'Little Boxes: (Il)Logic(s) of Truth-Room(s)'

[Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay]

'Little Boxes: (Il)Logic(s) of Truth-Room(s)'

International Conference on "Methodology and Science". Visva Bharati University, January 9-11, 2006. 

Abstract:      
“And the people in the houses/All went to the university/Where they were put in boxes/And they came out all the same...Little boxes all the same, ” -- Malvina Reynolds (sung by Pete Seeger, 1962) . 

In connection with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, this interdisciplinary paper on method tries to show that the relativity of language is not only cultural, but also epistemological. Here I was reiterating Nietzsche – truth-seeking is a disease – will to know leads to will to power. Even then, we have truth rooms (TR) and we are celebrating our truth claims. We are following, either in our life-spaces/statist-space or in academic spaces, different “original/fundamental” TRs. When I am branding one TR as fundamentalist, I do not consider my TR as fundamentalist, though it is “fundamental original” piece of work. Following Malvina Reynolds, I want to call all these TRs as little boxes. Within this little box or TR of one vegetarian, all the animal proteins, onion are prohibited and another vegetarian thinks s/he can consume onion and egg and still preserves vegetarian status. In case of determining the semantic status of the term ‘vegetarian’, how do we incorporate two TRs of two vegetarians? On the other hand, the ‘meaning’ of the term might be decided positively by terminating one of them. Where are the entry-points and closures of such TRs? Or, they “all look just the same”? My Little Box gives me security and provides me with discomfort. This very much claustrophobic dependence on a single TR makes me remember of a giant, Damastes or otherwise Prokrustes, who laid all human beings on his bed and then “lop them or rack them out to make fit it.” Are these TRs Procrustean Bed? Let us scrutinize some TRs in reference to different academic disciplines. M. Rouget argued (cited in Hollis, 1994: 55) that scientific statements are often “as if” “true”. As sometimes in Classical Physics, we presume such vacuum to continue our agenda for model-theoretic approach. In case of Linguistic TR, Chomsky’s “ideal” speaking subject stands in a vacuum. Chomsky’s TR is like this: “Context free ideal creative speaking subject with zero history”, on the other hand in another TR, one may postulate, “Context-sensitive creative speaking corporeal with history (childhood configuration etc.)”. In science, we generally idealize a formula by considering “other” variables as non-existent entities. In Cricket , we can say, without any hesitation that Shane Warne is continuing his 6.5 over. What is the status of .5 in six-balls’ over? If Wittgenstein is to be believed, mathematics is a practice, performance of a community. For Wittgenstein, communalism of mathematics is determined by the communities’ convenience and necessity. In case of economics, I can write “3 goats=1 cow or “one apartment= $ 200000” by adding some sufficient causes. How do I put the sign= in between two unequal things? Questioning the equalizing effect of a sign as a dangerous supplement, a properly signed signifier called money, is prohibited within economics TR. I am representing the presentations of a priori, though it is neither analytical a priori, nor the synthetic one, but something called historical a priori — an a priori approximated by the historical incidences and they get epistemic status within a ghetto of a TR. I had then switched over to some problems of ordinary language, the problem of fuzzy numerals in Bangla, which, from Logical Positivist perspective, is illogical. If I do not like one TR, let me take it as a legitimate possibility without any commitment and on the other hand, if I feel comfort in one of these TRs, let me commit myself to that particular TR. Alternatively, we may swing from one TR to another TR. What I was paraphrasing here is nothing but the re-reading of Jaina pluralism by Krishnachandra and Kalidas Bhattacharya. And I must thank Anthropological enterprise, a surrogate discipline, which helps us to understand different worldS of different TRs. 

Number of Pages in PDF File: 9

Keywords: Truth Rooms, Anekantavada, Fuzzy Logic, Historical a priori

[Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay]

 Thanks  Huon Wardle  & M Izabel. Reg. deployment of anaekantavada, this small lecture may be of your interest. 'Scraps on Modernism, Post-Modernism and Indian Responses'

[Huon Wardle]

Well, I am happy to translate the project of anthropology in terms of the work of the visvakarma. And I now see the connection. Thank you for your papers, Debaprasad.

[Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay]

The Making of the Indian Philosophy of Science

Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay 

Indian Statistical Institute

February 3, 2000

From the Margins, pp. 57-73, February 2000 
Reprinted in: 2001.Anekanta Sahityatattva. (The Theory of Plural Interpretation of Literary Texts, A Bilingual Publication) Kolkata: Alochona Chakra. ISBN 81-900930-0-2 (pp. 20-32) 

Abstract:      
As there are several references to the Indian philosophical technicalities in (s)talker’s enunciation, he was eager to look at the archaeology of the discursive space called “Indian Philosophy”. There are many problems, when we are talking about something called Indian Philosophy (IP). We forget, at the moment of speaking about it that (a) “India” is a socio-political construct that was born out of (mainly) 19 C. Industrial as well as print capitalist imagination of nation state (b) and that imagination was also appropriated by the different modes of colonialism. (C) “Philosophy” is equated with the “darsana” as a part of political translation. Apart from their obvious similarities, there are also differences as Bankimchandra pointed out that “Philosophy” is sadhya (is to be mediated) and darsana is sadhaniya (ought to be mediated. Chattopadhyay, B.,1879/1974:217-18) (d) What are categorized under the umbrella of homogenized “lP” is a purely “good orient”-al project that excludes “other” non-Sanskritized way of thought and methods of proving truth. This had a precedence in Sayana Madhava’s “savrvadarsansamgraha (14th. C A.D.), which was taken, at the moment of constructing “IP” as an appropriate paradigm for setting up order of things. (e) This order of things are approximated and appropriated by the western knowledge-base. Thus what is called as “IP” is also a derivative discourse. (f) “vijnana” in the Indian tradition means “consciousness” (as translated by Dasgupta, 1936:86). Nothing was classified separately as “science” in the so-called Indian tradition, though some elements of so-called “Indian culture” obviously may be categorized as “science” from the European point of view. (g) What, as a whole, may be called and perceived as “lP of Science” today is merely a result of retrospective effect (pratyavbhijna), i.e. appropriating past knowledge by deploying today’s knowledge-base and techniques, which may be called “epistemological recurrence” following Bachelard. (h) Due to this recurrence and appropriation by the western epistemology, the de-sign of modem “lP” has emerged as a result of “epistemological amalgamation”. All these problems must be seriously explained and elaborated before going to venture into the realm of “IP of Science” as all these statements should be “proved” (i.e. need pramana) according to the need of “global”(?) Philosophy of science.

Keywords: Hindu Construction of Indian Philosophy, Nyaya theory, Dialogue without manipulation

[Huon Wardle]

unfortunately that link seems not to work.

[Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay]

Thanks Huon Wardle & M Izabel You may, if you wish, look at this paper The Making of the Indian Philosophy of Science  Though it was a badly written paper, my point is that the anekantavada was subsumed from sub-altern 'sons of visvakarmas'. I'm waiting for your comments. 

[Huon Wardle]

What a fascinating paper. The great struggle to know anything seems to require a box or a frame for that knowledge - so it is true that we 'move' from one 'box' to another and it is questionable whether we can gain any view that is not boxed. I entirely agree with your critique of Chomsky; though knowing nothing about Bangla I may have simply put what I think you said into my own box... There is quite a move afoot in cultural psychology to reinstate Whorf's ideas - a variety of quite convincing evidence has been adduced. It is interesting that for both Bakhtin and Foucault the utopia is a situation of heterodoxy - heteroglossia, heterotopia.

[Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay]

 Dear Huon Wardle, If you kindly read the full article, I'll be enriched by your precious comments. Best regards, Debaprasad 

[Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay]

Dear M Izabel, Nothing has been done in Social Sc. except name-dropping, though in literature and philosophy, there are some works. With my friend Partha Chakroborti I did some work on Anekanta Environmentalism. Cf. নিসর্গ নিয়ে ভাবনা : একাধিক সমবায়ী প্রয়াস Re-Thinking Environmentalism  and you can also see my bilingual book অনেকান্ত সাহিত্যতত্ত্ব Anekanta Sahityattva.  Best regards, Debaprasad 

[M Izabel]

I hope you can post something that shows how anekantavada is used as a theoretical framework in a social science project in India.  What attracted me to systems theories was this concept of multiple perspectives I  encountered in my World Religions class in college.  Thanks.

[Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay]

You are right (though I do not know, what is right or wrong), therefore, I used the metaphor of cradle, through which I might swing from one legitimate possibility to another... and that is ankantavada, theory of many perspectives. 

Thanks & regards,

Debaprasad