They're meaningless and all that's true

Postmodernism: In Ye Olde Modernist Times, Reason was the chief means of discovering new things and carrying on a discussion.  Postmodernism is the movement to replace Reason with Jargon.

Once upon a time, I really did think that Postmodernism had some substance, but over time I have begun to suspect it is really just Jargon hiding a lack of content.  I am now convinced.  The source of my conviction was:

Penner, ed.,  Christianity and the Postmodern Turn

This book (a Christmas gift) did a masterful job at unintentionally playing the role of the boy in the Emperor's New Clothes.  It has Six Christians, both philosophers and theologians, debating the the relationship of Christianity and Postmodernism.  Some like postmodernism; some don't.  Now what made this book so useful is that none of these six people are the leading Philosophers of the Age--in fact, I doubt many people outside the world of Christian Philosophy have heard of any of them (but I could be wrong about that).  So, the book is a nice demonstration of what we can call Vulgar Postmodernism--this is what happens when postmodernism escapes from the Fortress of Derrida et. al. and migrates to the masses.  The result?  Well...

The highlight of the book came at the conceptual midpoint.  The book is structured as an initial essay by each of the six authors, followed by a response essay by each of the six.  The first sentence of the first response paper:
"I have a feeling that many readers who make it to the end of this book will still be wondering, "So what is Postmodernism anyway?" 
Ya think?

That, it turns out, is the beauty of postmodernism--Not only does it mean exactly what I want it to mean, it also never means what you want it to mean.  So, if you say something nice or cruel or indifferent about postmodernism, I get to say that you don't really understand postmodernism and it means whatever nice, cruel or indifferent thing I want it to mean.  And as long as neither one of us uses any language which actually conveys some precise meaning, we can carry on a 240 page debate about the matter and then all go out for a beer afterwards.

For example:  Lyotard (read: One of the Patron Saints of postmodernism) said that postmodernism is incredulity toward metanarratives.  Aha! you (if you are the critic) say.  Christianity is a metanarrative; thus Christianity and Postmodernism are opposed.  QED.  Aha!  you (if you are the supporter) say.  Metanarratives aren't just narratives which are meta, but have some sort of appeal to Reason.  Lyotard mentioned reason, right there.  See?  So, Christianity isn't a metanarrative in Lyotard's sense of the word.  It's a narrative which stands above all narratives, but not a metanarrative because it needs Faith.  Aha! you (critic again) say.  You get around the conflict between narrative and metanarrative and Christianity and atheism by redefining Christianity.  Aha! you say.  Why do you think you can define Christianity?  That is just the problem with you modernists.  Aha! you say. So, postmodernists deny the reasoned substance of Christianity.  Aha!  you say. Your argument assumes that you have some monopoly about the Truth of Christianity.  But, you are not God.  Aha! you say, so you deny that we can know Truth, which is exactly the postmodernist game in the end.  Aha! you say.  No, there is Truth, but we can only know what can be known within our own language game, and those in a different language game will know different things.  Aha! you say.  So, you deny that the Truth can be communicated, which necessarily means evangelism is absurd.  Aha! you say.  See you don't understand a thing I am saying.  Aha! you say.  I understand completely. Lyotard was an atheist.  Aha? you say.  Why is that relevant?  Aha! you say.  See, you are the one who is confused.

That isn't an exact transcript of this book.  But it is pretty close.  Well at least in my language game that is what the book said.  If you have a different reading of the book, then the problem is that you still trapped in a Modernist belief that the book I just read might have some meaning independent of what the reader decides it means because after all, as Derrida told us, texts are really just mirrors, so I see myself in every book I read, and you see yourself in every book you read, and so we are not actually reading the same book anyway.  Which of course makes me wonder why you would read my review of a book since it seems logically impossible for you to determine what a book says without reading it yourself.
  
It just occurred to me that The Police actually wrote the Postmodern Anthem.