1.). The Post-Modern as a proposed break from that which was before, as the PM proposes to decenter what is often seen as Eurocentric Modernism, thereby occupies its narrative; that is, it is an analysis that merely enforces Modernity, and Eurocentrism at that.
2.) Its rhetoric must thereby be understood through its two components:
A.) the issue it deals with by its discourse, which is the real object, what can be called the ideological construct;
B.) the issue that is informing the discourse.
The irony involved with the post-modern is the play between these two elements.
Inevitably, we will hear, “how can we know what is informing the discourse (b) ?”
The correct response is if the answer does not speak of the Event, then the question is already answered by (a) and sees the only issue as the real ideological construct; in other words, if the issue is not the Event, then they have missed the significant issue, and can continue on their way considering the objective ideological power structures.
This is not to say that the analysis and critique of real power structures is not significant. It is indeed necessary as an endeavor to sort out reality.
We are saying that the Derrida and Deluze and Guittari (I suppose I will keep my focus narrowed) and probably Faucault, were involved in an effort of bad faith, in the Sartean sense, but also in the regular sense of betraying trust, and leading for the purposes of self interest (which is not so coincidentally, the capitalist way).
The point is that the PM must be considered upon its foundation, and not its ideological justification, to reveal the insidiousness of the theory. Thereby we might find how objects do arise to their truth.
3) There is no escaping what is inherently present; discourse, while it is used in real power structures, as an indicator of the arena wherein power is negotiated discourse is not merely an indicator of elements of power negotiation, but actually indicts itself in that capacity as not dealing with the entirety of the matter, but only objectival and ideological objects enforced as such, that is, as if such ideological considerations involve all that is true.
4) real ideological constructs deal only with what is allowed to count; ideology is the Law.
5) I am thereby breaking the law by proposing that the PM was involved in a play of deception.
6) this is to say: There is no link that can be made from the premise, that which informs the discourse, to the ideological construct.
7) any appropriation that sees such a link is a motion of faith, an orientation upon reality that sees terms in a potential of indicating True Objects.
8) the discussion that involves such Objects is not philosophy, but actually conventional methodology; an effort in the attempt to assemble objects into the sensible whole they are supposed to have been derrived from.
9) there are two bases of discission. The PM is in bad faith in the attempt to reconsile these bases.