Re: nalupu

uday bhaskar (srijna@hotmail.com)
Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:32:19 PDT 

Sri hari kRShna gAru wrote on 23rd July:

>There have also been a variety of social theories that map each of the
>above
>above classifications to any of the others, with no one theory ever
>being
>conclusive & with numerous conterexamples. So what is the point ?

We are not talking of theories of sociology here. We are talking of a 
very live and sensitive issue. The Americans have coined the term 
"political correctness" to make this point. 
Essentially, bias is not confined to any particular dichotomy of black 
vs. white (pun intended), but applies to any situation where two groups 
are at two ends of a historic inequity - examples are rich vs. poor, man 
vs. woman, white man vs. black man, occidental vs. oriental, city vs. 
country, and so on. 
The point (since you have asked for it) is that the usage of nalupu in 
this context is politically incorrect.

>I dont think the application of the word 'skin' is trivial here. I am
>examining
>the whole thread only for deductive process by which the essence is
>being
>inferred. Which is why I skipped all the 'threadlets' in this
>discussion.

You have said later on that if I substitute "plumage" in place of 
"skin", my argument falls apart. I really do not see how that is the 
case. To me, "plumage" and "skin" are both a part of one's natural self, 
and nothing to be ashamed of, or feel sorry for. Blindness, on the other 
hand, is some thing that one would never want to have, and would do all 
one can to get rid of.

>Only in so far as the kOkila is concerned.  I perfectly agree with
>your first point - he bemoans a natural condition of the kOkila as
>a wishful thought. But there are many other situations in which we
>wish away natural happenings both in real life and in imaginative
>writings - a celebrated example being 'if  only the Rose has no
>thorns, ...' or something more contrived like
>'a fragrant #maruvam# leaf is too tiny in size...' (are we supposed to
>infer that this is an unconscious dig at fragile bodied people ?,

Yes, it is a statement of feeling sorry for fragility (not necessarily a 
"dig") , and there is nothing wrong with that. Once again, it is 
objectionable to feel sorry for being black. (Here too, it is not that I 
am saying that the poet is taking a "dig" at black living beings, it is 
my objection that he is feeling SORRY for that fact).

>All this reminds me a little of the wishful  "chelEbI" discussion done
>here about a month and half ago). But are we not generalizing
>this aspect of the verse about a bird and then subsequently
>instantiating it to human beings ? It is my understanding that the
>whole strength of the proof lies in the usage of the word "skin",
>which is a common attribute of all animals including human beings.
>Try substituting the word "skin" with any of its synonyms as applied
>to animals - like plume, feather, hide, leather, coat, epiderm or
>some such; the entire argument starts  to lose its strength.

Why?
>
>I apologize for bringing in techincal terms like 'proof', 'deduction',
>'generalization', 'induction' and 'instantiation' - but to understand
>an argument at its best,  these notions from formal logic  (which
>are only precise forms of  their common-sense  counterparts)
>are nevertheless helpful in  recognizing the essential from the
>non-essential.

No need to apologise, none of them are "technical" to me.

>
>I am perfectly at ease with Sri JC's explanation that we all
>have  historical and cultural biases ingrained in us in spite
>of all  our conscious  intentions. But not with #concluding#
>their existence where no further evidence is presented. Also,
>I  have no problem with #speculating# its existence.

At least I have not #concluded# an intent on the part of si.sI.rA.SA.

But all worthwhile literary criticism is based on #deductive# reasoning, 
which is not necessarily #speculation#. 

>
>Sorry if I dragged this thread a bit too much. But aren't
>many literary criticisms endless debates & speculations,
>often leaving one with too little to conclude ?
>
Once again, there have been others who were sorry that this thread died 
too soon, so please don't apologise.

>Regards,
>
>T. Hari Krishna
>
>

Regards,

Uday "sorry for posting this late" Bhaskar

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com