A typical Q&A session at J

Professor: Yes! Since we are done with the lecture, the floor is now open for questions.  Thank you. 

Over Enthu pest: Yes, sir, I have a question. It might sound a little off-track from the course of our discussion here, but it's of my strong belief that it is pertinent to give voice to an inquiry so that it is adequately addressed in the appropriate forum, having being necessarily subjected to the considerable thought that it requires? 

Professor: Oh sure, sure. There is always a need for healthy debate, discourse and dialogue in our classrooms.  In fact, its interesting because I would say that it's the Socratic tradition that we uphold when we engage ourselves in an inquisitive mode of dialogue. Would anyone else like to contribute to this?  No? Okay then, back to the question.  

Over enthu pest: Yes, sir. So, I was thinking that if it doesn't conflict with the current scheme of things, may I switch on the fan?

Professor: That's a very very good question. It's actually quite impressive how intelligent these sessions are turning out to be. It means that you are applying your concepts in class to your day-to-day living. A liberal would be overwhelmed by your enthusiasm. 

Over enthu pest: Thank you sir. 

Professor: So, does anyone else have any questions? 


Another pest: Oh yes sir. I would like to submit that the lecture was highly illuminating. Now, I might be wrong, but from what I gathered from the talk, which again could be argued is a purely empirical exercise; if it would be right if I offered that the author's words can be construed and approached in a multitude of ways, in manner of a different interpretation or a value-judgement if you like, even though one might be caught in an intrinsic dichotomy if one does choose to take this stand while naturally understanding the difficulties of upholding such a superficial construct. 


Yet another pest:  Sir, sir, if I can make a observation on this?


Professor: Of yeah, of course. It's an extremely interesting thought. Please, go on. 

Yet another pest:  Its my thinking that it's imperative to our comprehension of the context that it be understood that we are contemplating a fine line between the physiological constraints of a psychological construct and the psychological barriers of a physiological one. So if that is to be considered as a premise of the structure on which this assumption is to be made, then it follows naturally that it is a premeditated endeavour on the part of the author to have created a text that is deliberately subject to interpretations and therefore, a probable juxtaposition of ideas, in the manner of a post-modernist epistemic.  


A third pest: But Foucault...


A fourth pest:  Sir, if I may, I wonder if it's prudent to take Foucault into account at this junction as it is markedly evident that his school of thought has been allegedly influenced by Kant, who in turn is known to have heavily borrowed from the writings of Hume. So, in effect, we should be looking towards Marx. 


Professor:  Oh, wow. That's an extremely valid point. It's brilliant that you guys are able to delve so deeply into the heart of the lecture and discuss these intricacies with such ease. Does someone want to throw some more weight into the discussion? 


Or is there anyone who is at a loss to comprehend these issues? Oh, don't feel dejected if you do. It is natural that you might. These are very tricky concepts. Alrighty then. It was an extremely enjoyable session. Well done, you guys. See you day after. 


*Class ends*


As we walk out... 


Friend: "WTF was all that about? "


Me: "Oh, that guy wanted to know if a text can be open to different interpretations." 


Friend: "Well, duh? That was a question?!!! We woke up at 8:30 and sat here for the better part of a hour discussing that?" 


Me: "Yes." 


Friend: "Dear god, please save the world from us. In the absence of that, do us a favour and make us illiterate again?" 


Me: "Yes please! Do god, do"