Yeah, I think "postmodernism for techies" is part of what he aims for. He writes,
> Unfortunately, the postmodern pioneers chose to write in obfuscatory riddles. Their insights were difficult enough to understand without that. Few followers could extract the insights. Most teachers are second-generation professors who didn’t understand pomo when it was new, and third-generation ones who were mainly taught dumbed-down second-generation “pseudo-pomo.”
A part of his project seems to be to pick what he considers to be the "good parts" of postmodernism, and explain them in a way that makes sense to people from a STEM background.
Yeah, it's actually not bad. My initial assessment was perhaps too harsh because I assumed he didn't know the literature. I'm still not sure that he does entirely but it's still good on its own I think.
Well, I'm not saying he has to read absolutely everything that could be read on the subject because nobody has; especially not I. I just mean that on first pass I kind of assumed he was trying to be as original as possible and I thought he was failing but then I realized he was more trying to translate inscrutable brilliance into readable form. The latter he succeeds with, the former he does not.
I didn't understand his distinction between subjective vs neither objective nor subjective at first, but the examples he gave illuminated the distinction, and he thus changed my perspective on the issue.
> Unfortunately, the postmodern pioneers chose to write in obfuscatory riddles. Their insights were difficult enough to understand without that. Few followers could extract the insights. Most teachers are second-generation professors who didn’t understand pomo when it was new, and third-generation ones who were mainly taught dumbed-down second-generation “pseudo-pomo.”
https://meaningness.com/metablog/stem-fluidity-bridge
A part of his project seems to be to pick what he considers to be the "good parts" of postmodernism, and explain them in a way that makes sense to people from a STEM background.