Iranian nor Serbian definitely), but who does not want to be clearly identified (though I kinda know who he is), had raised a bunch of very pertinent questions, a couple of weeks back, which need to be handled. So, here goes… (there are some small edits in his text)

WARNING! This is a nearly 3000+ word XXXL post!

Actually talking/discussing these important queries threadbare would have been easier, better and can actually lead to a nuanced understanding – but for various reasons that could not be done; so FWIW, my annotations of his queries follow. (because I generally believe in closures, though typing/transcribing long-form is currently difficult for me)

1

This is a comment to this post.As it got too long I thought I’d sent this as an email. From a cursory familiarity with about a dozen of the 18 names you mentioned, I tend to agree with most of your classifications.

Young man, that post (நம்முடைய தமிழில் மானுடவியல், சமூகவியல், ஜாதி, சமூக அடுக்குவரிசைப் பகுப்பு, ஜாதி அரசியல் இன்னபிற பற்றிய மதிக்கக்கூடிய ஆய்வுகள்/புத்தகங்கள் ஏன் இல்லவேயில்லை? 19/11/2014)) was written in 2014 – in quite a few realms, I have since moved on. In some cases, the ideas got fortified. Some new names have come in. Many fell by the wayside. One evolves or degenerates, as the case may be, yeah?

I reproduce the relevant section in-toto so that we can discuss that:

In cases where I disagreed I thought you’ve been generous,perhaps because you have read something better of their works which I’ve not – which is very likely. e.g. regarding Po.Velsamy, the recently departed Tho.Pa. you said நான் படித்தவரை நல்ல, மதிக்கத்தக்க கட்டுரையாளர்கள்தான் இவர்கள். To borrow your expression, YMMV.

Okay, I need to qualify them in the text of TWO sub-ideas:

A. In our dear TN and in Tamil discourse, there is a relative grading – that is, in the context of what is available fortunately or unfortunately, the tabulations are reasonable. (‘ஆலையில்லா ஊருக்கு இலுப்பைப்பூ சர்க்கரை’ model)

In our milieu – absolute merit in many fields, is rather difficult to come by – this is my rather regretful conclusion.

B. If you take international standards of researchers/theorists – of the above, only 13 and 17 pass the muster, IMO.

9, that is Sri Stalin Rajangam, is actually getting there and has a bright future ahead. May be there are more new or young guys or even old folks, but I have lost the interest in locating and hunting them down. My foci does NOT include the sub-optimal social studies. Especially in the context of Tamil.

I have a lot of respect for Sri A Ramachandran – the epigraphist and historian. (you must remember that I had not included serious historians and others in that list at all, in which case, I would have gladly & respectfully included Sri A Nagaswamy et al – actually there are many good Scholars, in there)

Having said that, please reread: “14, 15, 16, 18: இவர்கள் எழுதிய சில கட்டுரைகளைத் தான் படித்திருக்கிறேன். நான் படித்தவரை நல்ல, மதிக்கத்தக்க கட்டுரையாளர்கள்தான் இவர்கள். (இவர்கள் எழுதியிருக்கக் கூடிய புத்தகங்களைப் படிக்கவேண்டும்)”

Since the main focus is Sri Tho. Paramasivam, yes. Of course, I have read his Azhagar Malai thesis – must have perused it in 2001 or thereabouts. He was damn good in field study / data collection work in that book. I will NOT deny that at all. Data gathering has been rigorous, in my limited understanding.

But, it was all ‘ஆலையில்லா ஊருக்கு இலுப்பைப்பூ சர்க்கரை’ – since he is/was no good in building/scaffolding a rigorous thesis based on his data, at all.

Sri Badri Seshadri has recently done an excellent, humorous and sane debunking of Tho. Paramasivan on Facebook. However, Sri Jeyamohan had also written about the same-same thesis a while back, rather glowingly & recklessly, IIRC. (shows how scholarly can our Great Mahamaho Guru get, given half-a-chance!)

Anyway. In fact, I have quite a few times scathingly(!) and jokingly written about Tho.Paramasivan and his delectable nonsense, dunno whether you have read the following.

As for Sri Po Velsamy, he has fallen by the wayside, AFAIK. Such is the level of his scholarship.

Please note that, as a student of various realms of knowledge & a professional hater of pseudo-science / dishonest narratives, I keep checking myself and revising my views.

As I have said a few times in the past, I like & respect grey areas.

Black or White kinda world view is generally not for me, as I always feel that even Dravidians may have an intelligent (and honest) person or two in their ranks.

Anyway, this email is not about them.I have been following Prof.Dharumaraj and quite enjoy his style of writing and find him often insightful. Even on occasions when one finds an analogy/reading/parallels/conclusions somewhat ‘strained’, I’ve found his approach novel and starkly different from the tiresomely reductive pop-discourse (அதாவது நான் நுட்பவாசகனாம்).

I also enjoy Sri Dharmaraj’s wry style of discourse, fine-honed sense of humor and his angst, in general. I have made it a point to read all his available works, books, including his PhD thesis: Conceptual structures in Tamil folktales: with special reference to Nellai Kattapomman and V.O.Chidhambarnar districts (some comments on this Thesis in Segment2 below)

I have two questions though. 
First about Prof.Dharumaraj’s critique of M.S.S.Pandian which you mentioned was the article that introduced him to you.Have you blogged about it? 

No. I had just mentioned his essay in passing. But, I had read it. I also specialize(!) in ‘loosela vuduthal.’

His critique of Pandian is indeed hard-hitting. But….I’d be selling needles at the smithery by telling you that calling nonsense on Dravidian political ‘analysis’ isn’t by itself a commendable achievement, is it?

Agreed. To call out ANY dravidian narrative for falsification and for being scumbaggish is rather easy-peasy – because, the very basis of ‘Dravidianism’ is bloody shaky.

Perhaps it is a commendable achievement in the world of academia, to break free of analyses that adduce non-existent ideological virtues to the Dravidian movement. But to the reasonable reader (பார்றா!), Prof.Dharmarajan isn’t saying something he already doesn’t know here, save the splendid points about jargon-shifts in academia and what is elided therein.

Agreed. I reread the essay again, today.

On the other hand, in the article, Prof. Dharumaraj goes on to make a series of assertions:

A. Primary missionary activity was focused on upper castes and wasn’t met with resistance

B. Missionaries withdrew activity and Brahmins did ghar-wapsi on a large scale. 

C. Second wave was targeted at lower castes. 

D. Brahmins bristled against this and thus became anti-colonialists 

Therefore, to call them anti-colonial is to unnecessarily make heroes out of those driven by self-preservation alone, as proven by B. He calls Pandian intellectually lazy by ‘playing into the hands’ of the existing narrative somewhat.

I am guilty of reduction, but this is fairly the thrust of the latter half of his article.

Of course, you are trying to essentialize – actually synopsize what Prof Dharmaraj is saying. You are not incorrect; you are not far from truth; there is a delectable ‘conspiracy theory’ in there.

The thing is, for ANY lad who grew up in the 1970s onwards, it is difficult to get out the all-pervasive ‘conspiracy theory’ around him. I am sure Prof was one of them. I definitely was one. It took a looong struggle and sustained exposure to real scholarship and hardwork to get out of the trap of such blatantly laughable narratives.

I must have been very lucky.

I understand A and C are fairly on-point. Even D can possibly be argued so.But B? Is there any sort of scholarly consensus on that claim at all? It struck me as a very flaccid claim sandwiched in. Prof. Dharumaraj then uses it to make a broad brush claim like Rather, what is evident is that members of the Brahmin caste are willing to accept or give up anything for the sake of political gain. 

This is right out of the Dravidian polemics playbook, insofar as it suggests disposition of members of the caste en masse. 

What does one make of this astounding conclusion:Corporations are able to monitor and control dissident voices this way. That is how Periyar was produced. Brahmanism enjoyed his talk; but only his talk. And after Periyar, brahmins have still not bestowed the privilege of being a rebel against the system upon anybody else.

Wha..?!

Agreed in general – but none of the four pointers can be solidly supported; it is mere parroting of propaganda, of course indefensible because of lack of concrete data/evidence; but the narratives ‘in the air’ – especially to an aspiring and intellectually disposed lad (of 1970s onwards) – have only been these kinds of propagandist drivel, no?

Also, it may be immature, but the pleasures of a ‘conspiracy theory’ are too salacious to resist – equating Corporations with Brahmins and considering, of all the people, ‘Production of Periyar’ by the Brahmins.

Am not justifying mediocrity though. I do not agree with it. All I am saying is, I can understand the context and the content – the frame messages, definitely.

And then the most confounding line in the whole essay:
what should our stance against Brahmins be? 

:-) His stance and ‘nuanced’ understanding (a part of it) of one of the situations is like the following.

Young Prof is perplexed, caught in an indefensible narrative; what else do you expect??

Professor has an uncritical acceptance of Pundit Ka Iyotheedas- and IIRC, brought in simulacrum, Baudrillard and assorted postmodern delight etc etc to interpret him. (I discussed with this hilarious ‘Simulacrum’ in a previous note in Tamil)

Hence, I think Prof’s ‘nuanced’ question “what should our stance against Brahmins be” and the ‘our’ in it should be reinterpreted in the light of the Simulacrum, whatever.

After having rejected the Dravidian dichotomous categorization in no uncertain terms throughout the essay and having keenly observed “While there is no unity to be found behind the political term “Non-Brahmin,” animosity towards Brahmins had pervaded every corner of Tamil society.”, I found the usage of ‘we’ quite curious. 

I think, you should not be curious. The narrative is simple. It is also ‘nuanced.’ Matter is settled.

What is meant here? Does the hitherto unreal non-Brahmin umbrella assume a form, once it is recast under the ‘proper’ ideological vantage of AyodhidhAsar instead of EVR? Even supposing the term ‘we’ refers to  ‘those ideologically committed to equality‘, he is positing the Brahmin as the other, that rest are obliged to nevertheless be ‘against’.
Was wondering what you thought of this essay.

What do I think of the essay?

Actually, I don’t think much of it now, but for his dicing/dissing of where the other great Scholar has messed up. But, this is a free country. Even an otherwise interesting soul like Prof Dharmaraj, has a right to his obtuse, off-tangent views. Of course, they reflect his ‘Simulacrum’ reality.

One man’s Simulacrum is another man’s Wild gibberish. And, vice versa, of course!

Which brings me to next question : AyothidAsarI have read a few writings by him and found him quite middling, at best. So I’ve always been a little confused about the acclaim he seems to enjoy among the cognoscente. So when Prof. T.Dharumaraj’s new book was introduced by JeMo as, not a ‘selections of AyothidAsar’s writing’ but Dharumaraj’s take on ‘how to read AyothidAsar’ I was quite interested.
As I was reading it, I saw I was getting only more bewildered. Fact free assertions, philological claims that will make pAvANar look like a greenhorn, convictions of ‘brahmin ploy’ serving as the vantage point for all reading (except that it is proffered in an altogether new manner than the latter day Dravidian movement) – is what I kept coming across. 
It’s a highly readable book – but I couldn’t get past half of it, because my stumbling block was the same: How does this counter-narrative thing work?

As I said earlier, I have read most of Prof Dharmaraj’s oeuvre.

Also every one of the available works of Pundit Ka Iyotheedas.

I must admit that the Pundit has a lot of a great sense of humor. At the same time, I would not downplay the consistent, tireless efforts taken by him in terms of what he perceived as injustices against his tribe of people. Bringing out newsletters, mags, reading, mobilizing people and opinion making – are no easy jokes. He has to be admired for his consistency too. (I will not talk about his incredible ability to spin yarns, as it is beyond the scope of this annotation. But, Badri Seshadri has done it.)

I understand that much of history would have slipped through the cracks and by insisting on what is recorded alone, one won’t get the complete picture. To that extent, extrapolations and imagination play a role in helping paint the picture. But, does being able to articulate a counter-narrative suffice? Isn’t there such a thing as the onus of establishing validity of a claim?I don’t intend these questions cynically as juicy half-volleys for you. 
I don’t get how the field operates. எதை வைச்சு இதைச் சொல்றீங்க – is a very basic question one can’t banish. What is the equivalent of falsifiability criteria here?
பிடி கிடைக்கலை.
அன்புடன்,
0.1333…

Sir, this NOT extrapolation – what and how the Pundit (and the Prof, in quite a few cases) write or have written – need NOT have any evidence.

It is all about Simulacrum, silly. Or Crystal ball gazing or Voodoo, if you will.

 PS: இதுக்கு வரிக்கு வரிக்கு வரி பதில் சொல்லணும்னு இல்லை. In fact,  இதுக்கு பதில் சொல்லனும்னு கூட இல்லை!  I’ve been reaching folks who may be able to help in good faith here. உங்களை விட்டுவைப்பானேன்னு…

Dunno whether the above annotations were/are of help; they summarize my ‘understanding’ at this point of time.

YMMV.

2

I read Prof Dharmaraj’s 1998 PhD thesis/dissertation some 5 years back or so. I was not taken in by that dissertation for various reasons, I will expand on it a little bit here. There are many issues, with that research, but would just talk about only a few.

The context was/is: I am generally on the lookout for Scholars in the few fields that I am interested in and follow them quite closely, to the extent that I could tease out meanings and new/emergent ideas from them. I was/am still interested in certain aspects of Folklore as applicable to the times of the development of the Internet from the 1960s – and much else; had helped/assisted a lady from The Netherlands to work on certain aspects of Siri, the grand forerunner of our Silappadikaram epic – in terms of oral histories, performances and folklore. Also to help a comparative study by an young scholar, to probe into certain aspects in the lives of a Gounder subjathi in Sathiamangalam area as reflected in the context of Folklore, and a parallel Gowda subjathi in Southern Mysore taluks. I have some basic understanding of studying folklore, though am NOT a scholar at all! (in anything!)

Anyway.

First thing that baffled me was that, I could not figure out a cogent narrative in the whole thesis, various parts dealt with various things, but things ‘do not come together’ as a cohesive, meaningful Whole.

There was this field work and some details, but there was this labored use of his own supervisor/guide’s work (Prof HS Gill of JNU) in his thesis! (this is a very bad in-breeding problem in the social sciences(!) academia, that is, the need to rehash and somehow use the direct work of the guide etc, I understand that – this is not specific to Prof Dharmaraj)

Second issue, is his somewhat twisting of common thingies/knowledge even, all for sacrificing his Thesis at the altar of Folklore, or so I would presume.

I could be wrong here, would be happy to be corrected. I understand (as also many Tamil lexicons) Kattukathai as something that is made-up, imaginary etc. It is Kattu, not Kaattu or Kadu. If it were Kadu or Kattu then the Scholar would be perhaps correct. in linking it to a field/kaadu. And then, the assumption that ‘folks tell tales while working in the fields’ – I have worked in the fields for some years, I also consider myself a story teller, but I do not think I had any energy or freedom to air my tales while I was sweating it out in the fields! Or is the narrative of the Scholar straight out of some MGR movie, may be?

Is it possible that these could be specific to the districts that the Scholar studied? Am not sure. May be, but the onus is on the Scholar to bolster his claim.

But when he says it is ‘common parlance.’ then it should be applicable to other parts of TN, yeah?

However, this only is talked about as kattuk-kathai in the Sathyamangalam area. Not Kaattu-k kathai.

It appears as if, the Scholar has been generous with certain ideas/facts; of course there are quite a few other such baffling things too!

The final part of the thesis tries to use 18th Century French theoretical moorings and conception of language/thought process to understand, wait, Tolkappiam.

These kinds of ‘Bharathi and Shelley: A contested gaze of postmodern praxis’ always bring out the bile in me. Give me the heebie-jeebies. Raise my hackles.

Why do Scholars do this? :-(

Anyway, I read this a few times, tried to connect it with the Folklore the Scholar was studying and generally gave up. Unfortunately the whole thesis appeared very mish-mashy wishy-washy etc etc – and oh what do I say, um, erm… …ugh

Here also, the Scholar talks about using the theories of HS Gill (his guide/supervisor) of some VIP Frenchie thingie or theories of signification or something…

This date of Tolkappiam is bad history and research. Scholar quotes Kamil Zvelebil’s 1973/74 book. Much water has flown under the bridge since then.

I feel that at the time of writing his thesis, the Scholar should have looked for proper, current, accepted dates; also, this is only a beginning of a series of issues with that part.

’nuff said. ugh

3

As I said earlier, I like Prof Dharmaraj’s writing/essays on the blog. He is bright. Of course, currently it looks like, he has an agenda, tunnel vision etc which may not make him a dispassionate Scholar or a rigorous guide of stellar research efforts, which is a pity. However, he has a wry sense of humor which I can relate to.

In fact, recently too, I had pointed to one of his such posts.

He has the potential to…

As I always say, YMMV. And, his.

Am I a part of the process of creating an yet-another EVR? Dunno.

END

7 Responses to “some serious queries: pundit ka iyotheedas AKA ayothidasar, prof dharmaraj, our social-scientists(!!), our ‘professional’ discourse & ethics – notes”

  1. dagalti Says:

    Thank You for taking the time and effort time to respond in detail.
    Will digest and respond here.

  2. dagalti Says:

    /no good in building/scaffolding a rigorous thesis based on his data/

    Well put. 
    I hadn’t read Prof.Tho.Pa’s Azhagar Kovil, which JeMo wrote highly of.The other articles, speeches, books (like his essay collections பண்பாட்டு அசைவுகள், அறியப்படாத தமிழகம் did little to enthuse me to read this). But given the all-round high praise, I assumed it was a rigorous early work.

    I read the links in your previous post to Badri Seshadri and I see the it points to exactly the kind of problems I had experienced with other writings: foregone conclusion/narrative into which observations were read into, inadequate consideration of alternative theories and eliminating them for lack of rigour or even plausibility. 

    /dunno whether you have read the following./

    Oh I have Sir! Which is kinda why I was perplexed by your “நான் படித்தவரை சில நல்ல..”. சரி, quote பண்ணது தவிர சிலபல நல்லதும் உங்களுக்கு அமைஞ்சிருக்கு போலன்னு விட்டுட்டேன்.

    /but  none of the four pointers can be solidly supported; it is mere parroting of propaganda,/
     Oh ok. That’s interesting. Makes me want to question myself on how I was more ready to accept A and C than B!

    /Simulacrum/
    30 நாட்களில் போஸ்ட்மாடர்னிஸம் வகை ‘Philosophize This’ podcastல் கேட்ட புகைமூட்ட ஞாபகம். மீண்டும் பஸ்கி எடுத்துப் படிக்கவேண்டும்.

    /uncritical acceptance of Pundit Ka Iyotheedas-/
    Not actually. Since I send the email I made a renewed attempt at the book.

    In the last third of his latest book, Prof. Dharumaraj very clearly observes that Pt.AyodhidhAsar simply refuses to provide ‘proof’ for any of his narratives. And that the sheer novelty is important in itself (as you also observe the sheer volume of work, avenues of reaching out, done consistently and single-handedly  do seem extraordinary).

    But then he goes about saying:
    “எல்லாவிதமான ஆய்வுகளும் சில முன்முடிவுகளின் மீதே எழுப்பப்படுகின்றன. இந்த முன்ம்முடிவுகள் பல தருணங்களில் தத்துவம் சார்ந்ததாக அமைந்து விடுகின்றன. கோட்பாட்டின் துணையோடு ஆய்வுசெய்பவர்கள் அக்கோட்பாடு கொண்டிருக்கும் நம்பிக்கைகள் மீதே தங்களது ஆய்வையும் கட்டத் தொடங்குகிறார்கள். அனைத்து அறிவியல்களும் தங்களுக்கான, கேள்வி கேட்கக்கூடாத அடிப்படைகளைக் கொண்டே தங்களது எல்லைகளை வரையறுக்கின்றன. இந்தப் பின்னணியில்தான் அயோத்திதாசரின் முன்முடிவுகளை யோசிக்கத் தொடங்குகிறோம்”

    So he is very conscious about what AyothidAsar is taking to be axioms beyond the pale of questioning. 

    So he isn’t uncritically accepting, it is something ‘worse’:

    There was a recent conference about the book (videos on Prof.Dharumaraj’s youtube channel) , where academics like Prof.Stalin Rajangam spoke (bland). 

    In his ஏற்புரை Prof.Dharumaraj said something which was befuddling.

    He said (sic) 

    This is roughly the point.

    So, no he is not AFAIUnderstand uncritically accepting AyothidAsar.  Even in is book he points out how AyothidAsar doesn’t back up his claims. It is just that he is thrilled to found in AyothidAsar a peerlessly imaginer whose work could be a bulwark for social progress.

    But isn’t this deeply problematic?

    This, ‘the historicity matters less than the usefulness’ can serve ANY agenda.

    So how does one evaluate claims of retelling ‘history’?!

     
    /certain aspects of Siri, the grand forerunner of our Silappadikaram epic /

    Wha..!


    • 1. லூஸ்ல-வுடுதல் என்பது, நம் ‘ஆலையில்லா ஊரில் இலுப்பைப்பூ’ கலாச்சாரச் சூறைக்காற்றில் முக்கியம்.

      2. பண்டிட் க. அயோத்திதாஸ் குறித்த, பேராசிரியர் தர்மராஜ் அவர்களின் கேள்விகேட்காத ஒப்புக்கொள்ளல்த்வா:

      2.1 பேராசிரியர் அவர்களின் ஸிமுலாக்ரம் குறித்த கட்டுரை (நன்றாக வந்திருக்கிறது – தேடிப் படிக்கவும்) அவர் தளத்தில் இருக்கிறது – அது, அவர் பார்வை குறித்த சில தரப்புகளை அளிக்கலாம். (தாங்கள் ஒப்புக் கொள்வதற்காக அல்ல, பின்புலப் புரிதலை அடைவதற்காக – அதற்குப் பின்னர் 2ஐ மறுபரிசீலனை செய்யவும்.)

      2.2 பண்டிட் அவர்களைப் பற்றிய அதிகபட்ச பேராசிரிய விமர்சனம், செல்லமாகக் கடிந்துகொள்ளல் வகை, அதாவது ஒருமாதிரி அங்கலாய்ப்பு கலந்த கிறக்கம் – ஆகவே, லூஸ்ல வுடப்படவேண்டியது.

      2.3 கைவசம் அந்தப் புத்தகம் இல்லை – ஆகவே குறிப்பிட்ட பலப்பல தரவுகளை எனக்கு அளிக்க முடியவில்லை – அதில் பல பிரச்சினைகள் இருக்கின்றன.

      2.4 “அனைத்து அறிவியல்களும் தங்களுக்கான, கேள்வி கேட்கக்கூடாத அடிப்படைகளைக் கொண்டே தங்களது எல்லைகளை வரையறுக்கின்றன. இந்தப் பின்னணியில்தான் அயோத்திதாசரின் முன்முடிவுகளை யோசிக்கத் தொடங்குகிறோம”

      2.4.1 axiom பற்றிய பேராசிரியரின் axiom இது. மேற்பேச்சு பேசமுடியாது.

      2.4.2 என்ன சொல்லவருகிறார் என்றால் – பண்டிட் சொன்னதை axiomஆகக் கருது, என்ன பிற துறைகளில் அப்படியில்லையா என்கிறார் – இதற்கு பேராசிரியரின் axiom: 2.4.1

      2.5 மறுபடியும் 2 – மறுபரிசீலனை செய்யவும்.

      3. அந்த விடியோவைப் பார்க்கத் திராணியில்லை. முடிந்தால் பிறகு பார்க்கிறேன்.

      4. ஸிரி-சிலப்பதிகாரம் தொடர்பு (ஐயம்திரிபற்றது) பற்றி எப்போதாவது எழுதவேண்டும். இப்போதைக்கு, சிலகாலம் முன் அது குறித்து எழுதிய தமிழ்த் துணுக்கு கீழே:

      2. + சிலப்பதிகாரத்தின் விதை, இளங்கோ அவர்களின் திருமண்டையில் உதிக்கவில்லை. அது  ஒருமாதிரித் தொன்மக்கதைத் திரட்டுகளின் இடிமானங்களைக் கொண்டு, எழுதாக் கிளவிகளை வைத்து இளங்கோ மானேதேனே செய்ததுதான். கொஞ்சம் ஆராய்ந்தால், அவர், துளுபிரதேச, பழமை வாய்ந்த  (சர்வ நிச்சயமாக, சிலப்பதிகாரத்துக்கு முந்தைய) ஸிரி நாட்டுப்புறக் கதையாடலிலிருந்து பலப்பல அம்சங்களை எடுத்தார் என நிறுவலாம் – அல்லது, ஸிரிக்கும் ஸிலப்பதிகாரத்துக்கும் மூலம் வேறேங்கோ முற்காலத்தில் என்றாவது. :-(

      இன்னொரு விஷயம்: இந்த ஸிரி பத்தனா, சிலப்பதிகாரத்தைவிடப் பலமடங்கு நீளம்.

      இதனைக் கொஞ்சம் அறிந்தபோது முதலில் கொஞ்சம் சோகமாக இருந்தது; இப்போது இல்லை.

      நம்முடைய பலவிஷயங்கள் அப்படித்தான்.

      வரலாற்றுரீதியான இம்மாதிரிப் பெரிய பிரச்சினைகளைக் கண்டுகொள்ளாமல் லூஸ்ல வுட்டுக்கொண்டே இருந்தால், நம்மிடம் உருப்படியாக மிஞ்சுவது கோமணம்கூட இல்லை என்ற நிலைக்கு வந்துவிடுவோமோ?

      —-
      சுட்டி: https://othisaivu.wordpress.com/2020/10/05/post-1200/

      • dagalti Says:

        This part of the comment didn’t go through, because like a doofus I put it within 
        He said (sic) 
        worrying about the historical correctness of AyothidAsar’s narratives is itself the wrong approach. What matters is how ‘useful’ they are.

        Tamils seem to have a shared memory of a casteless society. Now if AyothidAsar’s imaginative narratives, stitched together give a grand picture of such a past; that could provide us with a way forward to think of a future.

        ————

        In fact it is recurring theme in Prof. TD’s writings. In one of his recents blogposts (regarding Manu) he has written:
        நான் திரும்பத் திரும்ப சொல்லி வருவது போல, இதில் அறிவியல் சரித்தன்மைக்கு இடமே இல்லை.  இது உண்மையா, வரலாற்று பூர்வமானதா என்ற கேள்விகளெல்லாம் வெறும் மோஸ்தர் மட்டுமே! மாறாக, இந்த ‘யதார்த்த மனுதர்ம நூல்’ என்ற கற்பனை எவ்வளவு இன்றியமையாதது என்பதே இங்கு முக்கியம். 

        :-/

        Btw

        I had read your earlier post on mentioning ஸிரி My ‘Wha?!’ was based on a embarrassingly கேணைத்தனமான misunderstanding. As you’d mentioned ‘certain aspects of Folklore as applicable to the times of the development of the Internet’ ,  for some reason I thought you meant Siri -_-


  3. Hmm. (i guessed that some portion had gotten left out – but OpenThreads kinda situation is not possible currently – so less of useful discussions/looping or nesting or query-comment cycles etc – so)

    Yo, dagalti…

    Again, all I am saying is, it is all about that blasphemy called Alternative(!) Reality(!!) via Simulacrum. None of the normal rules (for a given value of ‘normal’) are applicable.

    Where imagination actually repeatedly trumps reality – and in future may biden. Deliriously muddled thoughts, aided by appropriate quantities of quality meth and boosted by dark agendas become the new reality.

    So.

    No need to even bother about Science. What Science! bah

    The post-modern or critical theory enabled discourses(!) have nothing to do with science or even basics of logic/rationality; at all! have seen this holy attitude is so many folks… (who may otherwise be intelligent, too intelligent, I mean)

    In any case, in the ‘eyes’ of the sociology type fellers, even Science is assumed to be having certain basics beyond question, at least the axiom part of it.

    Again axioms are freely used adjunct to or replaced by ‘pre-concieved notions.’

    In other words, it is a delectable & bloody ‘free for all!’

    Do you think, any more serious consideration of the ‘tamil intellectual sunset’ is even needed?

    “Layer of ash separates morning and evening milk.” as an ol’ pal of mine used to have on his .sig

    You judge.

    • dagalti Says:

      /Again axioms are freely used adjunct to or replaced by ‘pre-concieved notions.’/
      என் professorஓட professor ஒருத்தர் இருந்தார். அவரோட ஆப்தவாக்யம் to measure the ‘worth’ of any paper being attempted was:

      “There needs to be a gentlemanly distance between initial assumptions and eventual conclusions”

      /Do you think, any more serious consideration… is even needed?/
      Fact: Optimism is the preserve of the young.
      கதை(யா/வி)டல்: Optimism is the fountain of youth.

      உங்களைத் தவிர இன்னும் ரெண்டு பேரைப் பிறாண்டியிருக்கேன் from other parts of the ideological(!) spectrum. மொத்தமா தொகுத்துக் குழம்பிக்கறேன்.

      இத்தோட முடிச்சிக்கிறேன். Thank You.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s