Dear Friends,

There has been many requests that I explain what I mean by Hermeneutic Science in a languge as simple as possible. I will try again with a new way of looking at it. When we look at the positive sciences, we can see that there are theories and APPLLICATIONS based upon  these theories. The scientific approach has come to mean  having theories and developing technologies as ways of realising the truths of the theories.  Now something similar is available in the Hermeneutic Sciences as well and I will use the terms theoria and technia to describe them.

Now theorias are TRUTHS and technias are ways of life  that would enable anyone to sight these TRUTHS. The hermeneutic sciences are concerned with TRUTHS and hence the AVOIDANCE of falsities , untruths, prejudices, misperceptions. misunderstandings, illusions, delutions etc.  In this the most fundamental Hermeneutic Science is metaphysics and which incorporates  into itself the religious forms of existence as a form of Depth Psychology. This fundamental Hermeneutic Science has as its theoria Fundamental Ontology and as its technia ways of life consistent with this Fundamental Ontology(Ta. anaathip poruLial) Since all the hermeneutic sciences are concerned with making a person SEE the truths FOR HIMSELF, the technias are practices of a kind that would OPEN UP THE EYES of a person so that he begins to avoid untruths and see truths and only truths.

Now while the notion of OBJECTIVITY in the postive sciences is related to that of intersubjective confirmation , irefutability etc this is NOT so in the hermeneutic sciences. Something   can become  OBJECTIVE in the positive sciences  only if it is measurable. The theories allow the generating of Hypotheses that allow testing through experimentation, modelling, simulation etc. The idea of REPLICATION and statistical measurements remain vital here. What does not allow replication does not allow testing of some kind and hence the possibilty of intersubjective confirmation and hence objectivity.

In the hermeneutic sciences the notion of objectivity is related  to the notion of SEEING. When the seeing is prejudice-free, what is seen is Objective; it cannot be false but only true. Such an understanding is an undrstanding of something objective. This is the "vinaiyin niingki viLangkya aRivu"  of Tholkaappiyam,  where " vinai" means the constraining or distorting prejudices.  When the seeing is prejudice-free what is seen is NOT idiosyncratic but objective. And the evidence for this is the POSSIBLITY of AGREEMENT with many others , an agreement that arises because of the SAMENESS of SEEING. When many independent individuals can come to see the SAME WAY, what is seen cannot be idiosyncrtic but objective.

Because of this there is NO EXPERIMENTATION but only making another SEE what one has already seen.. This SHOWING others what one has seen takes the form of KANDIKAI urai of Tholkaappiyar. There is a logic , NOT linear but citrcular.

And the scientific character eemrges here with the recogniton that what are analysed in the hermeneutic sciences are NOT brutal facts, verious pointers in the instruments used   but rather TEXTS. Whatever is seen and taken as Texts or text anlogues do not demand measurements for understanding them but only INTERPRETATIONS.
 Among the hermeneutic Philosophers in the West (Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricouver, Derrida, Habermas etc) there are different views about the meaning of TEXTS and INTRPRETATIONS.  I equate it with the notionn if UTHTHI in Thol. and call it ONTO-PRETATIONS. A text is taken as something that has a DUAL structure , the Surface and DEEP. The surface structure features enable us to note a puzzle, or problem; something that we DON"T UNDERSTAND  and hence through that EXPOSE our ignorance. We destroy this IGNORANCE by moving towards  the DEPTHS and identify the elements in the DEEP structure that agentively and causally determine the surface structure features.  When we  are not  mistaken in this we UNDERSTAND the TEXT and ceases to be enigmatic.

This kind of movement of the mind is metaphysical and the kind of thinking the meta-thinking (thanks to Bala). Each meta-movement destroys the INNER darkness and as we persists bravely and reach  at the deepest level, ths forms of existence become genuiely religious. The deepest kind of Metaphysical science is  that which underlies ALL religions and the understanding it fiurnishes Metaphysica Universalis.

I will stop here as I have a feeling that I am becoming dificult again.

DrK.Loganathan.