Thread by @sanjeevsanyal

The most insidious sources of distortion in many fields is Plato's idea of static "pure forms". It is the ultimate source of Corbusier's rigid masterplans, Marxist end state, and so on. Married to the Biblical "Garden of Eden", it has messed up study of ancient history 1/n

The "pure form" framework has led historians to insist on a single-point pure origin of race, culture etc. Thus, the race/culture/language diffuses out from this origin and becomes increasingly impure. Diffusion theory is embedded in all mainstream linguistics, history etc 2/n

Contrast with complexity theory world of multidirectional impact, spontaneous "emergence", spirals etc. Thus, the place to look for "origin" is not where it is purest, but where it is only one of many siblings. 3/n

This messiness makes it difficult to provide precise definitions for complex systems. Plato-wallahs will first try to fit the field into their "pure form" box. if they fail, they will claim that the phenomenon does not even exist 4/n

Illustration: Hinduism. Plato-wallahs will read obscure texts without reference to lived practice of Hindus and claim they know "true" Hinduism. They will also claim that there is no such thing as Hinduism. 5/n

To claim classical Sanskrit (or Tamil) is pure origin language is wrong for same reason. Panini merely standardised formal language - but the messy network of Prakrits pre-existed Sanskrit. Similarly, there is no original Proto-Indo-European, it is a made up language 6/n

This is why the ability to define something should not define the reality of a phenomenon. Always be suspicious of any scholar who starts a lecture by quoting dictionary definition of some phenomenon or falls back on "root words" (except in a language/etymology class). 7/n

For Plato-Newton, the world eventually descends to an undifferentiated mush in the melting pot. In a complexity world, "strange attractors" cause "emergence". The attractors act as nodes /organising principles that directs localised evolution in its "basin" of influence 8/n

Thus,Sanskrit is important as a "strange attractor" for evolution of Indian languages, but not as point of origin.Vedic texts did same for Hinduism. Shiva/Durga/Kartik are not "later" gods. They co-existed with Indra. Importance of Vedas is not its gods but the framework 9/n

Same is the case with a civilisation. It is a strange attractor, not a pure place of origin. It is an organising principle. In a market economy, it is the ability to enforce contracts. Hence my enthusiasm for legal reform. 10.n