Tusar Nath Mohapatra on 13 January 2014 at 8:46 am said:
Aware of the constraints of not straying outside the texts and syllabi, let me mention for the sake of discussion that later day philosophical formulations contain many ingenious notions like Sanghita or Loka-Sangraha to predicate emancipation. The problem of rebirth itself undergoes substantial transformation in the hands of Sri Aurobindo and hence antiquity of sources shouldn’t be the only criteria for ontological veracity. [TNM55]
Gaveshana or Research derives from the word Go meaning light, a connotation brought to light in modern times by Sri Aurobindo in his epochal The Secret of The Veda. This hermeneutical coup has so unsettled the received wisdom that there is unwillingness to look at the later texts in terms of the Vedic Sanskrit as unveiled by Sri Aurobindo. This blog, however, is a sign that such resistance will recede. [TNM55]
That remark is directed at how politics is thought in critical theory, not what’s going on out there in the world. So much of our critical theory– and there are exceptions –seems to only recognize some variant of semiopolitics.
Truth be told, as my thought has evolved the issue of correlationism had fallen off the radar for me. Somehow the debate had come to seem too “philosophical” to me, too “scholastic”, too remote from what interests me: understanding why social assemblages are organized as they are, how power functions in social assemblages, and what we might do to address that power and change things.
# Love of All Wisdom [Cross-posted at the Indian Philosophy Blog]
I am increasingly getting the impression that the debates over Orientalism in Asian traditions have taken a new turn, and one very much for the better. Few books of the twentieth century have made as much impact as Edward Said’s 1978 Orientalism. It is particularly striking that even though Said’s book was entirely about the Middle East, it has been a major scholarly landmark in the study of South and East Asia.