Deeds, not mere words, count

On the occasion of the “Appointed Day,” the Telugus of the two States heard the speeches of their leaders. Being voters, they are more extensional than journalists and politicians. At least one of the Chief Ministers knows that better than the other as he was pointing to the currency behind it. The other should know that issuing checks on non-existent accounts is a bad deal. Yes or no?

As Anatol Rapoport, the Russian born American Mathematical psychologist, suggested if ‘ology,’ one of the suffixes in our language, reminds us of university curricula and scholarship, the other is the energetic and somewhat mysterious ‘ics,’ which has a connotative flavor of magic.

Where ‘ology’ suggests academic isolation, ‘ics’ suggests a method of attack on life’s problems. If ancient words ending in “ics” are Mathematics and Metaphysics, those of more recent origin are Economics, Statistics, Semantics and Cybernetics etc. Let me add politics to it for easier comprehension of language or better comprehension of the same. It is always easy to satisfy someone’s curiosity about an ‘Ology’ but difficult to understand an ‘ics.’

An ‘ology’ can often be simply explained by translating its front part from Greek or Latin (ornithology as a study of birds). Coming to an ‘ics’ it is never the same nor that simple. For example take ‘Mathematics’ and it comes from a Greek word for learning. Metaphysics means ‘beyond physics.’ The same difficulty appears in translating ‘semantics’ too. It is derived from ‘meaning’ or ‘to signify.’

An embryologist may do a lot of things, but looking at embryos seems a significant part of his activity, just as one would expect. By analogy, many conclude that semantics look at or for meanings, so perhaps they have to do with dictionaries. If you think that semanticists are the ones dealing with dictionaries, then what do lexicographers do? So what do semanticists do? This has always been a question when it comes to the use and misuse of language and in understanding it better and, perhaps, properly.

Should a journalist be a semanticist to understand the people around him or her? Journalism is all about news. Is not it so? It got to be a simple and realistic narrative of events around one. The job of a journalist is to report news, which is called journalism. It could even interpret issues or words and works of governments and politicians in a serious fashion or a nonchalant way.

Here again, when I use the word ‘nonchalant,’ I am not trivialising it or referring to it in the worldly fashion of referring to the approach in a negative way of being ‘lackadaisical,’ ‘disinterested’ or ‘indifferent way.’ It is more in the sense of ‘dispassionate,’ ‘unruffled,’ ‘cool’ or ‘smooth.’

Having said that let me tell you of another problem in understanding for a journalist. This is about propositional function which is more pertinent for this discussion. Coming to journalism this has more relevance, this question “What do you mean”? is pertinent at all times even when the simplest things are written about by journalists.

Propositional function in logic is a sentence expressed in a way that would assume the value of true or false, except that within the sentence there is a variable that is not defined or specified, which leaves the statement undetermined. Of course, the sentence can consist of several such variables. Some governments leave no such confusion in our minds regarding their work. This is largely due to the leaders speaking in such and such a fashion.

Rulers at the helm should understand this better. Recently, Shabbirpur in Saharanpur district in Uttar Pradesh witnessed violence on a large scale. An upper caste community committed a horrific attack against the dalits in the village. Both the government and the Opposition took up a diametrically opposite view and the narration of media too was on familiar lines. Media loves to be in relationship with the rulers and gives credence to the latter’s version.

‘Cow’ is another issue that is confronting India now and media has tied itself up in knots on the narrative regarding the same. Dictating eating habits began with this much ‘venerated’ animal in this land. The other day, there was a notification on this too and two High Courts in the country preferred to interpret the notification in two different ways.

Let us take a look at the ban on sale of cattle for slaughter all over India. It is a different issue that such a thing comes under the jurisdiction of the State governments. Most of the political parties were not looking either at the ‘cows’ or at ‘slaughter’ in fact. They were, instead, looking at their vote banks and expounding their views, either in favor of it or against it.

Kerala Chief Minister preferred to write a letter to all non-BJP governments in the country to come together to oppose it. None of these were bothered about the consequences of such a blanket ban. Why would the lawmakers do so? Not even consider the consequences of their orders?

The consequences are there for all of us to see. With no right to sell an animal, the burden of upkeep of unproductive animals goes up. A study says it would be Rs 40,000 per annum. Would a poor farmer be in a position to take care of the animals?

Are there enough ‘Gau Shalaas’ in the country to take care of them? Will the governments come forward and do so? It is expected to hit the export trade in beef, mainly buffalo meat, worth around Rs 30,000 crore, apart from affecting petty shopkeepers.

The leather industry employing over 2.5 millions will be hit. Beef, which is a source of nutrition for a substantial population in India, will be lost to them. Food habits and preferences are not just personal choices, but also “choiceless options.” In a country where even the old and infirm are treated as a burden by the families, would anyone care to tend to the animals? They would only be starved to death. That is for sure.

Now we hear the news that the government is having a relook and might come up with modifications. Such issues must not be dealt on an emotional basis, but more pragmatically. Vegetarians could always wish entire country goes vegetarian, but it is up to the governments to act properly taking all aspects into consideration.

Both journalists and governments have to be ‘extensional.’ This orientation is required in both of them, to understand and interpret issues properly. Generally speaking to be extensional is to be aware of things, facts and operations in the way they are related in nature instead of in the way they are talked about.

The extensionally oriented person differentiates better than the world-minded (intentionally oriented) one. Such an extensional person is aware of the basic uniqueness of ‘things,’ ‘events’ etc., and so more aware of change than the intentionally oriented person, who mistakes fluid, dynamic world around one for the static, rigid world of labels, ‘qualities’ and ‘categories’ in one’s head, as Korzybski puts it.

Here is where one should be careful. An operational definition is needed to explain everything properly. The criterion of predictive value in establishing truth is basically extensional. Statements, assertions, judgments, principles…for that matter all kinds of talking is rated much as checks are rated in economy and they are accepted if one is reasonably sure they can be backed by currency. For an extensional person words that cannot be defined by operations and statements, that do not, by implication contain predictions of experience, are like checks on nonexistent accounts.

For example, on the occasion of the “Appointed Day,” the Telugus of the two States heard the speeches of their leaders. Being voters, they are more extensional than journalists and politicians. At least one of the Chief Ministers knows that better than the other as he was pointing to the currency behind it. The other should know that issuing checks on non-existent accounts is a bad deal. Yes or no?