12-10-2006, 06:20 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-digvijay+Dec 10 2006, 09:53 PM-->QUOTE(digvijay @ Dec 10 2006, 09:53 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Dec 10 2006, 07:14 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Viren @ Dec 10 2006, 07:14 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Admin hat on
Digivijay (or anyone else):
Any discussions or issues from other forums being dragged in here will be removed/edited.
This IF policy is not up for discussion or debate.
[right][snapback]61965[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I am trying to understand what is it that Raman not understand about the connection of India's modernism in the debate between kartik and myself.
And the second question was purely a spur of the moment.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61974[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its fine...admin decision respected. Lets move on. There's so much to discuss. This discussion is seemingly so vast in scope and when I think of it is also so important and significant, besides being interesting. I've put in some ideas on political unity and also referred to the alternate viewpoints in which we view this entire debate, Indian or Western.
To the extent possible, I've tried to give links, but a lot of it is from books I have read or come across, its very difficult to remember which part came from where. If anybody has a counterview point on any of my opinions, it is very much invited and I'm ready to learn from it.
Pls do care to look at my last few posts. I've tried to make sense of the debate till now by giving it some structure.
I give some pointers to the way forward is
1. Does it make sense to look at the "India becoming modern" question from the Indian philosophy point of view because what has happened in the past two centuries is mainly progress on the material front. Some may even say regress citing loss of economy during British rule. But whatever it may be it is changes in the material condition and since Indian philosophy considers the world as just "maya", this materially progressive modern nation becomes a meaningless concept. If anybody feels we can discuss in the ambit of Indian philosophy also besides Western please tell me your ideas. Otherwise we can have a consensus of looking at modernity in the sense of material progress.
2. Also interesting aspect is looking at how we have changed in terms of our philosophy or outlook. This is inspired by the Balagangadhara article, the link for which has been given in my last post. British were change agents, but how we changed depended on what we were. <b>How has our initial outlook affected the way the changes have happened. Secondly how has our outlook changed. </b>If it seems confusing, I'll request you to go through that article. Just presenting a small excerpt
"The European culture mapped on to itself aspects from the Indian culture so as to understand the latter. These mappings, in the form of explanations, have taken the status of frameworks to us. Liberalism, Marxism, secularism, etc. have become our mantras: we chant these without understanding them in the hope that if we do so long enough and sufficiently loud, the fruits will be ours to enjoy. However, in this process, <b>we have assumed (without quite realising what we are doing) that the European cultural experience is the 'scientific' framework for us to understand our own culture. However, this very assumption prevents us from accessing our own culture and experience. </b>We are busy denying our experiences while futilely busy trying to make alien experiences our own. "
I understand this bcos in my academic life I'd once taken a course on "Indian Philosophy" and as people who have been brought up their entire life with a Western outlook, we all students had a shock to see that Indian philosophy was so different and the way we were looking at most issues of life was actually from a Western point of view, while we are Indians.
3. One of the ways of looking how we have materially changed is initially not to ascribe any characteristics to the word "modern". Let it be just a figure or a category without any connotations. Then one by one we will add characteristics to it based on our discussions and see how we have changed. I started by the aspect of "political unity". One of the important parts of our today's identity is the political unity. How united are we today compared to the 18th century say? Rather than looking at the question in black and white, lets consider a continuum of political unity. At one end of this continuum you are totally separate, disparate, disunited at the other end you are politically united. At various periods of our history we would have been politically united to different degrees. There are two questions out here
a. What is political unity? How exactly can we determine to what extent we are politcally united. In other words if political unity is a construct, how do we define it, what are its effects which will help us determine the degree of political unity.
b. What are the factors that encourage political unity and what the factors which encourage political disunity i.e what the centrifugal and centripetal forces.
point (a) looks at the effects of political unity in order to define it, point (b) looks at the causes of political unity and its antithesis.
Digivijay (or anyone else):
Any discussions or issues from other forums being dragged in here will be removed/edited.
This IF policy is not up for discussion or debate.
[right][snapback]61965[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I am trying to understand what is it that Raman not understand about the connection of India's modernism in the debate between kartik and myself.
And the second question was purely a spur of the moment.
-Digvijay
[right][snapback]61974[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its fine...admin decision respected. Lets move on. There's so much to discuss. This discussion is seemingly so vast in scope and when I think of it is also so important and significant, besides being interesting. I've put in some ideas on political unity and also referred to the alternate viewpoints in which we view this entire debate, Indian or Western.
To the extent possible, I've tried to give links, but a lot of it is from books I have read or come across, its very difficult to remember which part came from where. If anybody has a counterview point on any of my opinions, it is very much invited and I'm ready to learn from it.
Pls do care to look at my last few posts. I've tried to make sense of the debate till now by giving it some structure.
I give some pointers to the way forward is
1. Does it make sense to look at the "India becoming modern" question from the Indian philosophy point of view because what has happened in the past two centuries is mainly progress on the material front. Some may even say regress citing loss of economy during British rule. But whatever it may be it is changes in the material condition and since Indian philosophy considers the world as just "maya", this materially progressive modern nation becomes a meaningless concept. If anybody feels we can discuss in the ambit of Indian philosophy also besides Western please tell me your ideas. Otherwise we can have a consensus of looking at modernity in the sense of material progress.
2. Also interesting aspect is looking at how we have changed in terms of our philosophy or outlook. This is inspired by the Balagangadhara article, the link for which has been given in my last post. British were change agents, but how we changed depended on what we were. <b>How has our initial outlook affected the way the changes have happened. Secondly how has our outlook changed. </b>If it seems confusing, I'll request you to go through that article. Just presenting a small excerpt
"The European culture mapped on to itself aspects from the Indian culture so as to understand the latter. These mappings, in the form of explanations, have taken the status of frameworks to us. Liberalism, Marxism, secularism, etc. have become our mantras: we chant these without understanding them in the hope that if we do so long enough and sufficiently loud, the fruits will be ours to enjoy. However, in this process, <b>we have assumed (without quite realising what we are doing) that the European cultural experience is the 'scientific' framework for us to understand our own culture. However, this very assumption prevents us from accessing our own culture and experience. </b>We are busy denying our experiences while futilely busy trying to make alien experiences our own. "
I understand this bcos in my academic life I'd once taken a course on "Indian Philosophy" and as people who have been brought up their entire life with a Western outlook, we all students had a shock to see that Indian philosophy was so different and the way we were looking at most issues of life was actually from a Western point of view, while we are Indians.
3. One of the ways of looking how we have materially changed is initially not to ascribe any characteristics to the word "modern". Let it be just a figure or a category without any connotations. Then one by one we will add characteristics to it based on our discussions and see how we have changed. I started by the aspect of "political unity". One of the important parts of our today's identity is the political unity. How united are we today compared to the 18th century say? Rather than looking at the question in black and white, lets consider a continuum of political unity. At one end of this continuum you are totally separate, disparate, disunited at the other end you are politically united. At various periods of our history we would have been politically united to different degrees. There are two questions out here
a. What is political unity? How exactly can we determine to what extent we are politcally united. In other words if political unity is a construct, how do we define it, what are its effects which will help us determine the degree of political unity.
b. What are the factors that encourage political unity and what the factors which encourage political disunity i.e what the centrifugal and centripetal forces.
point (a) looks at the effects of political unity in order to define it, point (b) looks at the causes of political unity and its antithesis.