scb school of postmodernism
Dasgupta
A couple readings on po-mo ideas in Bangla:
1. "Chaarti Shobdo: Joyce, Derrida, Bingsho Shotabdi" : Haider Khan,
Jijnasa Patrika, vol.16, no.2, Shraban-Ashwin, 1402.
2. Jac Derrida ba Dorshoner Atmohotya : Amal Bandopadhyay,
Lyric patrika, Uttar-Adhunik Kobita Shongkhya 2, Magh, 1401.
Enjoy,
Shoumyo.
Sambit Basu
>This is an attempt to understand the text of this FAQ and what lies
>beyond. A hermeneutics of the faq (thanks again Sayanbabu) from the pov
>of scb readers (who I rate very highly). Postmodernism-ke bangla kore
>bujhbar cheshta. Je jinish banglay bojha jay na she jinish bujhe kono
>labh nei.
Sheki? Bujhle na? post-modern hochchhe adhunikottor, aar
post-modernism hochchhe uttor-adhunikota. e to akbaare
dui aar dui shatero-r moton shoja ("...postmodernity is seen as
involving an end of the dominance of an overarching belief in
scientific rationality...")
>Deeper
>forays into postmodernism can be made if experts (and I do not doubt
>that among the readers of scb there are a few) join in.
Soumitrababu "pre-modern" bhashay borong kichhuu bole shuru
korun, amra chhatr-dol toiri.
>begin quote -----------------------------------------------------
[...]
> postmodernity is seen as
>involving an end of the dominance of an overarching belief in scientific
>rationality and a unitary theory of PROGRESS, the replacement of
>empiricist theories of representation and TRUTH, and increased
>emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on free-floating signs
>and images, and a plurality of viewpoints.
[...]
>end quote ---------------------------------------------------------
"naahi ortho, kintu tobu kohi okopot
shunite ki mishto aha - hing ting chhot|"
(hing ting chhot - Rabindranath Thakur)
Elo-i jokhon, tirish bochhor aage ashte parlo na! Onko
shikhte giye baba-r haate bedhoDok maar khete hoto na!
-------------On even more serious note:
>What are we to understand here? Postmodernism is an attitude that
>challenges the scientific method? In science we have a technical term
>for arguments that do not rely on `scientific rationality'. We call them
>`handwaving'. Is post-modernism merely a more respectable synonym for
>handwaving?
>The faq talks about TRUTH, `appearence' and `real'. From a scientists
>point of view a statement like `appearence = real' has no meaning unless
>the objects on both sides of the equality are objectively defined. This
>faq does not tell us about these definitions. Perhaps postmodernism has
>an accepted notion for these terms. If so, what are they?
>And then what do `signs' mean? What is a `local account' as opposed to
>a `grand narrative'? Are there examples of either or both in say
>Physical Review D (a scientific journal)?
>Increasingly I find myself drawn into a vortex of enquiry.
>Gentlemen,
>let's figure this out for ourselves. Let's put our minds together and
>make some sense out of it.
But the basic question is about the definition (that you've
quoted in your post). Do we try to understand the definition
based on the scientific, rational premises or the definition
itself is written in "post-modern" style by putting emphasis
on the "unconcious" and "free-floating signs and images"? Then
your questions do not hold ground IDG.
Regards,
Sambit
Indranil DasGupta
FAQ from alt.postmodern. I'd be too lazy to go and check it out
myself. But I did try to read it sincerely. As I expected, it has
generated more questions than answers.
This is an attempt to understand the text of this FAQ and what lies
beyond. A hermeneutics of the faq (thanks again Sayanbabu) from the pov
of scb readers (who I rate very highly). Postmodernism-ke bangla kore
bujhbar cheshta. Je jinish banglay bojha jay na she jinish bujhe kono
labh nei.
There are many things in the faq that I do not understand. And I plan to
bring each of them in focus one by one over a period of time. This'll
give all of us an opportunity to analyse and comment-on them. I hope to
make this a worthwhile learning experience for laymen like me. Deeper
forays into postmodernism can be made if experts (and I do not doubt
that among the readers of scb there are a few) join in.
Here is one `definition' of postmodernism from the faq that I'd like our
discussion to start with.
begin quote -----------------------------------------------------
(B) "Postmodernism and postmodernity[,] a cultural and ideological
configuration variously defined, with different aspects of the general
phenomenon emphasized by different theorists, postmodernity is seen as
involving an end of the dominance of an overarching belief in scientific
rationality and a unitary theory of PROGRESS, the replacement of
empiricist theories of representation and TRUTH, and increased
emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on free-floating signs
and images, and a plurality of viewpoints. Associated also with the
idea of a postindustrial age (compare POSTINDUSTRIAL SOCIETY [Daniel
Bell]), theorists such as BAUDRILLARD (1983) and Lyotard (1984) make
central to postmodernity a shift from a `productive' to a `reproductive'
social order, in which simulations and models--and more generally,
signs--increasingly constitute the world, so that any distinction
between the appearance and the `real' is lost. Lyotard, for example,
speaks especially of the replacement of any *grand narrative* [les
grands recits] by more local `accounts' of reality as distinctive of
postmodernism and postmodernity.
end quote ---------------------------------------------------------
Soumitra Bose
writes:
and other little mags in 1994 book fair.
-S.BHATTACHARYA
Dasgupta <TXD...@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
>Indranil:
> A couple readings on po-mo ideas in Bangla:
>
> 1. "Chaarti Shobdo: Joyce, Derrida, Bingsho Shotabdi" : Haider Khan,
> Jijnasa Patrika, vol.16, no.2, Shraban-Ashwin, 1402.
>
> 2. Jac Derrida ba Dorshoner Atmohotya : Amal Bandopadhyay,
> Lyric patrika, Uttar-Adhunik Kobita Shongkhya 2, Magh, 1401.
>
Syed Mustafa Shiraj-er "Aleek Manush"-er shonge po-mo'r kono somporko
aachhe ki? Ami ekdom po-mo-ogg(n)o, ebong IDG'r tola proshno gulo amar'o
aachhe.
Shubhechha -
- samir
>Enjoy,
>
>Shoumyo.
Indranil DasGupta
: In <4e5qja$t...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta)
: I found myself bewildered in the same "group" with Sayan and Apra, and
: against "Shoumya" .well Now I guess i am bewildered again by Indranil's
: comment. I cannot think a physicist do not find interest in philosophy
: and do not try to keep him at pace with the newer developments at least
: to an extent. I remember PRof Shyamal Sengupta breaking into
: Philosophies from MAhabharat to KAnt in explaining the physical
: phenomena.That was my days in Presidency .We got the clue from him and
: i enjoy though out of physics in reading BRian Kosovo .
My views on philosophy related to science is somewhat similar to say
Hawking's (as in the two popular books he wrote). In that respect it is
certainly not unprecedented among physicists. I have never found
Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
completely ignorant of his philosophy.
Whether Soumitrababu finds it unthinkable or not there ARE other
physicists who share these views.
: Post modernism opposes or criticises the positivist philosophy or the
: "Scientism" or Scietology which thinks everything is derived thru
: didactic or at most inductive logic.Experential knowledge is important
Did you mean experimental?
If (as you say) post-modernism opposes the view that everything is
derived through didactic or inductive logic then I would be interested
in learning about THEIR methods of logic.
: to postmodernism. A multitude of dimensions in knowledge and various
: sources of knowledge is where post modernism has drawn our attention.
: Post modernism believes in multi-dimensionality of "reality" rather
: than simply the ones which are felt.Reality is a mental construct like
This `post-modern' sentence went way above my head. Banglay bolben
Soumitrababu?
: any other definitions. Post modernism doe snot believe in dichotomy of
: mental constructs .Relevant here would be the upanishadic wisdom of
Once again I am getting lost. Reality is a mental construct?! Very well,
let us say we have a desk in my room. Whose mental construct is that?
And where is the dichotomy? Dichotomy koththeke ashchhe? Ki shandhyo
kothabarta apnar Soumitrababu!
: Adwoito .Duality is what has been brought forth by positivism , where
: post modernism differs.
: I guess htese facts are pretty clear in the definition quoted by Sayan.
Hashbo na kNadbo? Heshei phellam :-) :-)
Apnar mairi jobab nei!
Indranil
Jagdish Bisa
Indranil DasGupta appears to be naive:
> First, let me express my gratitude to Sayan-babu for mailing me the
> FAQ from alt.postmodern. I'd be too lazy to go and check it out
> myself. But I did try to read it sincerely. As I expected, it has
> generated more questions than answers.
Take my advice Indranil, trash that friggin FAQ!
It's as authentic as uncle Kulbir's virtual FAQ on Khalisthaan!
-Jagdish (that FAQ from alt.postmodern is worthless!) Bisa
-S.BHATTACHARYA
Sambit Basu <sam...@gandalf.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
[...]
> "naahi ortho, kintu tobu kohi okopot
> shunite ki mishto aha - hing ting chhot|"
>
> (hing ting chhot - Rabindranath Thakur)
>
Amar mone hochhe, ei-tei po-mo'r definition-ta'r nirjyas,
bodho-gomyo (orthat non-po-mo) bhashay.
[..]
> But the basic question is about the definition (that you've
> quoted in your post). Do we try to understand the definition
> based on the scientific, rational premises or the definition
> itself is written in "post-modern" style by putting emphasis
> on the "unconcious" and "free-floating signs and images"? Then
> your questions do not hold ground IDG.
>
O, hing-ting-chhot'o oparog! Asha korechhilum je or madhyome
ontoto definition ta bujhte paarbo. Kintu bujhte para'r cheshTa
koratai to rational :) Haal chheRe deoa-i buddhimaner kaaj... oops!
abar bhul :)
shubhechha -
- samir
> Regards,
> Sambit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Soumitra Bose
>First, let me express my gratitude to Sayan-babu for mailing me the
>FAQ from alt.postmodern. I'd be too lazy to go and check it out
>myself. But I did try to read it sincerely. As I expected, it has
>generated more questions than answers.
>
against "Shoumya" .well Now I guess i am bewildered again by Indranil's
comment. I cannot think a physicist do not find interest in philosophy
and do not try to keep him at pace with the newer developments at least
to an extent. I remember PRof Shyamal Sengupta breaking into
Philosophies from MAhabharat to KAnt in explaining the physical
phenomena.That was my days in Presidency .We got the clue from him and
i enjoy though out of physics in reading BRian Kosovo .
Post modernism opposes or criticises the positivist philosophy or the
"Scientism" or Scietology which thinks everything is derived thru
didactic or at most inductive logic.Experential knowledge is important
to postmodernism. A multitude of dimensions in knowledge and various
sources of knowledge is where post modernism has drawn our attention.
Post modernism believes in multi-dimensionality of "reality" rather
than simply the ones which are felt.Reality is a mental construct like
any other definitions. Post modernism doe snot believe in dichotomy of
mental constructs .Relevant here would be the upanishadic wisdom of
Soumitra Bose
>
>> postmodernity is seen as
>>involving an end of the dominance of an overarching belief in
scientific
>>rationality and a unitary theory of PROGRESS, the replacement of
>>empiricist theories of representation and TRUTH, and increased
>>emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on free-floating signs
>>and images, and a plurality of viewpoints.
>
>
>
>
/Amar to mone hoi sadharon post modern lekhar modhye , ba
uttor-adhunikotar name je hazaro dhastamo cholche , tar shapekhe ei
para tai shobcheye bodhogommyo. Scientific rationality ke je songya
diyei protyoito (posit orhte) kora jak na keno seta shudhui ekta mental
construct , ebong ar paNchta mental construct er motoi ek shorik , kono
overarching dominant borodada ba shobjanta lawrence forster hote pare
na. Keu ekjon scientific rationality bollei ta kotota sacrosanct ba
dwidhadonder baire tai niye proshno jage.Scientific approacher ekta
songya bodhoi einstein khuro diyechilen "jake bhul promanito kora
jaowar scope thakbe "kimba falsifiable or falsiciable . Tobe se to pray
shobkichui ,emon ki je kono knowledge source .
Amader bojha dorkar je torkoshastro , ba morality o rationality bhittik
nyaysashtro r baireo gyan bhandar ache , gyaner tradition ache ,seta
print media ba composed media r baireo thakte pare ebong acheo . Jemon
shruti o smriti r gurukuli tradition..Tai plurality of viewpoints ebong
bohutoro signs and images ke onudhabon kora proyojon karon composed
language i shesh kotha noi. Forashite Bhasha bolte langage o langue o
parole er modhye bistor farak achey .Je kono sign ba imageo kichu
prokash kore tai setakeo bhasha r pashapashi gurutwo dewo uchit.
AR e shobguloke represent na kore upolobdhi o onudhabon kora uchit .
Soumitra Bose
writes:
>
>Soumitra Bose (soum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <4e5qja$t...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta)
>
>: I found myself bewildered in the same "group" with Sayan and Apra,
and
>: against "Shoumya" .well Now I guess i am bewildered again by
Indranil's
>: comment. I cannot think a physicist do not find interest in
philosophy
>: and do not try to keep him at pace with the newer developments at
least
>: to an extent. I remember PRof Shyamal Sengupta breaking into
>: Philosophies from MAhabharat to KAnt in explaining the physical
>: phenomena.That was my days in Presidency .We got the clue from him
and
>: i enjoy though out of physics in reading BRian Kosovo .
>
>Hawking's (as in the two popular books he wrote). In that respect it
is
>certainly not unprecedented among physicists. I have never found
>Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
>completely ignorant of his philosophy.
For possibly the first time I find someone to take pride in not knowing
or not trying to know .I am not expecting every physicist to find
correlation with Mahabharat, and Mahabharat is not a one line text.I
mentioned about the flexibiltiy of DR.Shyamal Sengupto of Solid State
(Indranil may not know him as SSG was a famous professor from Calcutta)
Physics, while he was teaching and hwo he inculcated these interests
into us.
>
>Whether Soumitrababu finds it unthinkable or not there ARE other
>physicists who share these views.
>
>: Post modernism opposes or criticises the positivist philosophy or
the
>: "Scientism" or Scietology which thinks everything is derived thru
>: didactic or at most inductive logic.Experential knowledge is
important
>
>Did you mean experimental?
>
Jesus christ !!! Why should i mean experimental when I said
Experential.Do you mean to say you never heard of the faculty of
experential knowledge??? This is getting too far ....,I think I am
trying to understand you seriously , and have no intention to pull your
legs or my legs getting pulled at least in this issue.
>If (as you say) post-modernism opposes the view that everything is
>derived through didactic or inductive logic then I would be interested
>in learning about THEIR methods of logic.
>
Logic is only a very constricted way of viewing and comprehending the
world around or as one calls it LIFE.since logic is still confined
within deduction and induction .Experience does not take any role here.
>: to postmodernism. A multitude of dimensions in knowledge and various
>: sources of knowledge is where post modernism has drawn our
attention.
>
>: Post modernism believes in multi-dimensionality of "reality" rather
>: than simply the ones which are felt.Reality is a mental construct
like
>
>This `post-modern' sentence went way above my head. Banglay bolben
>Soumitrababu?
>
Er theke ki kore ar banglai bola jai(jodi oboshyo tumi kolkatar dialect
ke bojho-a bujhle bolo chesta kore dekhbo delhi r bangali bola jai
kina)
reality shudhu bajhoto ba drishoto protiyoman hoi na , mythic reality
theke magic reality hoie onek dhroner realityr ostitto aj shikrito, ei
jonnoi post modernism pora uchit.
>: any other definitions. Post modernism doe snot believe in dichotomy
of
>: mental constructs .Relevant here would be the upanishadic wisdom of
>
>Once again I am getting lost. Reality is a mental construct?! Very
well,
>let us say we have a desk in my room. Whose mental construct is that?
>
Desk to tomar definition e desk hoichey ,Its your need and value
realisation which had made it a desk and views it like that. To me or
to a person "un-initiated" in "civil"society it might appear to be a
heap of wood could be used as a fuel or fodder.Reality very much
depends on the mental programming and the value realisation which in
turn depends on the spaceand time and the social programming.
>And where is the dichotomy? Dichotomy koththeke ashchhe? Ki shandhyo
>kothabarta apnar Soumitrababu!
>
Jokohoni kono distinction kora hoi , orthat jokhoni kono definition
dewo hoi , orthat jokhon boundary condition guloke specify kore dewo
hoi tokhoni us/they marka dichotomy r utpotti , tokhoni dwitto r khetro
porstut hoi.
>: Adwoito .Duality is what has been brought forth by positivism ,
where
>: post modernism differs.
>: I guess htese facts are pretty clear in the definition quoted by
Sayan.
>
>Hashbo na kNadbo? Heshei phellam :-) :-)
>Apnar mairi jobab nei!
>
Dada eto songskrito lorao ar dwoito ar odwoito bujhcho na ? naki tomar
dharona hoichye ogulo shudhu dharmik lokera dharmor proyojone aure jabe
, egulo to public document , public knowledge pool e achey , keno emon
hobe je dhormo chara ar kono khetre byabohar kora jabe na . Ar oi
naamer dorshon to dwoito ei shbdo r ghare korei eshechilo.
>Indranil
Sambit Basu
>Indranil DasGupta writes:
>>
>Logic is only a very constricted way of viewing and comprehending the
>world around or as one calls it LIFE.since logic is still confined
>within deduction and induction .Experience does not take any role here.
Induction and deductions are methods, experience is the
raw information input of the process.
>>: Post modernism believes in multi-dimensionality of "reality" rather
>>: than simply the ones which are felt.Reality is a mental construct
>like
>>
>>This `post-modern' sentence went way above my head. Banglay bolben
>>Soumitrababu?
>reality shudhu bajhoto ba drishoto protiyoman hoi na , mythic reality
>theke magic reality hoie onek dhroner realityr ostitto aj shikrito, ei
>jonnoi post modernism pora uchit.
Mythic ba magic reality ki?
Tobe to start from the very beginning, can you please define
reality?
>>: any other definitions. Post modernism doe snot believe in dichotomy
>of
>>: mental constructs .Relevant here would be the upanishadic wisdom of
>>
>>Once again I am getting lost. Reality is a mental construct?! Very
>well,
>>let us say we have a desk in my room. Whose mental construct is that?
>>
>Desk to tomar definition e desk hoichey ,Its your need and value
>realisation which had made it a desk and views it like that. To me or
>to a person "un-initiated" in "civil"society it might appear to be a
>heap of wood could be used as a fuel or fodder.
This is, IMO, absolutely true.
"amar-i chetonar rong-e panna holo shobuj" ityadi.
>Reality very much
>depends on the mental programming and the value realisation which in
>turn depends on the spaceand time and the social programming.
Is it so? The reality of the existence of a desk does not
change here. What varies is the "un-inititated" person's
perception of the utility (and name) from the initiated person's
concept of what some initiated persons call a "desk".
>>Indranil
Regards,
Sambit
sayan bhattacharyya
Sambit Basu <sam...@gandalf.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>>>
>
>>Logic is only a very constricted way of viewing and comprehending the
>>world around or as one calls it LIFE.since logic is still confined
>>within deduction and induction .Experience does not take any role here.
>
> raw information input of the process.
>
Note however that induction and deduction, though time-honored traditions
in science, do not completely exhaust the methodological inventory of doing
science. Other techniques do exist (o niTHur aro ki ban tomar tunet achhe!)
One such technique is simulation. The entire new field of complex systems
is premised on the methodological validity of simulation.
-Sayan.
--
Sayan Bhattacharyya | Information is in
Artificial Intelligence Lab | the mind of the beholder.
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science|
The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor | - Ray Jackendoff
Indranil DasGupta
quotes.
Sambit Basu (sam...@gandalf.rutgers.edu) wrote:
: soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
: >Indranil DasGupta writes:
: >>
: >Logic is only a very constricted way of viewing and comprehending the
: >world around or as one calls it LIFE.since logic is still confined
: >within deduction and induction .Experience does not take any role here.
: Induction and deductions are methods, experience is the
: raw information input of the process.
Why doesn't Soumitrababu give an example about a situation in life where
logic as we know it, does not work?
: >>: Post modernism believes in multi-dimensionality of "reality" rather
: >>: than simply the ones which are felt.Reality is a mental construct
: >like
: >>
: >>This `post-modern' sentence went way above my head. Banglay bolben
: >>Soumitrababu?
: >reality shudhu bajhoto ba drishoto protiyoman hoi na , mythic reality
: >theke magic reality hoie onek dhroner realityr ostitto aj shikrito, ei
: >jonnoi post modernism pora uchit.
Age dhNoya dekhchhilaam. Akhon shudhu ondhokar.
: >>: any other definitions. Post modernism doe snot believe in dichotomy
: >of
: >>: mental constructs .Relevant here would be the upanishadic wisdom of
: >>
: >>Once again I am getting lost. Reality is a mental construct?! Very
: >well,
: >>let us say we have a desk in my room. Whose mental construct is that?
: >>
: >Desk to tomar definition e desk hoichey ,Its your need and value
: >realisation which had made it a desk and views it like that. To me or
: >to a person "un-initiated" in "civil"society it might appear to be a
: >heap of wood could be used as a fuel or fodder.
: This is, IMO, absolutely true.
: "amar-i chetonar rong-e panna holo shobuj" ityadi.
Akebarei baje kotha. Unless you want to sweep everything under the rug
of `chetona'. Jodi `amari chetonar ronge panna holo shobuj' mane ei
hoy je panna-ta onno kichhu-o hote parto tahole jehetu shei chetonar
jonyoi ei kothatake shotyi bole mone hochchhe tai kothatar shototao
puropuri nirbhorjogyo noy. Ei approach-e consistency nei.
: >Reality very much
: >depends on the mental programming and the value realisation which in
: >turn depends on the spaceand time and the social programming.
No. No matter what, a desk remains a desk. You may not call it a desk if
you do not know English. Or you may not be aware of it's usage as a desk
if you had never seen it before. But no matter what you think of it, as
a shapely piece of firewood or a place to put your books, the desk
remains a desk.
Indranil.
Soumitra Bose
>>world around or as one calls it LIFE.since logic is still confined
>>within deduction and induction .Experience does not take any role
here.
>
> raw information input of the process.
>
rather
>>>: than simply the ones which are felt.Reality is a mental construct
>>like
>>>
>>>This `post-modern' sentence went way above my head. Banglay bolben
>>>Soumitrababu?
>
>>theke magic reality hoie onek dhroner realityr ostitto aj shikrito,
ei
>>jonnoi post modernism pora uchit.
>
>
> Tobe to start from the very beginning, can you please define
> reality?
Thik ekhanei mukh theke bokaratnto nongorthok bangla sobdo ti beroi.
SCB ki philosophyr ba literature er 101 poranor jaiga naki , na spoon
feeding er jaiga . MArquez poro ni? Dur B... ar koto dekhiye dewo jai?
>
>>>: any other definitions. Post modernism doe snot believe in
dichotomy
>>of
>>>: mental constructs .Relevant here would be the upanishadic wisdom
of
>>>
>>>Once again I am getting lost. Reality is a mental construct?! Very
>>well,
>>>let us say we have a desk in my room. Whose mental construct is
that?
>>>
>>Desk to tomar definition e desk hoichey ,Its your need and value
>>realisation which had made it a desk and views it like that. To me or
>>to a person "un-initiated" in "civil"society it might appear to be a
>>heap of wood could be used as a fuel or fodder.
>
> This is, IMO, absolutely true.
>
> "amar-i chetonar rong-e panna holo shobuj" ityadi.
>
You are very right.
>>Reality very much
>>depends on the mental programming and the value realisation which in
>>turn depends on the spaceand time and the social programming.
>
Kaberi Chakrabarty
-S.BHATTACHARYA <s...@hogph.ho.att.com> wrote:
>In article <4e6mb5$r...@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
>Sambit Basu <sam...@gandalf.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>ontoto definition ta bujhte paarbo. Kintu bujhte para'r cheshTa
>koratai to rational :) Haal chheRe deoa-i buddhimaner kaaj... oops!
>abar bhul :)
>
"Tromboker trinayan trikal trigun
Shoktibhede bektibhed digun bigun
Biborton aborton shomborton adi
Jibshokti shibshokti kore bishongbadi
Akorshon bikorshon purush prokriti
anob choumbok bole akriti bikriti
Kushagre probohoman jibatya bidyut
Dharona paroma shokti shethai udbhut
Troyi shokti trishoruper proponche prokot
Shokhepe bolite gele 'Hing Ting Chhot'!"
Eyta ki ekta premodernism ar postmodernism-er synthesis naki?:-)
P. S. Ami ey puro kobita-ta ekhankar akta shahitya sanmelaner jonno mukhosto
korechhi. Apnara jodi chesta koren ey kobita-ta ektu American accent diye shona
kalpana korte paren, besh bhalo lagben.
--
________________ _/-\________
/|\ | / /| /| |
\| | \ \| \| |
*
Soumitra Bose
writes:
>I can't see Soumitra's original post, so I'll make do with Sambit's
>quotes.
>
>
>Sambit Basu (sam...@gandalf.rutgers.edu) wrote:
>
>: >Logic is only a very constricted way of viewing and comprehending
the
>: >world around or as one calls it LIFE.since logic is still confined
>: >within deduction and induction .Experience does not take any role
here.
>
>: raw information input of the process.
>
where
>logic as we know it, does not work?
>
society over the centuries without any composed media keeping its
track? This one apparently is very "illogical" .Now if you do not know
the meaning of "collective unconscious" .I give up I am not here to
teach ABC s of social-psychology.
>: >>: Post modernism believes in multi-dimensionality of "reality"
rather
>: >>: than simply the ones which are felt.Reality is a mental
construct
>: >like
>: >>
>: >>This `post-modern' sentence went way above my head. Banglay bolben
>: >>Soumitrababu?
>
>: >reality shudhu bajhoto ba drishoto protiyoman hoi na , mythic
reality
>: >theke magic reality hoie onek dhroner realityr ostitto aj shikrito,
ei
>: >jonnoi post modernism pora uchit.
>
>Age dhNoya dekhchhilaam. Akhon shudhu ondhokar.
>
Chokh na thakle oboshyo kokohnoi kichu dekha jai na, Ar Gyaner chokh
"instant wisdom" ba chibuker niche "der inchi" diye mapa jai na,
poraFrom: soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose )
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bengali
Subject: Re: scb school of postmodernism
References: <4e5qja$t...@news.bu.edu> <4e77hf$4...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4e8r39$b...@news.bu.edu> <4e9usm$f...@cloner3.netcom.com> <4ee1ab$d...@gandalf.rutgers.edu> <4eeej8$r...@news.bu.edu>
In <4eeej8$r...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta)
writes:
>
>I can't see Soumitra's original post, so I'll make do with Sambit's
>quotes.
>
>
>Sambit Basu (sam...@gandalf.rutgers.edu) wrote:
>: soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
>
>: >Indranil DasGupta writes:
>: >>
>
>: >Logic is only a very constricted way of viewing and comprehending
the
>: >world around or as one calls it LIFE.since logic is still confined
>: >within deduction and induction .Experience does not take any role
here.
>
>: Induction and deductions are methods, experience is the
>: raw information input of the process.
>
>Why doesn't Soumitrababu give an example about a situation in life
where
>logic as we know it, does not work?
>
What is Collective unconscious? How does it get percolated thru a
society over the centuries without any composed media keeping its
track? This one apparently is very "illogical" .Now if you do not know
the meaning of "collective unconscious" .I give up I am not here to
teach ABC s of social-psychology.
>: >>: Post modernism believes in multi-dimensionality of "reality"
rather
>: >>: than simply the ones which are felt.Reality is a mental
construct
>: >like
>: >>
>: >>This `post-modern' sentence went way above my head. Banglay bolben
>: >>Soumitrababu?
>
>: >reality shudhu bajhoto ba drishoto protiyoman hoi na , mythic
reality
>: >theke magic reality hoie onek dhroner realityr ostitto aj shikrito,
ei
>: >jonnoi post modernism pora uchit.
>
>Age dhNoya dekhchhilaam. Akhon shudhu ondhokar.
>
Chokh na thakle oboshyo kokohnoi kichu dekha jai na, Ar Gyaner chokh
"instant wisdom" ba chibuker niche "der inchi" diye mapa jai na,
poraogramming desk would mean an entirely different thing and would
connote different.It would cease to become a desk , might become a heap
of firewood or a lethal weapon.
This is consciousness which is social-program dependant.
The sentence "a desk remains a desk no matter what" is an absolute
statement. This is positivism a definitiveness ,and obviously any
absolute truth is against the spirit of scientific philosophy.This
fallacy would always come up again and again .Positivism vouches in the
name of non-absolutism and ends up asserting absolute truth.This kind
of attitude is rectified in a bigger paradigm thru post-modernism .This
paradigm was mentioned in the previous posts as multi-dimensionality of
reality.
>Indranil.
Sambit Basu
>Sambit Basu (sam...@gandalf.rutgers.edu) wrote:
>: soum...@ix.netcom.com(Soumitra Bose ) writes:
>: This is, IMO, absolutely true.
>: "amar-i chetonar rong-e panna holo shobuj" ityadi.
>Akebarei baje kotha. Unless you want to sweep everything under the rug
>of `chetona'. Jodi `amari chetonar ronge panna holo shobuj' mane ei
>hoy je panna-ta onno kichhu-o hote parto tahole jehetu shei chetonar
>jonyoi ei kothatake shotyi bole mone hochchhe tai kothatar shototao
>puropuri nirbhorjogyo noy. Ei approach-e consistency nei.
Na maane, panna theke je rong-ta beroy sheta-ke amra "shobuj"
naam diyechhi. Otake jodi onyo kono naam-e dakte tahole oi rong
byapar-ta palte jeto na (maane ak-i wavelength thakto), kintu
oi rong-ta-ke "shobuj" bole chintum na.
>Indranil.
Regards,
Sambit
Sambit Basu
>Sambit Basu <sam...@gandalf.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>> Induction and deductions are methods, experience is the
>> raw information input of the process.
>One such technique is simulation. The entire new field of complex systems
>is premised on the methodological validity of simulation.
But, isn't the very basis of simulation theory induction and
deduction?
>-Sayan.
Regards,
Sambit
Raghu Seshadri
: Why doesn't Soumitrababu give an example about a situation in life
: where logic as we know it, does not work?
1 When you are trying to deal with small children
2 When you are trying to figure out what Pakistan or
Bal Thackeray will do next
3 When you try to argue with anti-evolutionists,
or fundies of any stripe who have
stopped thinking after they acquired their
favorite dogma.
:-)
I beg Soumitrababu's indulgence in trying to
answer a question addressed to him.
Sambit Basu
>> Tobe to start from the very beginning, can you please define
>> reality?
>Thik ekhanei mukh theke bokaratnto nongorthok bangla sobdo ti beroi.
>SCB ki philosophyr ba literature er 101 poranor jaiga naki , na spoon
>feeding er jaiga . MArquez poro ni? Dur B... ar koto dekhiye dewo jai?
Eshob bole ki labh? Apni reality bolte ki bojhen, aar ami
ki bujhi sheta thikmoton na janle to puro alochona-tai
britha. Ami shotti jante chai. Dekhate hobe na, bojhano-tai
joruri.
Naki e-o Mujtaba Ali/Suman case? :)
Regards,
Sambit
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>: Why doesn't Soumitrababu give an example about a situation in life
>: where logic as we know it, does not work?
In order for logic to apply, you need to have, first, some __facts___
that you can draw deductions from (in the case of deductive logic), or
some __examples__, that you can induce on (for inductive logic).
What do you do when you have neither? The human mind abhors the lack
of explanation just as nature abhors a vacuum. So people construct an
explanation which may not have anything to do with logic at all. Such
an explanation is usually an analogical explanation, explaining one
phenomenon by drawing an analogy with another phenomenon. (Note that
etymologically, the word __analogical__ means "non-logical").
One very good example of non-logical explanations is the way myths
are created. A good example is the creation myths, which exist in almost
every culture. Another example is the way ancient Hindus explained eclipses
in terms of __rahu__ swallowing up the sun or moon, because they did
not have the scientific explanation in front of them.
You will ask, isn't this dangerous and subject to abuse by fundamentalists?
Sure it is. Sometimes myths hinder the progress of the human spirit (e.g.
look at how the religious right in the U.S. tries to encourage creationism
in schools). But at their best, myths liberate the human imagination and
are a highest form of creativity. After all, when we write any fiction
that is not autobiographical, we are trying to be myth-makers. A work of
art cannot be deduced or induced from other things by logical means. Magic
realists like Marquez recognize and respect this creative autonomy of myth
and recognize the power of the mythopoeic imagination.
Soumitra Bose
writes:
>
>: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) : writes:
>
>: Why doesn't Soumitrababu give an example about a situation in life
>: where logic as we know it, does not work?
>
>
>2 When you are trying to figure out what Pakistan or
> Bal Thackeray will do next
>
>3 When you try to argue with anti-evolutionists,
> or fundies of any stripe who have
> stopped thinking after they acquired their
> favorite dogma.
>
>:-)
>
>I beg Soumitrababu's indulgence in trying to
>answer a question addressed to him.
>
>
locomotion of collective unconscious of a society.
Soumitra Bose
Setatoto bolechi .Magic realism ajke ekta bohu alochitobishoibostu,
please ektu Marquez er choto golpo gulo poro , jemon "Eva was within
her cat" ityadi.ba ontoto Cento ano des solitudes er prothom pata .
Mythic reality khub porishkar kore bojhano ache Richard Cavendish o
Joseph Cambell er lekhai. Ekhon egulo Newton's 3 laws of motion noi ,
je du liner definition diye shuru korte hobe .As a matter of fact
Post-modernist juge ei deifinition kei besh sondher chokhe dekha hochye
Ontoto Brian Kosovor "Fuzzy logic" ta to pora jete pare...
Indranil DasGupta
: dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta) writes:
: >Akebarei baje kotha. Unless you want to sweep everything under the rug
: >of `chetona'. Jodi `amari chetonar ronge panna holo shobuj' mane ei
: >hoy je panna-ta onno kichhu-o hote parto tahole jehetu shei chetonar
: >jonyoi ei kothatake shotyi bole mone hochchhe tai kothatar shototao
: >puropuri nirbhorjogyo noy. Ei approach-e consistency nei.
: Na maane, panna theke je rong-ta beroy sheta-ke amra "shobuj"
: naam diyechhi. Otake jodi onyo kono naam-e dakte tahole oi rong
: byapar-ta palte jeto na (maane ak-i wavelength thakto), kintu
: oi rong-ta-ke "shobuj" bole chintum na.
Ekhaneo problem achhe. Tumi je orthei balo na kano `amar-i chetonar
ronge panna holo shobuj' aktaa prosno theke jay. Tomar jonmer age tomar
baba panna-ke ki rokom dekhten?
Jukti-ta nijoshwo noy. Physics-e purono bitorko achhe ei
dhoroner. Shownamdhonno podarthobid Aharonov ei kothata bolechhilen.
"Shobuj" kothata bangalider shommilito chetonay-o achhe. Rong-take tomar
jonmer ageo loke "shobuj"-i bolto.
Indranil.
Indranil DasGupta
: What is Collective unconscious? How does it get percolated thru a
: society over the centuries without any composed media keeping its
: track? This one apparently is very "illogical" .Now if you do not know
: the meaning of "collective unconscious" .I give up I am not here to
: teach ABC s of social-psychology.
Illi ar ki? Shoja prosn-er jobab na dite pere funda-r pichhone lukobar
cheshta? Akebare elitist jukti. Dhorun ami mukkhu shukhkhu gNayer
lok. Amar pokhkhe tahole eshob bojha shombhob noy, aNya?
: >: >>: Post modernism believes in multi-dimensionality of "reality"
: rather
: >: >>: than simply the ones which are felt.Reality is a mental
: construct
: >: >like
: >: >>
: >: >>This `post-modern' sentence went way above my head. Banglay bolben
: >: >>Soumitrababu?
: >
: >: >reality shudhu bajhoto ba drishoto protiyoman hoi na , mythic
: reality
: >: >theke magic reality hoie onek dhroner realityr ostitto aj shikrito,
: ei
: >: >jonnoi post modernism pora uchit.
: >
: >Age dhNoya dekhchhilaam. Akhon shudhu ondhokar.
: >
: Chokh na thakle oboshyo kokohnoi kichu dekha jai na, Ar Gyaner chokh
: "instant wisdom" ba chibuker niche "der inchi" diye mapa jai na,
Ebar jol kore diyechhen.
BTW, Soumitra-babu, edhoroner jukti diyei kintu akshomoy uchchoborner
lokera shomaje shoshan chalato. Tora bed porish ni. Tora ki bujhbi?
Oboshyo apnake ar ki bolbo. Apni mari ja casteist!
Indranil
Jagdish Bisa
/* It all started when Indranil Dasgupta yelled "DESK," for reality! */
Soumitra Bose said:
>
> >Reality very much
> >depends on the mental programming and the value realisation which in
> >turn depends on the spaceand time and the social programming.
>
Sambit Basu replied:
>
> Is it so? The reality of the existence of a desk does not
> change here. What varies is the "un-inititated" person's
> perception of the utility (and name) from the initiated person's
> concept of what some initiated persons call a "desk".
Me thinks:
Soumitra Bose never disputed what's been reiterated by Sambit Basu.
Mere 'existence' of objects isn't REALITY. A connection of
that object with some SYMBOL is REALITY.
Claude can't see a DESK since for him its a NEO-CUBIC WOODEN CARVING.
The symbol DESK is alien and unknown to Claude, since he is french!
"Can you see a DESK over there, Claude?" yelled Indranil.
"Nope!" replied Claude, "By the way, what's a DESK?"
One mans REALITY is anothers VOID.
*****
Eskimos have around sixteen different names for variations of snow,
for no one knows snow like a good old eskimo.
"Looks like we gonna have BIRYANI today!" said the old eskimo,
staring into the skies, to an Indian public-sectorman, phakir-chand.
"Golly, gee!" exclaimed phakir-chand.
"Would you like to eat dinner early or wait until YOGURT?"
queried old eskimo, still staring in to the skies.
"I better wait until YOGURT!" answered a happy phakir-chand.
One mans BIRYANI is anothers BLIZZARD, it was said. And also,
it was said, that one mans YOUGURT is anothers SUNSET.
- o -
-Jagdish (An eskimo makes an excellent po-mo!) Bisa
Indranil DasGupta
: : Why doesn't Soumitrababu give an example about a situation in life
: : where logic as we know it, does not work?
: 1 When you are trying to deal with small children
Raghu, spare me your `zero content debate for the sake of debates'. Next
you'll say that you have to give up logic when trying to deal with
animals.
Children/animals/mad-men may be incapable of following logic. But we
don't have to _be_ like them when dealing with them. (Unless you feel
like being an ox whenever you see a cow).
Indranil.
Raghu Seshadri
: : : Why doesn't Soumitrababu give an example about a situation in life
: : : where logic as we know it, does not work?
: : 1 When you are trying to deal with small children
: Raghu, spare me your `zero content debate for the sake of debates'. Next
: you'll say that you have to give up logic when trying to deal with
: animals.
Sorry, Indranil, for trying to inject levity in this
august congress. If I had titled it "humor" would it
have made a difference ?
I don't know about logic, but certainly there are
places where humor does not work.
RS
Soumitra Bose
>: society over the centuries without any composed media keeping its
>: track? This one apparently is very "illogical" .Now if you do not
know
>: the meaning of "collective unconscious" .I give up I am not here to
>: teach ABC s of social-psychology.
>
>cheshta? Akebare elitist jukti. Dhorun ami mukkhu shukhkhu gNayer
>lok. Amar pokhkhe tahole eshob bojha shombhob noy, aNya?
GNyar lok mukhuu sukhuu hoi eta ke boleche , Rajdhanir babar ....dhore
boro howa lallu panju ra naki? GNyaer manusher jibon theke shikha niye
shihito howa onek beshi dami, Ta(n)der sathe tader bhashai kotha bolte
shikte hoi. Jemon BAulra sandhyo bhashai kotha bolen , Charyagitikar ra
o bolten ,gramer manush ra bujhto bolei ogulo grameen songskriti
hoechilo, amra shorer babura injiri(tao onno bhasha porar shomoi naki
oneker thake na) boi pore shob kichu jokhon boi thekei shkhi ar taderi
ekjoner songye ami taderi ekjon hoi kotha koichi tokhon ogotir goti
boi.... Collective unconscious to esheche sei lekhokder lekhai prachyer
onupreronai..Boi pora babura jodi porte oshikar kore boro boro batol
koshe tobe ar kichu korte to tara pare na.
Post-moderneism er onnotomo dik hochye sub-altern er theke shekha .
Sater doshoke sei lorai shuru hoichye .
>
>: >: >>: Post modernism believes in multi-dimensionality of "reality"
>: rather
>: >: >>: than simply the ones which are felt.Reality is a mental
>: construct
>: >: >like
>: >: >>
>: >: >>This `post-modern' sentence went way above my head. Banglay
bolben
>: >: >>Soumitrababu?
>: >
>: >: >reality shudhu bajhoto ba drishoto protiyoman hoi na , mythic
>: reality
>: >: >theke magic reality hoie onek dhroner realityr ostitto aj
shikrito,
>: ei
>: >: >jonnoi post modernism pora uchit.
>: >
>: >Age dhNoya dekhchhilaam. Akhon shudhu ondhokar.
>: >
>: Chokh na thakle oboshyo kokohnoi kichu dekha jai na, Ar Gyaner chokh
>: "instant wisdom" ba chibuker niche "der inchi" diye mapa jai na,
>
>Ebar jol kore diyechhen.
>
>BTW, Soumitra-babu, edhoroner jukti diyei kintu akshomoy uchchoborner
>lokera shomaje shoshan chalato. Tora bed porish ni. Tora ki bujhbi?
>
Tokhon to bed takei shikshar mapkathi dhora hoiechilo uchhoborner
kache.Nimnoborner sub-altern kintu nijer moton kore dorshon ke toiri
kore lokayato dorshon baniyechilo , ar aj gayani gunira post-modernism
er tori beye sei gyan dh(n)dhte jache. Etai Sub-laterner nirob joi.
>Oboshyo apnake ar ki bolbo. Apni mari ja casteist!
>
>Indranil
Ami jodi Casteist hoi , tahole upper -caste manoshikotar birudhe amar
galagal pobitro grhinna aro shanito hok. Je chele upper castegulote
jonmo niye tar caste-base o caste-originke ghrina korte sekhe na ebong
tar birodhe protimuhurte lorai kore na , tar opor somosto opoman o
grhinna i manusher proti tibro bhalobasha ke utsharito korte pare na.
Chorom bhalobasha ar Chorom ghrina pahsapahi i bikoshito hoi. bostu ba
bishoi ke bhalobashte gele tar binary duality ke chorom ghrina korei
egute hoi, tobei ei baler binarygulo kono ekdin dhue jabar shorto
srhisti hoi. Ar amr kothito "Bania" kothati je caste categorisation
noi, borong comprador production relation et bujhte gele to rajdhani
chere mathe ontoto kichu diner jonne naamar obhigyota thaka chai.
Post-modernism er mul kothai hochye experential knowledge, pent up
life-less composed media udbhuto knowledge noi.
sayan bhattacharyya
Jagdish Bisa <bi...@steosf.nio.dec.com> wrote:
>
> Eskimos have around sixteen different names for variations of snow,
> for no one knows snow like a good old eskimo.
>
Incidentally, this has now been proved to be an urban myth. See the
book "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax" by the linguist George Pulliam.
-Sayan.
Zunaid Kazi
Mohammad Harunuzzaman <mhar...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Organization: The Ohio State University
>
> [Deleted]
>
> I think you are introducing a false dichotomy between scientific knowledge
> and other kinds of knowledge. The parables and metaphors of Mahabharata
> (which is true of other religious scriptures as well) do represent a form
> of knowledge although it was not arrived at by a scientific protocol. You
> are right when you say that the Mahabharata is not helpful in understanding
> physics. The reverse is also true. But we are dealing with complementary
> forms of knowledge or even independent fields of knowledge.
>
> [deleted]
>
Scientific knowledge *is* inherently differentiable from "narrative
knowledge", true only within a temporal framework. Scientific knowledge
must be verifiable by its own rules. Goedel's incompleteness theorem
inherently brings about a legitimization problem to initial axioms.
A scientific idea is valid as long as evidence exists for it and no
evidence exists against it. No idea is safe, and any violation removes
the body of knowledge from our realm.
po-mo no-mo:
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Zunaid Kazi ka...@asel.udel.edu (or @cis or @strauss)
CompSci & Robotics http://www.asel.udel.edu/~kazi/
ASEL http://www.asel.udel.edu/~kazi/bangladesh/
Indranil DasGupta
: Sorry, Indranil, for trying to inject levity in this
: august congress. If I had titled it "humor" would it
: have made a difference ?
: I don't know about logic, but certainly there are
: places where humor does not work.
: RS
I am sorry Raghu. It's just my heart. These days, the sight of your name
scares the hell out of me. I am not the man I used to be....
Indranil.
Indranil DasGupta
: In <4e8r39$b...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta)
: writes:
: >
: >My views on philosophy related to science is somewhat similar to say
: >Hawking's (as in the two popular books he wrote). In that respect it
: is
: >certainly not unprecedented among physicists. I have never found
: >Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
: >completely ignorant of his philosophy.
: For possibly the first time I find someone to take pride in not knowing
: or not trying to know .I am not expecting every physicist to find
: correlation with Mahabharat, and Mahabharat is not a one line text.I
: mentioned about the flexibiltiy of DR.Shyamal Sengupto of Solid State
: (Indranil may not know him as SSG was a famous professor from Calcutta)
: Physics, while he was teaching and hwo he inculcated these interests
: into us.
By the time you are finished with me Soumitra, I'd have lost sight of
the context totally.
All this is completely tangential to the discussion I
started. Nevertheless here is what I have to say on Physics and
Philosophy and where the twain meet.
1. How does one say that he is completely ignorant of something without
making you think he is proud of his ignorance?
2. A lot of (probably a majority) _great_ physicists do not care much
about philosophies at all.
3. Not many philosophers know enough physics to be able to help
physicists professionally. If a lawyer does not find time to read the
Mahabharata it is okay! What have we physicists done that we are
required to do everything?
4. If a physics teacher was able to inspire you to read Kant I salute
him. But I humbly beg to state that a university hires physics
teachers to teach physics. Dr.Shyamol Sengupta knows more
philosophy than the average physicist. I probably know more about
cooking than the average Indian physicist. So what? If I have the
opportunity to teach a physics class in Calcutta I'll make sure that my
students are also inspired to make chicken teriyaki. All of us are
trying to do our best.
: >
: >Did you mean experimental?
: >
: Jesus christ !!! Why should i mean experimental when I said
Holy cow!!!! Soumitra-babu apni ebar Jadavpur-e giye jodi eshob bolen
apnar former comrade-ra ki rokom thengabe bhebe dekhechhen? Hate paye
gojal thuke puro Jesus Christ baniye debe! Ato beshi shayeb hoben
na. Shomoy thakte shabdhan kore dichchhi.
: Experential.Do you mean to say you never heard of the faculty of
: experential knowledge??? This is getting too far ....,I think I am
Na mairi. DNaran webster khule dekhe ni.
Dur .... ota hobe experiential. Experience theke paoa jinish. Typo
apnar! Lafachchhen-o apni!!
: trying to understand you seriously , and have no intention to pull your
: legs or my legs getting pulled at least in this issue.
:-) Ragben na mairi. Experience theke paoa ar experiment kore paoa to
ak-i byepaar.
: >
: Logic is only a very constricted way of viewing and comprehending the
: world around or as one calls it LIFE.since logic is still confined
: within deduction and induction .Experience does not take any role here.
Kono matha mundu nei. Aktaa real life theke udahoron din na.
: >let us say we have a desk in my room. Whose mental construct is that?
: >
: Desk to tomar definition e desk hoichey ,Its your need and value
: realisation which had made it a desk and views it like that. To me or
: to a person "un-initiated" in "civil"society it might appear to be a
: heap of wood could be used as a fuel or fodder.Reality very much
: depends on the mental programming and the value realisation which in
: turn depends on the spaceand time and the social programming.
Whatever name you call a desk, it smells as sweet.
: >And where is the dichotomy? Dichotomy koththeke ashchhe? Ki shandhyo
: >kothabarta apnar Soumitrababu!
: >
: Jokohoni kono distinction kora hoi , orthat jokhoni kono definition
: dewo hoi , orthat jokhon boundary condition guloke specify kore dewo
: hoi tokhoni us/they marka dichotomy r utpotti , tokhoni dwitto r khetro
: porstut hoi.
O, bujhlaam. Positive ar negative. HNa ar naa.
If the concept of `apple' exists. The concept of `un-apple'
exists. Eitei ki dwoito?
Apni bolchhen postmodernism-e bola hoyechhe, `apple' ar `un-apple' ak-i
bostu. HNa ar naa-er majhkhane boundary nei. Shutorang dwoito nei!
Right?
Kintu `boundary' jodi na thake tahole `un-boundary' achhe. Orthat ekhaneo
dwoito achhe!!!!
Shob guliye dilen Soumitra-babu. Matha ghurchhe.
Indranil.
Mohammad Harunuzzaman
My two cents worth on the subject. Let me first say that I am a former
physicist (I no longer do physics) and had some exposure to post modernism.
I claim no expertise in post-modernism and do not particularly admire this
particular view of the world. I hope my comments will contribute toward
a better understanding of po-mo.
1. Post-modernism is both a movement and an interpretative tool
2. Post-modernism rejects "grand narratives," as Indranil DasGupta mentioned
in his summary. "Grand narratives" include traditional religions,
Marxism, and in a sense, the scientific method. What is common among
these views of the world is a general explanation of reality. Po-mo
rejects all general explanations and upholds the plurality of explanations.
By its acceptance of plurality of explanations, po-mo does accept the
validity of the body of knowledge achieved through the above models
(religion, Marxism, science) of reality but rejects their grand
generalizations.
3. As one can guess from 2, po-mo rejects structure and organization in
knowledge and views knowledge as "free form."
4. Consistent with 3, po-mo rejects hierarchical structures, both in
knowledge and social organization. Hence, Soumitra's frequent reference
to "sub-altern classes" and "parasite classes" is consistent with po-mo
rejection of hierarchical social organizations. Po-mo provides a good
philosophical platform for neo-socialists.
In article <4elqlp$2...@news.bu.edu>,
Indranil DasGupta <dgu...@buphy.bu.edu> wrote:
>Soumitra Bose (soum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <4e8r39$b...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta)
>: writes:
>
>: >
>: >My views on philosophy related to science is somewhat similar to say
>: >Hawking's (as in the two popular books he wrote). In that respect it
>: is
>: >certainly not unprecedented among physicists. I have never found
>: >Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
>: >completely ignorant of his philosophy.
>
I think you are introducing a false dichotomy between scientific knowledge
and other kinds of knowledge. The parables and metaphors of Mahabharata
(which is true of other religious scriptures as well) do represent a form
of knowledge although it was not arrived at by a scientific protocol. You
are right when you say that the Mahabharata is not helpful in understanding
physics. The reverse is also true. But we are dealing with complementary
forms of knowledge or even independent fields of knowledge.
>
>: >
>: >Did you mean experimental?
>: Experential.Do you mean to say you never heard of the faculty of
>: experential knowledge??? This is getting too far ....,I think I am
>
Experiential includes all experience. Experimental includes only those
kinds of experience specifically designed to test scientific hypothesis.
>: >
>: Logic is only a very constricted way of viewing and comprehending the
>: world around or as one calls it LIFE.since logic is still confined
>: within deduction and induction .Experience does not take any role here.
>
>Kono matha mundu nei. Aktaa real life theke udahoron din na.
>
A better way of putting it would be that there are areas of comprehension
where logic is neither needed nor useful. When we appreciate a piece
of music, we do not use either deductive or inductive logic.
>
>: >let us say we have a desk in my room. Whose mental construct is that?
>: >
>: Desk to tomar definition e desk hoichey ,Its your need and value
>: realisation which had made it a desk and views it like that. To me or
>: to a person "un-initiated" in "civil"society it might appear to be a
>: heap of wood could be used as a fuel or fodder.Reality very much
>: depends on the mental programming and the value realisation which in
>: turn depends on the spaceand time and the social programming.
>
>Whatever name you call a desk, it smells as sweet.
>
I think the desk example is not very useful to explain po-mo thinking.
The desk remains the same object and the difference in its potential uses
is cultural subjectivism. The desk is still not "a mental construct."
However, the "experiential" difference of the two persons is what causes
the difference in the perceived uses of the desk.
I think better examples of "mental constructs" are emotive or intuitive
realizations that do not follow the methods of any of the "grand narratives"
rejected by po-mo. To pick a physics example, when Max Planck intuitively
realized that energy radiation might be quantized, it was a "mental
construct." When the mental construct was verified by the scientific method,
it became a scientific law. The important point is Max Planck did not arrive
at the initial intuition through some structured process of reasoning. This
particular one happened to be verifiable by the scientific method. Other
such intuitions may not be "verifiable" in the conventional scientific
sense, and may still belong legitimately in the body of human knowledge.
>
>Indranil.
>
>
I may have made mistakes in representing po-mo, and all criticism on
that ground is welcome. Also, as mentioned, I do not subscribe to po-mo.
So, feel free to criticize po-mo itself.
M. Harun uz Zaman
The Ohio State University
Soumitra Bose
writes:
Those physicisists who do not know anything about Philosophy do not
dare to lash at or outright denigrate a philosphical point-of-view,
whenthey refuse to try to read.
>
>: >
>: >Did you mean experimental?
>: >
>
>: Jesus christ !!! Why should i mean experimental when I said
>
>Holy cow!!!! Soumitra-babu apni ebar Jadavpur-e giye jodi eshob bolen
>apnar former comrade-ra ki rokom thengabe bhebe dekhechhen? Hate paye
>gojal thuke puro Jesus Christ baniye debe! Ato beshi shayeb hoben
>na. Shomoy thakte shabdhan kore dichchhi.
>
This is typical of Indranil .I am sadly frustrated. HE starts writing
in English , when someone retorts in the same language (as I try to do
that) he retorts back in bengali ,This is not funny, Either you open in
any one language or should accept the language in retort whatever you
use at least in that paragraph.
>: Experential.Do you mean to say you never heard of the faculty of
>: experential knowledge??? This is getting too far ....,I think I am
>
>Na mairi. DNaran webster khule dekhe ni.
>
>Dur .... ota hobe experiential. Experience theke paoa jinish. Typo
>apnar! Lafachchhen-o apni!!
>
Shomoi dekhe poisha othe , typo thakleo orthota bojha geche .
>: trying to understand you seriously , and have no intention to pull
your
>: legs or my legs getting pulled at least in this issue.
>
>:-) Ragben na mairi. Experience theke paoa ar experiment kore paoa to
>ak-i byepaar.
>
Experimenter modhye ekta phol er ahsa thake ,pholsommondhe ekta bhasha
bhasha speculation thake ,seta confirmed hoi experimental evidence e
jar theke kichu totto infer kora jai , etake bole tothyo theke totto
onusondhan(MAo khuro barabari kore bolechilen "tothyo theke sotto
onusondhan").Ar experience er modhye kono pholer asha thake na , kono
kichu proman korar tagid nei, infer korar chaite seta theke ek dhoroner
in-articulate wisdom orjon kora hoito jai. Eta khubi "scientifically
irrational" tai Communist ponditra sater doshoker ag porjonto nijeder
praxis theke shiksha na niye obhigyota ar totto ke alada kore
phelechilen.Shob to tader tarkik jukti diye i bujhte hobe ,
"irrational" naki howa cholbe na .se jai hok onno kotha .Experience
po-mo r ekta boro stombho. JEmon Jospeh Cambell er mote faith theke
shuru korle experience er modhye diye joawa jai na , protyekeri
religious ebong political experience tahke kom beshi , tobe tar jonne
religious ba party-sympathiser na holeo chole.
Correcto!!! Shob kichui jemon hoi shada kimba kalo hotei hobe , are
shalara bhule jai SAdar modhye to sudhu je satta rongi ahcye tai na ,
shunyota orthat total absiorptiono ache .KAlo chara jemon shada thake
na . Budho jemon bolechilen Master ar slave byapartake jemon dui pranto
theke dekha jai abar modhyo bindu orthat relationshiper jaiga theke
dekhle ei duto kintu ever connected bostu thake , bi polar hoi na .
>If the concept of `apple' exists. The concept of `un-apple'
>exists. Eitei ki dwoito?
>
Nishcoi . Tobe tumi ki apple ba un-apple ke dekhbe , ba T ar T-inverse
hishebe dekhbe na pechoner mental construct sei frame of reference ta
ke dkehbe . Jodi frame of reference ta ke birat lateral displacement
diye dure kothao zero point ta theke refer kora jai . Ei bui bi-polar
bostuti to khub kacher twin hoi jabe ,Simply ekta bhinno translation er
doulatei .
>Apni bolchhen postmodernism-e bola hoyechhe, `apple' ar `un-apple'
ak-i
>bostu. HNa ar naa-er majhkhane boundary nei. Shutorang dwoito nei!
>Right?
>
>Kintu `boundary' jodi na thake tahole `un-boundary' achhe. Orthat
ekhaneo
>dwoito achhe!!!!
Boundary kothatai ki limitation noi, ekrokom distiction noi? Purotake
ekta continum er bibhinno stor ba rup bhabe jai na , jar underlying
emon ekta continum ba frame of reference thakbe jeekhane limitation
nei.
Dasgupta
raised by Indranil is to be found in :
Science, Hermeneutics and Praxis.
- Richard Bernstein.
Please note that almost all the major philosophers of science were scientists,
and in particular, physicists. Example, Popper and Kuhn.
Whether they were at least as competent as Physicists as they were philosophers
can be commented on by someone from the field of Physics, like, say, Indranil
Dasgupta.
Regards,
Shoumyo.
Indranil DasGupta
: In <4elqlp$2...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta)
: > cooking than the average Indian physicist. So what? If I have the
: > opportunity to teach a physics class in Calcutta I'll make sure
: that my
: > students are also inspired to make chicken teriyaki. All of us are
: > trying to do our best.
: Those physicisists who do not know anything about Philosophy do not
: dare to lash at or outright denigrate a philosphical point-of-view,
: whenthey refuse to try to read.
Absolutely. And that includes me. Ami to Kant-er dorshon niye kichhu
boli ni. Po-mo ki sheta bujhte chaichhi. Apnara shobai ato defensive
kano? Ami ki akbar-o po-mo ke denigrate korechhi?
: >
: This is typical of Indranil .I am sadly frustrated. HE starts writing
: in English , when someone retorts in the same language (as I try to do
: that) he retorts back in bengali ,This is not funny, Either you open in
: any one language or should accept the language in retort whatever you
: use at least in that paragraph.
Ingreji hok ar banglai hok, Jadavpur-e giye Jesus Christ frist bolle
kintu ora gojal thukbei. Ami apnar bhalo cheyei shabdhan korechhilaam.
: Shomoi dekhe poisha othe , typo thakleo orthota bojha geche .
Ma kali bolchhi, experiential likhle andaj-ei orthota bujhte
partaam. Experential theke akdom bujhini.
: >:-) Ragben na mairi. Experience theke paoa ar experiment kore paoa to
: >ak-i byepaar.
: Experimenter modhye ekta phol er ahsa thake ,pholsommondhe ekta bhasha
: bhasha speculation thake ,seta confirmed hoi experimental evidence e
: jar theke kichu totto infer kora jai , etake bole tothyo theke totto
: onusondhan(MAo khuro barabari kore bolechilen "tothyo theke sotto
: onusondhan").Ar experience er modhye kono pholer asha thake na , kono
: kichu proman korar tagid nei, infer korar chaite seta theke ek dhoroner
: in-articulate wisdom orjon kora hoito jai. Eta khubi "scientifically
: irrational" tai Communist ponditra sater doshoker ag porjonto nijeder
: praxis theke shiksha na niye obhigyota ar totto ke alada kore
: phelechilen.Shob to tader tarkik jukti diye i bujhte hobe ,
: "irrational" naki howa cholbe na .se jai hok onno kotha .Experience
: po-mo r ekta boro stombho. JEmon Jospeh Cambell er mote faith theke
: shuru korle experience er modhye diye joawa jai na , protyekeri
: religious ebong political experience tahke kom beshi , tobe tar jonne
: religious ba party-sympathiser na holeo chole.
Experience as opposed to experiment? Clear holo na. Dhorun ami amar ojon
mapte cheye ojon maaplaam, abar ojon na maapte cheyeo ojon mepe
phellam. Physics-e dutokei valid measurement bole dhora hobe. Ebong
experiment hishebe dutoi ak.
Whether you want to do the experiment or whether your mother in law
forces you to do it, technically the experiment is the same. The
difference is immaterial from a scientific point of view.
: >O, bujhlaam. Positive ar negative. HNa ar naa.
Bhaba to onek kichhui jay. A matrix and its inverse are both
matrices. Dwoito-r modhye odwoito ki ebhabe promaan hoy? The point is,
if a matrix has an inverse then the inverse has particular
properties. By refusing to acknowledge the special properties of the
inverse you are simply shutting yourself off from information.
In my view, there may be a unifying concept behind opposites in many
cases. However,
1. Science does not say we should not look for unifying
concepts. (Example of matrices). Infact scientists are always
looking for unifying concepts.
2. The method of science does not require us to close our eyes to the
distinctions that exist between concepts either. A person who can not
distinguish between the `apple' and the `unapple' sees this homogeneous
gooey world ....ugggghhhhhh....
Why is that such a clever thing to do?
Indranil.
Indranil DasGupta
: Organization: The Ohio State University
: My two cents worth on the subject. Let me first say that I am a former
: physicist (I no longer do physics) and had some exposure to post modernism.
: I claim no expertise in post-modernism and do not particularly admire this
: particular view of the world. I hope my comments will contribute toward
: a better understanding of po-mo.
: 1. Post-modernism is both a movement and an interpretative tool
: 2. Post-modernism rejects "grand narratives," as Indranil DasGupta mentioned
: in his summary. "Grand narratives" include traditional religions,
: Marxism, and in a sense, the scientific method. What is common among
: these views of the world is a general explanation of reality. Po-mo
: rejects all general explanations and upholds the plurality of explanations.
: By its acceptance of plurality of explanations, po-mo does accept the
: validity of the body of knowledge achieved through the above models
: (religion, Marxism, science) of reality but rejects their grand
: generalizations.
In science we might be able to measure the mass of one (or a handful)
top quarks. We generalise and say all top quarks have the same
mass. This fits into theories that have passed a large number of
tests. So the underlying assummption, that all top quarks are the same
lets one deal with only a finite number of them, collect statistics, and
measure the mass (with due attention paid to measurement and statistical
errors).
What part of the above process is rejected by po-mos? And on what
grounds?
[..]
: >: >Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
: >: >completely ignorant of his philosophy.
: >
: I think you are introducing a false dichotomy between scientific knowledge
: and other kinds of knowledge. The parables and metaphors of Mahabharata
: (which is true of other religious scriptures as well) do represent a form
: of knowledge although it was not arrived at by a scientific protocol. You
: are right when you say that the Mahabharata is not helpful in understanding
: physics. The reverse is also true. But we are dealing with complementary
: forms of knowledge or even independent fields of knowledge.
That's precisely my point. Why should a physicist be expected to know
history or law? The laws of physics are sufficiently independent of the
laws of the state.
: Experiential includes all experience. Experimental includes only those
: kinds of experience specifically designed to test scientific hypothesis.
My interest in the discussion stems from purely the connection with the
scientific method and science.
: where logic is neither needed nor useful. When we appreciate a piece
: of music, we do not use either deductive or inductive logic.
We may not use logic when we do a lot of things. But scientists have
never claimed that we do! You may find a particular piece of art
wonderful. To me it may be distasteful. Obviously the process of looking
at and appreciating art is not a well defined or rigid one. Indeed the
same person may have different reactions to the same object of art at
two different times.
However the apparent disagreement of our opinions on a piece of art can
itself be understood purely scientifically and logically. For instance
one may be able to show that I do not like love poems because the
occurence of certain words/phrases releases strong sleep inducing agents
in my brain that makes me lose concentration.
Science does not claim to being able to distinguish between good or bad
art. Or tell you what is ethical and what is not. To critcise the
scientific method by saying that their are other ways of thinking that
we use in art appreciation or theology is meaningless.
: I think the desk example is not very useful to explain po-mo thinking.
: The desk remains the same object and the difference in its potential uses
: is cultural subjectivism. The desk is still not "a mental construct."
: However, the "experiential" difference of the two persons is what causes
: the difference in the perceived uses of the desk.
There may be some fields of science that are useful in dealing with
mental constructs (psychology, for instance). But a scientific
understanding always entails collecting and interpreting data in the
same way as in the case of desks. The physical world is made of
desk-like things.
: I think better examples of "mental constructs" are emotive or intuitive
: realizations that do not follow the methods of any of the "grand narratives"
: rejected by po-mo. To pick a physics example, when Max Planck intuitively
: realized that energy radiation might be quantized, it was a "mental
: construct." When the mental construct was verified by the scientific method,
: it became a scientific law. The important point is Max Planck did not arrive
: at the initial intuition through some structured process of reasoning. This
: particular one happened to be verifiable by the scientific method. Other
: such intuitions may not be "verifiable" in the conventional scientific
: sense, and may still belong legitimately in the body of human knowledge.
I disagree. Planck's formula was tailor made to fit experiments. It was
only examination of that formula that which gave people the idea of the
quantum. Call it intuition or whatever. But there was rational thinking
in it.
Indranil.
Snehasis Ganguly
In relation to my earlier post, I am hereby quoting two quotes from
Eastern Spiritual Viewpoint which contrast with the philosophies of
post-modernism.
Sometimes, we wonder why the people who are
good seem to suffer a lot, have to have lot of
bitter experiences in life, when the not so
scrupulous seem to get away and even enjoy their
lives with little or no difficulties.
The fact is human soul, the inward soul not the
outward mind has to pass thorugh a fixed number of
experiences both good and bad before it is ripe for
a transcendence. These good men are pushed through
a large number of bad experiences, so that they reach
a point which makes them ready for a transendence.
Nature hews the soul thorugh these experiences at a rapid
rate.
This is the exact reason and not a mechanical law of
Karma, providing retribution for unjust actions and reward
for just ones.
-Letters on Yoga
Waves are nothing but water,
so is the sea.
-SWAMI ATMANANDA
begin quote -----------------------------------------------------
(B) "Postmodernism and postmodernity[,] a cultural and ideological
configuration variously defined, with different aspects of the general
phenomenon emphasized by different theorists, postmodernity is seen as
involving an end of the dominance of an overarching belief in scientific
rationality and a unitary theory of PROGRESS, the replacement of
empiricist theories of representation and TRUTH, and increased
emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on free-floating signs
and images, and a plurality of viewpoints. Associated also with the
idea of a postindustrial age (compare POSTINDUSTRIAL SOCIETY [Daniel
Bell]), theorists such as BAUDRILLARD (1983) and Lyotard (1984) make
central to postmodernity a shift from a `productive' to a `reproductive'
social order, in which simulations and models--and more generally,
signs--increasingly constitute the world, so that any distinction
between the appearance and the `real' is lost. Lyotard, for example,
speaks especially of the replacement of any *grand narrative* [les
grands recits] by more local `accounts' of reality as distinctive of
postmodernism and postmodernity.
end quote ---------------------------------------------------------
--
S as in SUN
N as in NOVELL
E as in EMACS
H as in H-PACKARD
A as in APPLE
S as in SQL
I as in IDEAS
S too many S's parsing error No. P1090
Snehasis Ganguly
=======================
[ Ref. IDG's post or check the FAQ of alt-postmodern]
In other words, we are going back to the negation of absoluteness, with
a shift towards plurality. It is clear once again that the ancient
Hindu texts have provided all the answers that the postmodernists are
seeking or trying to emphasise. I find it strange to invoke so many
western thinker's opinions, without mentioning anything that the
eastern thought provides(except Soumitra Bose).
It is said in Eastern religion that Brahman alone is the truth. Also
it has been probably hinted that it is impossible to understand
Brahman without an acceptance of Brahman's existence. This defintion
by itself precludes any other thing as truth and is seen as "Maya".
This is an anathema to the people who believe in realism and swear
by philosophies such as Ayan Rand's "Anthem " etc. However, it should
be realised that all our existence are but projections_of_the_mind.
We think_that's_why_it_is . Once you understand this or at least
get interested in it, you reach a higher level of consciousness
(Bhagwad Geeta).
Thus post modernism is nothing but an attempt by Western minds to
remove the increased hollowness of an existential dilemna, spurned
on by Beatles's generation, generation X, alternative-rock and
exploited by some people from the east.
There have been some challenges to this line of thought by people like
Sigmund Freud (Asish Nandi's "The savage Freud and other essays",oxford
University press), Vivekananda, Gandhi etc..
People like Satyajit Ray have tried to maintain a balance of these
dilemnas
by integrating the themes (Devi vs. Feluda). Western science itself has
accepted the vast untapped potential of left half of the brain which
emphasises on intuituion and symbols rather than deductions( is
postmodernism then a triumph of the left hemishphere over the right
hemisphere??)
Lest I am misunderstood, I would like to end by expounding on the
philosophy of Integral Yoga by Aurobindo. A beleif in Brahman doesn't
entitle anyone to reject the duties of the world brought in by Maya.
It is still important to live and work in this pseudo-real world
and to strive for perfection(Not to be "Tamashik" like the vast
majority in India, but to be "Rajswik" as in USA). It is the need of the
hour to integrate both.
******* MY POSTMODERN SIGNATURE *******
sayan bhattacharyya
>
>: 2. Post-modernism rejects "grand narratives," as Indranil DasGupta mentioned
>: in his summary. "Grand narratives" include traditional religions,
>: Marxism, and in a sense, the scientific method.
True. Lyotard's famous definition of postmodernism was "incredulity towards
meta-narrative".
-Sayan.
Indranil DasGupta
: Please note that almost all the major philosophers of science were scientists,
: and in particular, physicists. Example, Popper and Kuhn.
: Whether they were at least as competent as Physicists as they were philosophers
: can be commented on by someone from the field of Physics, like, say, Indranil
: Dasgupta.
I am not aware of the extent of these gentlemen's work. That does not
say much since only a small part of the physics publications of today
will be widely read 25 years from now.
Indranil.
Soumitra Bose
writes:
>Soumitra Bose (soum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <4elqlp$2...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (Indranil DasGupta)
>
>: > cooking than the average Indian physicist. So what? If I have
the
>: > opportunity to teach a physics class in Calcutta I'll make sure
>: that my
>: > students are also inspired to make chicken teriyaki. All of us
are
>: > trying to do our best.
>
>: Those physicisists who do not know anything about Philosophy do not
>: dare to lash at or outright denigrate a philosphical point-of-view,
>: whenthey refuse to try to read.
>
>Absolutely. And that includes me. Ami to Kant-er dorshon niye kichhu
>boli ni. Po-mo ki sheta bujhte chaichhi. Apnara shobai ato defensive
>kano? Ami ki akbar-o po-mo ke denigrate korechhi?
Na porte cheye tirjok montobbo kora ta to denigrate kora r thekeo jolo.
Etoi jokhon debate korar subho ichhe tokhon ektu nerechere dekhte oniha
keno?
>: >
>: This is typical of Indranil .I am sadly frustrated. HE starts
writing
>: in English , when someone retorts in the same language (as I try to
do
>: that) he retorts back in bengali ,This is not funny, Either you open
in
>: any one language or should accept the language in retort whatever
you
>: use at least in that paragraph.
>
>Ingreji hok ar banglai hok, Jadavpur-e giye Jesus Christ frist bolle
>kintu ora gojal thukbei. Ami apnar bhalo cheyei shabdhan korechhilaam.
Jadavpure Coffee-House e boshe to konodin ami bangal bhasha(amar
pitrideber dhakaia bhasha) chara kothai bolini.Ami keno khamokha dum
dam ingrizi bolbo? bolle to age sei jonno gojal er gunto khaowa
dorakar.
Problem ta okhanei , kichu ekta korte cheye ba na cheye kono ghotona
ghotano. Ojon mapa ta jodi experience kora hoi tobe jabotio loker ojon
mapa ba shudhu shudhu nijer ojon mapa o tar dwara mental effect ki hoi
seta upobhog kora ekta swabhab ba batik hote hoi.Experience mota moti
repetitive ekta prokriyar songye sadharonoto jukto.Orthat Poth cholatei
anondo, pother shesh dekhar ichhete noi.
>Whether you want to do the experiment or whether your mother in law
>forces you to do it, technically the experiment is the same. The
>difference is immaterial from a scientific point of view.
>
KAj nei dhan bhenge , sashuri ke tana keno mairi.E shala ki m----mukho
je sashuri r bhoie kencho hote hobe .
When you accept a proposition and immediately find its inverse you
axiomatically accept an origin of reference in a frame . Good example a
matrix does not have an "avowed" origin of reference or a frame .Now
put directions to a rather scalar (even a vector is representable thru
a matrix, not to speak about a tensor). Now when one represents a
matrix in a vector the origin and frame of reference is assumed to give
it a meaning.In case of a tensor , many such assumptions are made
starting from the nature of the frame thru the origin too. Now let us
recede the origin (if you dont want to do awya with the frame for a
while) towards infintiy , there is thus no boundary and no mirror
quadrant or negative space or negative dimension . What do you get ?
Every position or form is in the same space-time dimension , this is
the continuum and this every position is interconnected .So the basis
of all definitions is the asuumption of a bounded space and dimension
which thus attains the prime important value in consideration "The SAt"
or the "BRahman". So if you can increase your boundary to infinite
dimensions of infinity you loose all dualities or all reality , or all
separation.
>In my view, there may be a unifying concept behind opposites in many
>cases. However,
>
>1. Science does not say we should not look for unifying
> concepts. (Example of matrices). Infact scientists are always
> looking for unifying concepts.
>
That is another "scientific" fad till very recently. Suppose there is a
unified theory of all or whatever , you would find a necessity of an
anti-unfied space coming up .Why cant we accept in the existence of
multiplicity per se ,as They are ? Why should we try to find always
that there is a unified link behind everything .Is it our incapability
of thinking and dealing with variety.Why should there be a
ALL-ENGULFING ONE ?
In a grand boundary-less space-time every event or position is unique
and existing .
>2. The method of science does not require us to close our eyes to the
> distinctions that exist between concepts either. A person who can
not
> distinguish between the `apple' and the `unapple' sees this
homogeneous
> gooey world ....ugggghhhhhh....
> Why is that such a clever thing to do?
>
No one says one has to obiliterate all the distinctions.One as a matter
of fact has to honour them.But distinctions are not judgemental
binaries. EVery existence is distinct and in the frame of a continuum
every thing is characteristic but again not groupable into binary
judgemental mental constructs like good/bad, us/they,should be/should
not be etc.
>Indranil.
William Herzog
: Na porte cheye tirjok montobbo kora ta to denigrate kora r thekeo jolo.
: Etoi jokhon debate korar subho ichhe tokhon ektu nerechere dekhte oniha
: keno?
Bore korben na mairi. Porar boi nere chere dekhlaam na konodin. Akhon
po-mo-r boi khule boshbo? Apnara achhen ki jonye?
: Jadavpure Coffee-House e boshe to konodin ami bangal bhasha(amar
: pitrideber dhakaia bhasha) chara kothai bolini.Ami keno khamokha dum
: dam ingrizi bolbo? bolle to age sei jonno gojal er gunto khaowa
: dorakar.
Taholei bhabun, kirokom palte gachhen.
: >
: When you accept a proposition and immediately find its inverse you
: axiomatically accept an origin of reference in a frame . Good example a
: matrix does not have an "avowed" origin of reference or a frame .Now
: put directions to a rather scalar (even a vector is representable thru
: a matrix, not to speak about a tensor). Now when one represents a
: matrix in a vector the origin and frame of reference is assumed to give
: it a meaning.In case of a tensor , many such assumptions are made
: starting from the nature of the frame thru the origin too. Now let us
: recede the origin (if you dont want to do awya with the frame for a
: while) towards infintiy , there is thus no boundary and no mirror
: quadrant or negative space or negative dimension . What do you get ?
: Every position or form is in the same space-time dimension , this is
: the continuum and this every position is interconnected .So the basis
: of all definitions is the asuumption of a bounded space and dimension
: which thus attains the prime important value in consideration "The SAt"
: or the "BRahman". So if you can increase your boundary to infinite
: dimensions of infinity you loose all dualities or all reality , or all
: separation.
Ar kichhu bolar nei. Ektu jol.....
Soumitra-babu daktar dekhan.
: >
: That is another "scientific" fad till very recently. Suppose there is a
: unified theory of all or whatever , you would find a necessity of an
: anti-unfied space coming up .Why cant we accept in the existence of
: multiplicity per se ,as They are ? Why should we try to find always
: that there is a unified link behind everything .Is it our incapability
: of thinking and dealing with variety.Why should there be a
: ALL-ENGULFING ONE ?
: In a grand boundary-less space-time every event or position is unique
: and existing .
Akjon psychologist, akjon neurosurgeon ar parle ekti para-psychologist o
dekhiye neben.
Indranil.
Soumitra Bose
writes:
Very poor allusion .Quarks are "particles" and are assumed to be all
alike .Humans are not , no two humans are same and thus any philosophy
(if we call it a science of life) can not extrapolate like a machine.
>
>[..]
>
>: >: >Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
>: >: >completely ignorant of his philosophy.
>: >
>
>: I think you are introducing a false dichotomy between scientific
knowledge
>: and other kinds of knowledge. The parables and metaphors of
Mahabharata
>: (which is true of other religious scriptures as well) do represent
a form
>: of knowledge although it was not arrived at by a scientific
protocol. You
>: are right when you say that the Mahabharata is not helpful in
understanding
>: physics. The reverse is also true. But we are dealing with
complementary
>: forms of knowledge or even independent fields of knowledge.
>
>That's precisely my point. Why should a physicist be expected to know
>history or law? The laws of physics are sufficiently independent of
the
>laws of the state.
>
And then such a physicist is not expected to debate a philosophical
debates when he does not intend to know .
No one (not at least the post-modernists) are "criticising"(again a
binary of hating/loving) the "scientific" methods , they are sumbitting
for thought that logical methodology may not be the sole way of gaining
knowledge and wisdom.
Jagdish Bisa
Indranil DasGupta emerges:
I think you've got the finger on it. Thanks for this excellent question that
I was struggling to put forth. The problem lies in the above definition#2
of post-modernism. As far as what I (I've read just a little bit Lyotard,
Foucault and Derrida) know and understood about post-modernism, what's
rejected by post-modernism is the "dominance" of any single grand-narrative
rather than the grand-narrative itself. This is precisely why I'd asked
you to trash the FAQ from alt.post-modernism. It's a big mistake to label
po-mo's as anti-science. I hope this will answer the question.
> [..]
>
> : >: >Mahabharat useful for understanding physics. As for Kant, I am
> : >: >completely ignorant of his philosophy.
> : >
>
> : I think you are introducing a false dichotomy between scientific
> : knowledge and other kinds of knowledge. The parables and metaphors of
> : Mahabharata (which is true of other religious scriptures as well) do
> : represent a form of knowledge although it was not arrived at by a
> : scientific protocol. You are right when you say that the Mahabharata is
> : not helpful in understanding physics. The reverse is also true. But we
> : are dealing with complementary forms of knowledge or even independent
> : fields of knowledge.
>
> That's precisely my point. Why should a physicist be expected to know
> history or law? The laws of physics are sufficiently independent of the
> laws of the state.
Everyone believes that the knowledge gathered via their own favourite
phylosophy is "enough." It seems to be true, in general, or else all the
bad guys would have been "dead" by now. Though there are incidents of "ethnic
cleansing" and religious conversions, they aren't effective enough to achieve
universal domination of any sigle phylosophy.
Post-modernism is the phenomenon of those people who have to deal with "all"
of these phylosophies on a "daily" basis. By rejecting the "dominance" of
any single phylosophy (because there isn't one) but living with knowledge
gathered via "atleast one" of the phylosophies, a post-moderninst tries to
live a decent and meaningful life under the chaotic post-modern conditions.
> : Experiential includes all experience. Experimental includes only those
> : kinds of experience specifically designed to test scientific hypothesis.
>
> My interest in the discussion stems from purely the connection with the
> scientific method and science.
>
> : where logic is neither needed nor useful. When we appreciate a piece
> : of music, we do not use either deductive or inductive logic.
>
> We may not use logic when we do a lot of things. But scientists have
> never claimed that we do! You may find a particular piece of art
> wonderful. To me it may be distasteful. Obviously the process of looking
> at and appreciating art is not a well defined or rigid one. Indeed the
> same person may have different reactions to the same object of art at
> two different times.
>
> However the apparent disagreement of our opinions on a piece of art can
> itself be understood purely scientifically and logically. For instance
> one may be able to show that I do not like love poems because the
> occurence of certain words/phrases releases strong sleep inducing agents
> in my brain that makes me lose concentration.
>
> Science does not claim to being able to distinguish between good or bad
> art. Or tell you what is ethical and what is not. To critcise the
> scientific method by saying that their are other ways of thinking that
> we use in art appreciation or theology is meaningless.
Agreed 100%.
> : I think the desk example is not very useful to explain po-mo thinking.
> : The desk remains the same object and the difference in its potential uses
> : is cultural subjectivism. The desk is still not "a mental construct."
> : However, the "experiential" difference of the two persons is what causes
> : the difference in the perceived uses of the desk.
>
> There may be some fields of science that are useful in dealing with
> mental constructs (psychology, for instance). But a scientific
> understanding always entails collecting and interpreting data in the
> same way as in the case of desks. The physical world is made of
> desk-like things.
It's true that desk "appears" the same to everyone. It's doubtful, however,
that two people may find it's usage the same, though physically it appeared
the same to both of them. The concept of "desk" is a mental construct in
that regard.
-Jagdish (time to return to usual programming!) Bisa
> Indranil.
Soumitra Bose
jolo.
>: Etoi jokhon debate korar subho ichhe tokhon ektu nerechere dekhte
oniha
>: keno?
>
>po-mo-r boi khule boshbo? Apnara achhen ki jonye?
>
>: pitrideber dhakaia bhasha) chara kothai bolini.Ami keno khamokha dum
>: dam ingrizi bolbo? bolle to age sei jonno gojal er gunto khaowa
>: dorakar.
>
>
>: >
>
>Soumitra-babu daktar dekhan.
>
>: >
is a
>: unified theory of all or whatever , you would find a necessity of an
>: anti-unfied space coming up .Why cant we accept in the existence of
>: multiplicity per se ,as They are ? Why should we try to find always
>: that there is a unified link behind everything .Is it our
incapability
>: of thinking and dealing with variety.Why should there be a
>: ALL-ENGULFING ONE ?
>: In a grand boundary-less space-time every event or position is
unique
>: and existing .
>
o
>dekhiye neben.
>
>Indranil.
>
>
corrupted us. Even while ridiculing you had to think about me visiting
not one "wholistic" medicin-man but three or four. This is how the
"Modern Science" has compartmaentalised the human approach.
Indranil DasGupta
: In <4er8pp$k...@news.bu.edu> dgu...@buphy.bu.edu (William Herzog)
: >Akjon psychologist, akjon neurosurgeon ar parle ekti para-psychologist
: > o dekhiye neben.
: See this is how the "modern Science" and "Scientific rationality " has
: corrupted us. Even while ridiculing you had to think about me visiting
: not one "wholistic" medicin-man but three or four. This is how the
: "Modern Science" has compartmaentalised the human approach.
Tinjon bisheshogger kotha bhebe chinte-i lekha. Apnar case dekhe mone
holo:
1) hoy mathata ...iye... kharap hoye gachhe (refer to
psychologist/psychiatrist),
2) noy fit-er byamo (refer to neuro-surgeon),
3) noy bhut-e bhor korechhe (refer to parapsychologist).
Apni jodi 3 in 1 bisheshoggo peye jaan tahole ki ami apotti korbo?
Indranil.
Indranil DasGupta
: Thik ekhanei mukh theke bokaratnto nongorthok bangla sobdo ti beroi.
: SCB ki philosophyr ba literature er 101 poranor jaiga naki , na spoon
: feeding er jaiga . MArquez poro ni? Dur B... ar koto dekhiye dewo jai?
Bokaranto nongorthok shobdo-ta ki? Ami to kichhu-i bhebe pachchhi
na. Shobdota `bokar' diye _shuru_ hoye `tokar'-e shesh noy to? Tahole
shetake _tokaranto_ bolte hoy.
Sherokom kukotha achhe. Kintu kukotha-ke nongorthok shobdo bola ki
byakoron-goto bhabe thik?
Indranil.
Sudeshna Das
Sambit:
: > Mythic ba magic reality ki?
: >
: > Tobe to start from the very beginning, can you please define
: > reality?
Soumitra:
: Thik ekhanei mukh theke bokaratnto nongorthok bangla sobdo ti beroi.
: SCB ki philosophyr ba literature er 101 poranor jaiga naki , na spoon
: feeding er jaiga . MArquez poro ni? Dur B... ar koto dekhiye dewo jai?
Marquez magic reality niye ki bolechhilen mone achhe Soumitra?
(Paraphrased) ``O-i o dharan'r lokeder reality to amader reality'r
theke alada, tai ora otake magic reality bale, amader kachhe je
etai reality sheta ora bojhe na.''
Soumitra, Marquez poRechho, kintu Marquez'r chokh diye to poRoni bhai.
E-i jara pomo ityadi niye bhatai, taderi parallel arek dal'r chokh
diye dekhechho. Reality, magic relity hoye gechhe. Athochho, tumi
jekhan theke ashchho, Marquez'ke ashol chokhe, tNar chokhe dekhte tumi
parte, she sujog chhilo.
Ashole sayeb hoye gele ar ki kara ... subaltern bujhte takhan America-
i douR.
Apratim.
PS: HNyan, ami fire eshechhi.
sambit_basu
> PS: HNyan, ami fire eshechhi.
Kolkata-r khobor ki? Bhalo gaan-faan kichhu anle? O, BTW,
Indranil bole gechhilo tomar Karim Khan-ta record kore
pathabe. Bodhoy bhule gyachhe - ektu mone koriye debe?
Tumi na thakate kichhu songskriti-baan netter (IDG-soho)
pray amar pantuloon dhore tanatani shuru korechhilo. Tumi
guru, dekhe nao to ak haat, ami potkaa niye ready aachhi.
Regards,
Sambit
ps. Kaajer lok howar ki jwala mairi! Tai na?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My employer is not responsible for what I say, and vice-versa.
Dasgupta
Sambit:
Kon Karim Khan, Ustaad Abdul Karim Khan shaheb ki ? Ami goto grishmey
o(n)r ekta Akashbani release niye eshechchi. Laagley janash.
Tor email numberta koto ? Ekta email chcharlam, bounce korlo.
Shoumyo.
Sudeshna Das
: Kolkata-r khobor ki?
Kichhu lok'r prochur paisa hoyechhe. GoRiyahaat moRe jekhane Cookmi'r
Data gNuRo mashla'r bigyapan thakto sekhane ekhon Philips'r 7-disc
CD changer'r Ad dekha jai. Metro cholchhe DamDam obdhi (purono khabar)
ar regular train'e agun lagchhe (notun khabar). Ashim Chatterjee
Left Front'r hoye election'e dNaRabe dNaRabe korchhe. Binay Choudhuri
LF govt'ke khisti mere tappore katha gilte na pere bayesh'r dohai
diye sangbadik'der onake ar chepe na dhorte bolechhen. Paan'r dokane
Pantene Pro-V'r sachet paowa jachchhe. Telegraph'e SCB niye Shubu'r
lekha chithi beruchchhe. Rajarhaat'e NRI'der chollish hajar'e katha
jomi deowa habe emon katha shona jachchhe.
Arthat ghor koli.
: Bhalo gaan-faan kichhu anle?
Ekdam na. Tar badole ekta pressure cooker enechhi bishal. Mangsho
rNadhbo. Joddin na barite je Western classical'r CD gulo dhulo
khachchhe shegulo shona hoi, ar gaan-bajna kena baron.
Ekgada little magazine kinlam Book Fair'e giye. Aro nana rakam'r boi.
Kamal Chakrabarty puro kine fellam. Ekta review likhchhi. Char line
likhechhi, bakita pipeline'e. Post korbo sesh hole.
: O, BTW,
: Indranil bole gechhilo tomar Karim Khan-ta record kore
: pathabe. Bodhoy bhule gyachhe - ektu mone koriye debe?
Ami-i pathiye debo na hoi.
: Tumi na thakate kichhu songskriti-baan netter (IDG-soho)
: pray amar pantuloon dhore tanatani shuru korechhilo. Tumi
: guru, dekhe nao to ak haat, ami potkaa niye ready aachhi.
O line'e ami nei. Shahid habe tumi hoi. Ami grihosto manush. Tomar
bayesh ar amar nei.
: Regards,
: Sambit
: ps. Kaajer lok howar ki jwala mairi! Tai na?
Keno, amar fire asha'r galpo shunle naki? Ar ki, jaddin na feudalism
ashchhe ar ekta jomidari banate parchhi, e-i shalaa'r dinogata
papokkhai.
Apratim.