OBJECTIVE: To discuss the human element, language suitable for
intellectual discussions, subject matter suitability
for discussions, personal preferences, and
procedure for preparation of essay.
DISCUSSION:
Sree Jampalagaru:
Read your message thrice to find out meanings between lines and
behind words. None such! Just to make sure that I understand
the mail clearly. Gotten the message clearly.
Let me make my statements (opinions) open and clear here in reference
to your previous mail on language and sacred cows.
Any topic (literary or related) should be open to discussion. As you
and I face in the professional life, when you (person X) presents a
scientific paper in a symposium or submits for publication, the
reviwers shred the work into pieces. It does not mean that they are
attacking the worker. This is seldom done (Sometimes professional
jealousies come into picture). We take the comments and reply to the
reviewers' comments with scientific and logical explanations. The
reviewer may or may not agree with the explanations. In that arena,
the battle is not perpetual. At one point, the editor steps in and
takes the decission. Fortunately or unfortunately we do not have such
a figure to police the matters that go uncontrolled. We have to watch
what WE SAY, WHAT WE HEAR, and WHAT WE REPLY!
KT always branded me as "EMOTIONAL". Every human is emotional and some
like me are driven by EMOTION and EGO, both of which I call
"EGOMOTION". It is difficult at times to part from both of these human
qualities. In my opinion, it is good to have those. While in
EGOMOTION or EMOTION, people write things which they did not intend to
write. Then their writings give a repulsive meaning to the reader.
Similarly, people in EGOMOTION or EMOTION read and try to understand
ideas between the lines. That is also a problem. In either cases, if
there is a reply (so called flame), the person responsible should come
out in open and either defend his case or withdraw his arguments in a
dignified way. Let us not forget the fact that intellectual (sorry to
bring this word here and I did not obey your request) capacity and
emotion (with or without ego) run hand in hand with most of the times
among several writers and speakers. After all, we have to analyze
ourselves and try to separate our intellectual thinking from the forces
of emotion and ego. It is hard for me. Hopefully I learn (from you -
no flatter in this) and try to be non-egotistic and non-emotional.
We, as humans (also so-called learned people), always fall in love with
things for several reasons (sometimes reasons can not be given). The
thing which we love now need not necessarily be loved by the entire
human race. One man's meat is another man's poison! Always, we should
believe that what we love may be hated by other(s). Especially, in the
intellectual arena, every single individual likes something special and
dislikes several other things. This is a fact. A person who dislikes
what you and I like does not mean that the person dislikes the other.
The matter of fact is that the person dislikes what we dislike. So!
Big deal! After all the five fingers in a hand of one single
individual do not look alike. My teacher, Prof. Ralph T. Holman
(National Academy of Sciences Member) always used to tell me "Show me a
person who is a mirror impression of yourself. I would like to meet
him." Every individual is special and everyone in this group is
special who brings a special flavor to the group. The flavor may
sometimes be strong or sometimes weak - that is great.
Going back to sacred cows, I should say that your sacred cow is a farm
animal in my backyard. SO? Let it be. It does not bother me. You
worship it but I butcher it. Alas! That is as simple as I said in a
human ecosystem. In intellectual ecosystem, these sacred cows are
sacred for some and others hate them or don't care for them. That is
fine and this phenomenon fits in as I mentioned in my above paragraph.
Unlike the real world butcher, the intellectual butchers want to cut
and dissect the works of the sacred cows to find out the internal
anatomy. Let them do it! These butchers have freedom to do it as the
worshipers of sacred cows enjoy their freedom. When the intellectual
butchers cry out loudly that the dairy products of these sacred cows
are nothing but rancid at the present time, the worshipers should come
with an antioxidant i.e. an argument to defend the works of those
sacred cows. If one does not have arguments, let the case rest!
After all, in a forum like this, there is a great deal of mental
development for me to watch what is going on in those debates.
There are two types of criticisms: (1) constructive criticism and (2)
destructive criticism. Constructive criticism is very clear - do this
way or I would have done that way. I have a hard time to even
constructive criticism as constructive criticism. That is my ill
fortune. Even constructive criticism appears to me as a ridicule and
insult. That is my fate. Destructive criticism is like a bullet that
shatters all the work already done and in progress. I had a professor
who always used to throw words of destructive criticism - e.g. Your
work stinks. There is no strong philosophy. If one takes a deep
breath and sleeps over it, there is a great deal of constructive
criticism in the words of destructive criticism. Some people don't
react to destructive criticism at all but go back and come out in
flying colors to prove that the guy who ripped his work is totally a
fool and wrong. Basically, either way, either of the criticisms offers
paths for better progress. Is it hard to dig out good from the
destructive criticism? No! Let us try it. There is nothing wrong in
learning new/better things for a happy ending.
It does not mean that a person who dissects out the work of a sacred
cow is atttacking the personality of the sacred cow. It will be clear
from the essays that the person puts forward. Sometimes, the sentences
may indicate such an act. Then get a clarification from that person
either in public or personally by EMail. For example someone said
Tallapaka wrote obscenity in his kavita. Don't quickly jump at that
person assuming that the person is insulting Tallapaka. Your contact
with that person is just a few key strokes away! On the other side of
the coin, say that the person attacked the personality of Tallapaka.
Then convince him stating that Tallapaka was a sweet guy as opposed to
what the reviewer thinks. In spite of your arguments, if the person
still writes stuff which reflects negative statements about Tallapaka -
adopt flight or fight response. Put your adrenals at work. It does
not bother me! I will learn some more insights in the subject matter.
Keep it confined to the intellectual levels. Don't try to tarnish each
other! You both are special to me! Even if Gunnu says that Tallapaka
is a jerk, does Gunnu's remark hurt either Tallapaka or Tallapaka's
work? Gold is Gold whether it is on the finger as a ring or in the mud
as ore! Several people dislike Bhagavadgita. So? Does Gita lose its
charm? As long as the persons who post articles on sacred cows do not
bite each other with
obscene/unparliamentary/uncivilized/uncultured/bifunctionally-directed
words, it is a great debate. As a reader, I don't care if the sacred
cow is tied on to the surgical table. I would be eager to see the
anatomy of the works of that sacred cow.
Famous immunologist and a Nobel Prize winner, Peter Medwar (who got the
nobel prize for discovering cell-mediated immunity) said in his book
"NEVER FALL IN LOVE WITH YOUR HYPOTHESIS". Same way, let us not fall
in love with our hypothesis and force others to join our mission.
After all the hypothesis is everchanging with new and novel facts.
Also the facts do change with latest inventions and discoveries.
We have to accept that. All of us do science in one way or the other
for living. Why can not we behave like scientists on Telusa and in
real world? Is it difficult? No! Just try! I am trying! It helps a
great deal for a peaceful living. What was a fact 100 years ago is
rejected now. It does not mean that people who brought that fact into
light were brainless. History teaches things and lays foundations for
success.
People who discoved chromosomes were not ridiculed. Those chromosomes
led to the discovery of DNA. Often molecular biologists who work with
simple DNA molecules in the field of genetic engineering ridicule
karyologists (those who work with chromosomes). These DNA scientists
forget the fact that those karyologists paved the paths for the
discovery of DNA. Some of the discoveries made based on chromosomal
techniques are wrong as per DNA technology. At that time they were ok.
Now new things/findings appeared. If one analyzes the history, it will
be clear that the old karyology was crucial in the development of
modern DNA technology. My doctoral advisor Dr. Woon Jyung used to say
when I felt bad that my experiment went wrong "Don't feel bad! It is a
lesson! Know what you did wrong. Correct the mistakes next time."
A great advisor! I adore him!
Open-mindedness is an essential ingredient in the smooth progression of
intellectual debates and final attainment of intellectual wisdom. We
have to admit the facts, their changing facets, and the evolution of
those facts. It does not mean that by being open-minded, we are
discarding our sacred cows. We should still love our sacred cows.
Every sacred cow has a dark spot. Some people look at the dark spot.
That dark spot may be a beauty spot for the worshipers. The other
party thinks that the dark spot ruined the whole beauty. It all
depends on what you look at. It is relative (may be subjective too).
This is all non-parametric. There are no tangible things here. (For me
atleast).
Effective communication is the most important tool in intellectual
world. Howard Schneiderman of DuPont once said in a grad symposium
"Say clearly and effectively so that others understand what you say!"
That is not easy. Jampalagaru tells me that I write complex sentences
with ornamental words. I take it as a constructive criticism. I am
working on it. Two days ago Sri Pillalamarri asked me to cut short the
length of my lengthy paragraphs. I tried to do it here. Both are good
suggestions. My students used to give me hard time while I was
teaching. I went and talked to my boss. He told me "LISTEN TO WHAT
YOU ARE SAYING. It will help." I did that. That means, I was aksed
to speak slowly and clearly. In written communication it is always
better to do the following:
1) Have a clear understanding of the topic
2) Know the history of the topic
3) Get all the supplementary reading
4) Study the material thoroughly -
5) No personal bias
6) Prepare a brief synopsis of your essay
7) Write the rought draft
8) Leave it on the desk for a couple of days
9) Come back and read it with fresh mind
10) Correct the grammar
11) Correct the language with no convolutions/hidden meanings
12) Ask your spouse or friend to read and critique it
13) Be open for suggestions
14) Remember - There is always room for improvement
15) Be immune form the KEYBOARD SYNDROME
I call this Keyboard Syndrome : As soon as you see a posting,
immediately your fingers tell the mind what to reply.
That is a no no.
This is not a lesson to all of you. I know most of you do the above
things before posting your stuff. Just a friendly request. This will
solve a lot of problems and misunderstandings.
SUMMARY: (1) Language should be effective, clear, and one-dimension
without multi-faceted meanings.
Don't attack the personalities of the writers on TELUSA.
Be gentle and modest.
If you think that you have wounded other person's feelings,
just apologize.
A mere apology saves TELUSA and TELUSAers.
No obscenity/unparliamentary words/uncivilized words.
(2) Feel free to say what you want.
Either dissect out the works of the sacred cow
or defend the sacred cow.
That is left to you.
Make your arguments strong and support them with facts
and your logic.
(There is no good logic or bad logic. Logic is Logic.)
(3) Be open-minded.
Consider other's arguments.
You may not agree with that person's arguments.
Just as yours, other person's arguments are also valid.
(4) Try not to force other to love the things that you love.
You love your stuff and let others do what they like.
(5) Debates on any subject should go on!
Sacred Cow or ugly ducling!
Take it to the INTELLECTUAL ZENITH!
Hope I did not bore you with my lecture.
CONCLUSION: If we don't discuss subjects (irrespctive of controversial
nature or emotionally-charged issues or personal
preferences), how will we get along and discuss intellectual
matters? Every subject matter has both positive and
negative aspects. We have to be able to discuss both.
If only positive aspects are discussed on TELUSA, what is
the use of being a part of TELUSA?
---pAlana