THE PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL AGENTS OF COLONIALISM - I
Dr. Sumathy's so called reply to my article that was published on 16th April 2003 is a clear reflection of the bankruptcy of modern western so called postmodernist and other studies. It is clear that she does not know what she is talking about but like many others following modern western ideas, is only trying to cover up her ignorance with high sounding technical words. Reading Dr. Sumathy's so called reply that appeared on 23rd April, I was reminded of a bogus article using postmodernist jargon, published in a "reputed journal", after peer reviewing, where the author himself admitted subsequent to the publication, that there was no substance in it but contained only high sounding technical terms.He had submitted the article or the paper only to illustrate that the jargon could be used without any understanding. It is also clear that Dr. Sumathy has not understood my reply to her. My articles are very often written in plain language and they are not difficult to understand. She of course would say that my article was fuzzy and incoherent. I leave it to those who read my articles to judge on this aspect but I am prepared to come to Peradeniya to debate with Dr. Sumathy and expose her ignorance if the Senior Common Room or some other society or organisation is prepared to arrange such debate.
Dr Sumathy begins her so called reply with the statement " This is really turning out to be a much more wasteful enterprise than I anticipated". Then she says my article was rather incoherent but in spite of that she claims to have managed to gather something out of it. Dr Sumathy must be having so much time that she could waste at least part of it knowing very well that she is wasting time and it may be that she enjoys wasting time. In her first letter to the editor, on Handagama's film, that was published on 11th April she had said "My response has more to do with Dr. de Silva's premises than with the film." In that letter to the editor she had also said that I had said that the film was western and not suitable for an eastern audience, and had asked "what is the east?" She had then gone to write a first year tutorial on epistemology, ontology east and west.
When I answered the questions raised by her in my article on 16th April, she comes out with another set of contradictory statements. I had pointed out that I had never said that the film was not suitable for an eastern audience because it was western. That is something that her translator friend had made up. Of course, I had said earlier, and I had repeated it in my 16th April article, that the film was a western film with Sinhala dialogues. Handagama himself has claimed that his art has no (national) boundaries and my claim that the film is western is based mainly, though not exclusively, on this particular claim. From where did Handagama and Sumathy pick up the jargon that they use? Surely this is not from Mahabharathaya or even a semi Tamil Buddhist or Fully Tamil Buddhist text. These are all western jargon that use catchy "intellectual" phrases that hide the western dominance in creating knowledge. When one says one's art has no national boundaries it clearly means that it is not a Sinhala or any eastern film. Otherwise he would have clearly stated that it was a Sinhala or some other film. Dr. Sumathy in her ignorance, like a small girl repeating something she had been told by somebody else, would tell us that the film has overcome the dichotomy of the east and west or something to that effect.
The present day westerners project western knowledge, including art, as knowledge that has transgressed these limits on east and west and claim that it is objective etc. There is nothing objective and what is happening is that the western knowledge, art etc., are being interpreted as objective knowledge, art etc., that have no national boundaries. Handagama is only claiming a western objectivity for his art, and in that sense, as he has directed his film according to the western standards, his film is nothing but a western film. (The Mathematics I teach with examinations in mind is nothing but western Mathematics though I may be teaching in Sinhala medium. However I must add that I teach also a non examination oriented Mathematics and Physics where I criticise the substance I teach in my examination oriented lectures.) The same is true for Sumathy even with her semi Tamil Buddhist upbringing. She speaks in the idiom of the westerners, she uses their theories and she propagates their ideas. Handagamas and Sumathys are the present day agents of western colonialism not in spite, but because of their rhetoric against western dichotomies. Sumathy says she is a rhetorician and a pedagogist. I admit that, but what does she teach in the University? They are all western theories, and I know very well as I indicated in my article on the 16th April, that none in the English Department has created any new knowledge, even western, during the entire history of the department. So much for the so called intellectuals in this country who can only ape the westerners.
Having said in her first letter to the editor that she had more to do with my premises than with the film, she now states that she is "interested in entering a debate with de Silva only where the film remains the local point." She knows that I am not interested in the film as such but interested in the background to the film. It is a film that is part of the western cultural domination and as such I am interested only in a non western sociology of the film. It is clear that having realised that her western technical jargon is not going to help her in a debate with me she is trying to run away from the debate.
Let us consider a few statements from the so called reply by Dr. Sumathy. (i) "The film is interesting because it has attempted to avoid logo centric truths, dichotomies, and has tried to develop a rhetoric countering absolutism" . (ii) "What he (NdeS) does not reckon with is that it (the film) has a pluralist logic, western or eastern." . (iii) Discursive operations of p and ~ p OR p or ~ p are truth giving and truth taking choices that reside in moments of political agency.; action". (iv) " Trying to wrest the east out of Shakespeare's "All is well that Ends Well" is a political project. Such a project will necessarily partake in the dichotomy of of west/east but only by taking an interested relativistic position." (v) Nalin de Silva's appraisal of the film is negatively critical; because he excludes the logic of the middle here." (vi) I (Sumathy)am a performer performing pluralist logic". These statements could be given to an undergraduate in western Philosophy, so that he or she could write a minor thesis exposing the contradictions in them, according to Aristotelian logic.
These so called intellectuals who use bankrupt modern western ideas that go in the name of postmodernism and other brands of western knowledge do not understand what they speak and write. They have been able to carry on their "discourse" simply because each is only pretending to understand what the other person says. This is nothing more than a "hathara beeri kathawa" where deaf people take part in a discussion ("discourse") without hearing (and understanding) what the others say. Take the above statements one by one. To Dr. Sumathy and others who use modern contradictory western knowledge there are truths whether logo centric or not. What do they mean by truth? How do people agree that something is true. Is it by way of using language? All these so called truths, logo centric or otherwise, are nothing but statements that have been accepted as truths by certain sets of people using words. There are no truths but only conventional or "sammmuthi" truths. I have used the word "sammuthi" in order to make it clear to Dr. Sumathy that I am not a person who use modern western relativistic or quantum physical or even mathematical ideas in my philosophy. Those who ape western ideas use the word truth not in a relativistic (please, this has nothing to do with my training in Einstein's relativity or western Physics or western Mathematics.) but in an absolute sense. For them there are either truths or non truths. There is a dichotomy between truths and non truths. These dichotomies are applicable in the case of so called non logo centric truths. One might even ask whether there is a dichotomy between logo centric truths and non logo centric truths. Could Handagama or somebody else make a film to avoid the dichotomy between logo centric truths and non logo centric truths? Why should one try to develop a rhetoric countering absolutism? Why is this dichotomy between absolutism and relativism? Isn't there a way of avoiding the dichotomy between absolutism and relativism? Is relativism an absolutism for the modern bankrupt postmodernists and the others who ape western ideas? Does Dr. Sumathy claim that while logo centric truths are relative, as naturally they depend on words, the non logo centric truths are absolute? Are the non logo centric truths independent of culture? How does one enters into a "discussion" in a non logo centric way? Do we have to express non logo centric truths, finally in terms of words? This statement is a hollow statement full of contradictions similar to the other statements and conveys no meaning. Perhaps it has a 'non logo centric' truth, that I have so far not being able to grasp. I must add, in case that Dr. Sumathy misinterprets me, that I do not exclude relativistic non logo centric truths that depend on culture and/or sansaric experience. Infants who cannot speak a word and most probably who do not understand a word are able to recognise their respective "mothers" and form concepts. I agree and I have always maintained that concepts could be formed without words, but there are no absolute concepts whether logo centric or non logo centric. I must also add that when I say that there are no absolutes, I do not make an absolute statement. My statement that there are no absolute statements is relative to my Philosophy, which I call constructive relativism (nirmanathmaka sapekshathavadaya), and is only a "sammuthi sathya". I have discussed these in detail in Sinhala and if Dr. Sumathy and her translator friends are ready I can give the references to them.
Now consider the statement (ii). Dr. Sumathy says that the film has a pluralist logic. What is meant by a pluralist logic? I know that pluralism is a catchy word among pseudo intellectuals who are engaged in their "discourses" on "ethnic" problem and on other topics. (These people do not use discourse in the sense Foucault used and as far as most of them are concerned it is only a catchy word for discussion.) In the case of the so called ethnic problem the Tamil racists ( I was amused to hear Anton Balasingham the Tamil racist and terrorist and the good friend of GL Peiris who has a plethora of terrorist friends, referring to the JVP as a racist party) use the word pluralism to deprive Sinhalathva its rightful place in the country. There is no pluralist logic though there are logics. Does Dr. Sumathy imply by pluralist logic, the use of many logics in a given situation? Why not speak of pluralist husbands and pluralist wives? Why not pluralism in the sphere of spouses, legally I mean? Legally, of course, is relative to the western laws that we practice in our countries and is not given an absolute meaning.
Dr. Sumathy has demonstrated through her writings to "The Island" that she does not know a hang of logic whether formal or otherwise though she is very fond of referring to logics. As I mentioned in my article of 16th April, there are many logical systems. Even in western Mathematics there are different logical systems. There is a school of western Mathematicians who are not restricted by formal logic. These western Mathematicians who are called constructionists do not accept the validity of (p or ~ p). If a Mathematical statement is "proved" to be not true (in a Mathematical sense according the Formalist school) the constructionist do not take it as a case where the negation is "proved" to be correct. Though different systems of logic could be used it does not follow that different logics can be grouped together and termed a pluralist logic. Dr. Sumathy must have picked up this notion of a pluralist logic from some bankrupt western intellectual (she has not created any new concept on her own) who uses it without any understanding. It is not possible to group a few husbands and call them a pluralist husband. Logics are no better or worse than husbands whether they are logical or not .
(To be continued).
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>