On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 15:21, Venkat Mangudi <s...@venkatmangudi.com> wrote: > Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Indrajit Gupta<bonoba...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: >>> Jhoota - touched by another, typically by mouth, making it impure for >>> consumption by another. >> >> The Tamil equivalent is "yechal" i.e saliva - in very traditional >> households it is common to never let the lips touch the vessel or > > I, to this day, do not cease being amazed that your plate is "yechal" > while the table it rests on is not. Just the surface though is. My mom > and I have huge arguements about this subject even today and it usually > culminates in me shaking my head and walking away while she triumphantly > goes about business as usual.
Why must we subject all traditions to logic? That results, most irritatingly, in 'modern traditionalists' (to coin a phrase) offering faux-scientific explanations for their practices. I'd rather follow logic-less traditions than be subject to cargo cult science. [general rant] Related to this is the practice of faux-scientific explanations for non-allopathic medicinal systems. They work (for a great many), and that's great. They (indigenous systems of medicine) offer a holistic view of human well-being, in stark contrast to allopathy, and that's wonderful. It is even better when they are examined using the scientific method and shown to have a scientific basis (though many critique this hegemony of the scientific method). However, it is painful when Western medicinal terminology is used to try to explain in a pseudo-scientific manner how unani or siddha work. The same applies to pseudo-scientific explanations for how astrology works. I am perfectly fine with people rejecting the claims to universality that Science makes. But why is there this great urge in astrologers and modern traditionalists to try to fit their pet superstitions within the realms of science while rejecting all that science stands for? [/ general rant] Cheers, Pranesh P.S. I hope 'pseudo-science' is clearer than 'pseudo-secularism'.
