Ambedkar's archaeologies

Dr. Ambedkar, with commendable frankness, explained that his theory of Untouchability was imaginative and impressionistic though, no doubt, a properly pedantic, German Historical School of Economics- or  Kathedersozialisten research program- might achieve something which looked more concrete and alethic.

Archaeology and Paleontology focus on actual objects which later savants can subject to technologically more advanced analysis such that previous ideas are overturned. These are scientific disciplines. Ambedkar warns us that what he is doing is artistic and impressionistic- he is a painter filling out a scene imaginatively linked to a particular terrain.

What Ambedkar has written is eloquent and straight forward. Aishwary Kumar, whose interpretation appears after it, completely misrepresents it.

Every sentence Kumar has written is foolish and false. No City rendered anybody 'untouchable'. People of that description may have arrived from outside and some may have retained that designation. It was slavery or pathogen avoidance based behavior- found even today among certain isolated tribes- which created untouchability. But this was done before there were Cities. That is why Ambedkar favored urbanization.

Kumar next says that paleontology  requires visceral 'bone cracking'. No doubt, he thinks Ross, from Friends, went around killing dinosaurs or other animals so as to crack up their bones and reassemble them in the museum where he worked. 

No 'craft' can 'pry open the violence of time'. If you give things enough time they won't return to their original state. Why? Entropy. Time really isn't circular. Even if it were, there is nothing we can do to speed it up. 

Archeologists follow a scientific method. Their hypotheses are tentative. The material they uncover or correlate and curate is available for future savants, with better tech, who may completely overturn existing theories. There may be painstaking and time consuming hypothesis building. But a hypothesis is not a judgment. This does not mean no final judgments arise in Archaeology. But they are of a negative type. This fossil isn't that of a dinosaur. We can make this judgment because we have discovered it is made of plastic and has 'made in Taiwan' stamped on it. 

There is no 'law of genre'. There is only Scientific method. Does Kumar not know that Science recognize any boundary between man and other biological organisms? Why does he think Medical labs have so many mice and rabbits and so forth? How can you deconstruct something which doesn't exist? 

Look at Ambedkar's actions. What 'radical truth' do they reveal? Ambedkar himself says he is doing something imaginative. Faith may be considered imaginative because it can conceive of ways in which its beliefs fall short of the truth. But this was all perfectly in line with contemporary decision theory in Econ. Ambedkar had two Doctorates in that subject.  Since then, the maths has moved on and so we can get a richer Ambedkarite theory just as we can get a richer Keynesian theory.

Kumar is too ignorant to do any such thing. So he babbles mystical nonsense. Considers his claim that 'sudden illumination' can be contingent. Is he utterly ignorant of Buddhism? Does he really not know that satori is wholly un-contingent? It is based entirely on cetana- pure intentionality. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism at a time when such ideas were gaining widespread popularity. Texts too are actions- for Buddhists. None are uncreated. 

Kumar displays an exemplary and impartial ignorance of Western Science and Eastern Religion. Good for him. India should play its part in destroying the credibility of Western Universities and think-tanks- at least in non-STEM subjects- so that people laugh at those cunts when they try to lecture us darkies. 

But why is he shitting on Ambedkar? Why not find some relative of his own to shit on? How do you help the Dalit cause- or that of restoring sanity to Indian Economics- by pretending that Ambedkar was stupid and ignorant? 

Or is this all a High Caste trick subsidized by Stanford for some malign purpose of keeping India a source of 'intellectual coolie' labor to supply the cotton fields of Silicon Valley?