>
> Granted.  And indeed, I had less trouble understanding the example Ken
> provided than I do understanding much contemporary political rhetoric.
> However, the original was written either for a very specific audience or
> intended to be humorous, and I suspect the latter.

Why not both?

>
> I agree that efforts to put complexity into words often sound ridiculous
> to outsiders, but the expression in quotes *is* ill-defined.

Only out of context. In its place it is a stage in a construct from which
it is evolved reasonably, and which allows for elaboration.  Unlike
"buzzwords", and many other forms of prosaic speech, which short-circuit
constructs by only presuming attitudes, and which can't be defended because
they are, formerly, the disguise of prejudice, and, latterly, the
signifiers of inchoate longings.

 For example,
> I have discovered that outside of the specifically architectural context,
> there does not seem to be any consensus on the definition of
"postmodern".

Which somewhat supports my argument in response to Ken- how can you agree
on a definition of post-modern (anyway, the apter term would be
post-structuralist, since in linguistics, philosophy, and psychiatry
modernism was structuralism for the generation that moved beyond it) when
modernism died before anyone could frame a universal definition of it. Even
in architecture, confusion of terms is common. The Museum of Modern Art
rejects designs for its expansion by Koolhouse (sic) and others who could
be said to be re-modernists in favor of a design that is conservative,
thereby declaring that "modernism" is a signifier of a particular style
with a clearly labeled shelf-life and is now  out of the running as a
useful term of art to describe what is current. If history ain't over, then
apparently modern is.

So, what you are left with is a universe of perceptions of what is meant by
post-modern and a lack of signifier for anything that can come after it,
since "modern" defines a period in the past, and, wonderfully, all this is
taking place in a real world 99% of the population of which is still going
around insisting that their 4 year old could paint better than Picasso, who
still is the banner-carrier of "modernism" to them. I mean there are a hell
of a lot more people about who are comfortable with velvet Elvis' on their
walls and would be horrified if you gave them a Cezanne as a present-put it
in the closet and only take it out when you come to visit.

> There is no surer way to provoke an argument in a crowd of three or more
> assorted academics than to request this definition.  I think this is not
> because "postmodern" is a complex idea but because it is so ill-defined
> that everyone has been able choose a different understanding.

What's wrong with that? Again, even in architecture, Johnson and Graves had
very different ideas of what the presence of a post-modern structure should
be. But it is possible to intuit a broad commonality of perception, in
rough terms so to speak, that allows for seeing both as post-modernists,
when they were. The same is true in other disciplines.
>
> And what function does the word "discourse" have here?  Discourse may
> involve the expression of values, or expression that is founded in
values,
> but the values are an attribute of the individuals, not of the discourse.

When the monkey dropped the coconut on the head of the fasting monk, the
value to the former was that it cracked open the coconut, allowing him to
slake his hunger, to the latter, it knocked him out cold for an hour,
letting him forget that he was dying of hunger. Their discourse afterward
made it clear to both that the action was of equal but different value to
each of them. That way neither had to think that someone got the better of
the deal.

> try describing even a simple house to someone for whom "gable" is
> inexplicable architectural jargon.
>

Gable? Wasn't he the guy who said "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"?

Bruce