There is an attempt to distinguish items to be considered, but the enfolding of meaning always asks after the distinction is set. We ask of the reader, but the reader is already on the move from a place of transcendent agency toward an object for its knowledge; that is, at least from a certain perspective. All the while, it is this perspective that is ignored in the enflaming of agency, of the infringing of an other upon the ‘reader’ (we will say for now, in this case), for the reader is indeed always that other that avoids reconciliation within this ‘certain perspective’. A route is always implied as it is evident as we ask into the truth of the matter, for as we move forth to expose the truth, we inevitably come upon resistance to that truth, and find ourselves moved from the Modern into the Postmodern.
This is to say that significance lay in the fact that whatever is or was Modern ‘did’ not work, but only from a particular perspective that truly understands what sense Modern is to have. For the fact of the matter is that whatever Modern is or was cannot be ‘placed’ or located to a static historical, momentous, paradigmic temporality, except that some kind of ‘post’ Modern understanding has been witnessed. Yet, where indeed there was a Postmodern era, say like the 1960’s to the late 1970’s, there we have evidence that what is Modern in the former sense, has not gone away. This means that however we classify temporal-static moments or eras, they are always Modern, and this, in the sense of supplying a true arena called reality.
This distinction too avoids something. To have something Modern by which to have moved into something ‘after’ or ‘behind’ it, as Post-modern, implies that these distinctions are not really saying anything substantial, but, as a very good analogy, but are talking about after-effects; it is an entirely appropriate description, post-modern, to indicate less a moment in history or time, and more a manner of coming upon reality, of meaning itself. Nevertheless, as we find this situation, we become caught up in the mush from which we wish to distinguish elements and we become, in fact, despite our best intentions, distracted from what is actually occurring. We thereby, often without knowing it, without noticing it, are sucked into a manner of knowing, moved involuntarily into a mode of being that we did not choose. We are conned, convinced by an agency with an alternate agenda, to believe that what is actually occurring is what we overtly see, and this is to say that the terms of discourse presents reality in a wholly, essentially and ubiquitously true manner. It is the contradiction inherent in the belief of the ability for terms to bring us a true reality, for terms to link or otherwise be able to convey objects in themselves, True Universal Objects, that brings a to final distinction.