Aspects of a Book -2: The Seven Principles

In technical writing, the crux lies in presenting an idea, whether you're crafting a book, an article, or a monograph. This idea is shaped by the author's stance or attitude towards it and is referred to as 'matham' in Tamil grammar. Let's denote 'matham' as 'principle'.

Nannool enumerates seven prominent principles:

eluvagai mathame: udanpadal [1], maruthal [2],

pirartham matham merkondu kalaive [3],

thaaan naatti thanaathu niruppe [4],

iruvar maarukol oruthalai thunive [5],

pirar nool kutram kaattal [6], enai

pirthodu padaaan than matham kolale [7].

?

The seven principles are:

[1] Agreeing (with the existing/predecessor canons),

[2] Disagreeing (with the existing/predecessor canons),

[3] Take (existing/predecessor canons) for consideration and then dismissing (them),

[4] Proposing and proving one's own canons,

[5] Choosing to agree with one side in a conflict (of canons),

[6] Indicating the faults/mistakes in other texts, and

[7] Rejecting others' canons and embracing only self-canons.

As discussed earlier, a text can be original, derivative, or adapted. In scientific and logical fields, foundational texts form a continuous tradition, where each derivative builds upon its predecessor, akin to a generational chain.

In this context, authors often find themselves grappling with existing ideas, leading to the application of these 'principles'. They might:

i. Agree: Embrace and conform to established ideas.

ii. Disagree: Refuse to accept prevailing notions.

iii. Agree, then dismiss: Acknowledge existing ideas (even if they disagree) and refute them.

iv. Establish their own rules/ideas: Propose new concepts and solidify them through consistent usage.

v. Support one side in a conflict: Take a stance in disagreements among prior authors.

vi. Point out mistakes in other texts: Identify errors in preceding ideas and offer solutions.

vii. Reject others' ideas and adopt their own: Conversely, discard previous ideas and advocate for their concepts.

These principles essentially revolve around the spectrum of accepting and/or rejecting existing ideas or rules to varying extents.

Authors should adhere to one of these principles when articulating their perspective on a concept. However, they are free to adopt different stances within different sections of the same text.

Let me illustrate further with some examples.

Example 1: The Vocative Case

Grammarians (both Tamil and Sanskrit) often debate whether to include the vocative case as a separate case. Some consider it a distinct case, while others view it as a subset of the nominative case. Thus, a particular grammarian may agree, disagree, or partially agree/disagree with this counting of cases and state their principles accordingly.

Example 2: Word-Meaning Correlation

This is a metaphysical argument: Do words have inherent meanings? Are the meanings associated with a word arbitrary or inherent? Grammarians are split on this issue, leading them to agree or disagree with others in this context.

The Sanskrit Mahakavi, Kaalidaasah, begins his great epic Ragu Vamsam with an invocation to the ultimate parents of the universe, God Shivah and Goddess Paarvati:

vaag-arthaa-iva sampruktau vaag-artha-pratipattaye |

jagatah pitarau vande paarvati-paramesvarau ||

He says, I bow (vande) unto them, who are united (sampruktau) like (iva) word (vaak) and meaning (arthaa), may they, the parents (pitarau) of this universe (jagatah) – Paarvati and Shivah (paramesvarah), bless me (pratipattaye) with words (vaak) and meaning (artha) [to complete this epic without flaws].

Here, Kaalidaasah masterfully steers around the argument (whether words have inherent meaning) by first using it as a simile to the ever-united cosmic couple (implying they do), but then prays to be blessed with vaak and artha separately (implying they are different!)

Example 3: Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Interpretations of quantum mechanics attempt to explain how the mathematical theory corresponds to experienced reality. While quantum mechanics has withstood rigorous and precise tests across numerous experiments, there are many contending schools of thought regarding its interpretation (my favorite is Everett’s Many-worlds interpretation, what’s yours?) These views differ on fundamental questions such as whether quantum mechanics is deterministic or stochastic, local or non-local, and what the nature of measurement is. Despite nearly a century of debate, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of physics.

These differing stances may or may not affect the application of rules set forth by the author. Nevertheless, an author must be clear about their stance.

I've kept this overview concise, though each principle could be elaborated with more examples. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask—I'm here to help!

Previous post | Next Post

Please subscribe to my Newsletter ‘Ancient Insights’ for updates on new articles and editions. Feel free to Share/Repost and Comment. Write to me if you are willing to contribute. Thanks :-)