& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Debate on Postmodernism (po-mo) and others
****Po-mo offers the perfect vehicle for the pretentious "antelf" because it allows her/him to engage pompously in such "nonspeech," which also is "noncontent."
--Mohammad Harunuttaman, USA
***If you ash a student of physics "what are the basic questions physicists ash" you'll get an answer any layman can understand. It's the answers to those questions that are hard. Not the questions themselves.
;■ -Indranil DasOupta
Naeem Mohaiemen naze m@ lx netcom.com USA:
I don't agree that the only reason po-mo is durboddhyo Is because it is "HARD"
Sayan Bhattacharyya bbattach@heron.eecs. umich-e du
USA:
1 had a talk about this with a postmodernist friend of mine who is a PhD student in English at my university. He suggested that since the postmodernists believe that absolute meaning does not exist, they think it Is unrealistic for the reader* to expect that the reader will be able to decipher a meaning out of their writing very easily. This is an ingenious way. apparently. of the form echoing the content. Since the content of much postmodern thought is the mutability of meaning, apparent incomprehensibility is one My of reminding the reader oi this central thesis at every step.
I must admit that 1 was completely floored by such a self-referential idea. Such an idea seems straight out of the pages of Douglas Hofstadter or Jorge Luis Borges. It still beats me. though, why anyone in their right might
vehicle for the pretentious "antel." because it allows her/him to engage pompously In such "nonspeech.' which also ia "noncontent."
How doea the above rate as a typical po-mo statement? Incomprehensible comments especially welcome.
Joydeep Bhattacharya Jb25@cornell.edu USA
There is one aspect of the discussion which beats me. i.e. the difficulty of the mate
Indrantt DasCupta: I agree. Someone ought to show them that the apparent incoherence of po-mo writings hide a deep and rational structure. In particular many students of po-mo. contribute to the confusion by attributing "sinister* reasons for the apparent incomprehensibility. That Impression, above all. has to be neutralised, and countered.
Unfortunately there are few takers for the job. it seems. The alt. postmodern faq
rial that postmodernists study. What is so unbelievable about that? Aren't the intricacies of post-graduate physics difficult to grasp for someone specializing in English? And vice-versa. Most things written in academic journals in Economics are well beyond anyone not in Economics.
Indranll DasGupta dgupta@buphy.nu.edu
would want to play such a sinister game.
Zeeshan Hasan khasanddiu. haruard. edu USA:
On the other hand Its possible that they’re really not saying anything.
Moharrimad Harunuzzaman mharunuzdmagnus acs.ohio-state.edu USA:
Po-mo offers the perfect
USA:
A very good question. Why indeed do people tend to single out philosophies' and leave out sciences'?
Joydeep Bhattacharya: It Is IMO grossly unfair to ask suggestive questions like ' 1 wonder If the po-mo's have anything Intelligent to say...". I woula brand ouch allegations as "bad adda" quite unbecoming of the readers of both the SCB's
which ! read carefully and sincerely was no help at all. The faq in the astronomy newsgroup on the other hand is quite transparent even to laymen. If this situation persists for long then I will be forced to conclude that post modernists themselves are at least partially, responsible for being "misunderstood".
For instance. If you ask a stu-»t of physics "what are the ic questions physicists ask" you'll get an answer any layman can understand. It s the answers to those questions that are hard. Not the questions themselves, •
I have asked a similar question about post modernism in thisng. Tatnagata has so far not offered any answers at all. Taranga has tried valiantly. But as 1 see. the questions he says po-mos ask are not at all different from what _any hls-torian_ would ask. Furthermore I am primarily interested in postmodernism's relation to the scientific method. I'd like to know what questions do they ask regarding science and the scientific method