The logic of illusion.
--
The movement of Intellect begins with Logic.
What we know; - in terms of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
All logic needs intellectual presupposition.
And all presuppositions are verbal formulations which we accept and believe as 'concepts'.
Logic may be invalid or perfectly valid.
The logic is a verbal structure which conveys many different and varied meanings.
A meaning is basically again a word-structure or a set of words interwoven in a way that makes sense because of the conventions and rules of the Grammar.
Thus we go on from meaning to meaning and the sense is lost.
Though at the very practical level where the Logic adheres strictly to scientific and mathematical approach, it is almost invincible and could not be denied as illusion.
At the same time however, when we apply the logic over a group of individuals and their behavior-patterns, when we 'name' a group, section or 'class' we are inevitably trapped into the illusion of Logic or the Logic of illusion; -that is the Logic; -elusive and illusory.
This is what all Political Thought is about.
For example when we start a discussion about some situation or state of affairs, though we may be honest in our approach, usually we begin with saying :
"Politics is the multifaceted variety of activities of a Government ...."
This drives away our attention from the fact how the word 'Politics' was formed in the first place.
If you ask :
"What is the origin of the word 'Politics'?"
They would tell you something like this about the origin of this word :
late Middle English: from Old French politique ‘political’, via Latin from Greek politikos, from politēs ‘citizen’, from polis ‘city’.
This is really not a right way of answering the question.
Because it at once prevents our attention from looking into the alternative possibilities.
Though we could be prompted to think in yet another way by the above explanation.
And presently my own approach would be like this :
The Sanskrit word for 'many' is :
'बहु' / 'बहुल' / 'बहुली' / 'बहुलीय' [bahu, bahul, bahulI, bahulIya ],
and I do think this is the prototype of 'Poly'.
The same was made into the prefix 'Poli' which denotes multiplicity.
I'm not an advocate for Sanskrit (as the only origin of all other languages) and basically suspect if the origin of different languages lies in one or two specific languages as is the accepted norm prevails in the present day Linguistics / Philology.
The very premise that various languages are derived from a single or more than one primitive languages is untenable.
The common sense suggests that all languages reached the present state of their structure from their beginning were / are the voice-patterns adopted by the humans in different places. The core basics is that initially, a sound (that man can speak) was associated with an object (may be a thing or again a feeling, experience or emotion), and then as a word accepted for conveying a meaning which denoted the thing (or a feeling, experience or emotion).
So in all possibility there could be no one common or more than one primitive language(s) that could be ascertained as their origin.
--
'
--
The movement of Intellect begins with Logic.
What we know; - in terms of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.
All logic needs intellectual presupposition.
And all presuppositions are verbal formulations which we accept and believe as 'concepts'.
Logic may be invalid or perfectly valid.
The logic is a verbal structure which conveys many different and varied meanings.
A meaning is basically again a word-structure or a set of words interwoven in a way that makes sense because of the conventions and rules of the Grammar.
Thus we go on from meaning to meaning and the sense is lost.
Though at the very practical level where the Logic adheres strictly to scientific and mathematical approach, it is almost invincible and could not be denied as illusion.
At the same time however, when we apply the logic over a group of individuals and their behavior-patterns, when we 'name' a group, section or 'class' we are inevitably trapped into the illusion of Logic or the Logic of illusion; -that is the Logic; -elusive and illusory.
This is what all Political Thought is about.
For example when we start a discussion about some situation or state of affairs, though we may be honest in our approach, usually we begin with saying :
"Politics is the multifaceted variety of activities of a Government ...."
This drives away our attention from the fact how the word 'Politics' was formed in the first place.
If you ask :
"What is the origin of the word 'Politics'?"
They would tell you something like this about the origin of this word :
late Middle English: from Old French politique ‘political’, via Latin from Greek politikos, from politēs ‘citizen’, from polis ‘city’.
This is really not a right way of answering the question.
Because it at once prevents our attention from looking into the alternative possibilities.
Though we could be prompted to think in yet another way by the above explanation.
And presently my own approach would be like this :
The Sanskrit word for 'many' is :
'बहु' / 'बहुल' / 'बहुली' / 'बहुलीय' [bahu, bahul, bahulI, bahulIya ],
and I do think this is the prototype of 'Poly'.
The same was made into the prefix 'Poli' which denotes multiplicity.
I'm not an advocate for Sanskrit (as the only origin of all other languages) and basically suspect if the origin of different languages lies in one or two specific languages as is the accepted norm prevails in the present day Linguistics / Philology.
The very premise that various languages are derived from a single or more than one primitive languages is untenable.
The common sense suggests that all languages reached the present state of their structure from their beginning were / are the voice-patterns adopted by the humans in different places. The core basics is that initially, a sound (that man can speak) was associated with an object (may be a thing or again a feeling, experience or emotion), and then as a word accepted for conveying a meaning which denoted the thing (or a feeling, experience or emotion).
So in all possibility there could be no one common or more than one primitive language(s) that could be ascertained as their origin.
--
'
No comments:
Post a Comment