I am not sure this is a fair characterization of postmodernism. In Lyotard's "Postmodern Condition" while he does spend much time reflecting on the downfall of narrative notions of truth and...
but since postmodernism is inherently about doubting the existence of truth and meaning
I am not sure this is a fair characterization of postmodernism. In Lyotard's "Postmodern Condition" while he does spend much time reflecting on the downfall of narrative notions of truth and meaning in your current culture, overall the view is an incredulity towards meta narratives themselves, not knowledge itself.
This amounts to saying that the prevailing meta narrative about knowledge, that it should be "produced in order to be sold, consumed in order to be valorized in a new production: with the ultimate goal of exchange," should be doubted as a crude attempt to reduce knowledge to commensurable science (a set of denotative statements), other kinds of knowledge which exist in and of itself (justice, aesthetics, know-how generally) do in fact exist.
To dabble with meaning for just a moment, if we consider the generally accepted notion of meaning (and try not to think too hard about whether or not that accepted notion is a metanarrative), that takes meaning to be the particular use in a specific local linguistic exchange (ornery means mischievous when I use it with a friend who understands the meaning as such, and combative when used in a different context) then it does seem that meaning itself has come into question. However, the only meaning that has come into question is some attempted generalization of it that ignores the impact it has individual users. Understood as such, meaning does involve some inherent instability, but in order to be certain of its existence all we have to do is create it which we can be readily done. Perhaps, if you agree with lyotard, should be done as often as possible in order to destabilize the institutions which attempt to limit it and thereby constrain us. So long as we are discussing boundaries, we are moving them.
I am not sure this is a fair characterization of postmodernism. In Lyotard's "Postmodern Condition" while he does spend much time reflecting on the downfall of narrative notions of truth and meaning in your current culture, overall the view is an incredulity towards meta narratives themselves, not knowledge itself.
This amounts to saying that the prevailing meta narrative about knowledge, that it should be "produced in order to be sold, consumed in order to be valorized in a new production: with the ultimate goal of exchange," should be doubted as a crude attempt to reduce knowledge to commensurable science (a set of denotative statements), other kinds of knowledge which exist in and of itself (justice, aesthetics, know-how generally) do in fact exist.
To dabble with meaning for just a moment, if we consider the generally accepted notion of meaning (and try not to think too hard about whether or not that accepted notion is a metanarrative), that takes meaning to be the particular use in a specific local linguistic exchange (ornery means mischievous when I use it with a friend who understands the meaning as such, and combative when used in a different context) then it does seem that meaning itself has come into question. However, the only meaning that has come into question is some attempted generalization of it that ignores the impact it has individual users. Understood as such, meaning does involve some inherent instability, but in order to be certain of its existence all we have to do is create it which we can be readily done. Perhaps, if you agree with lyotard, should be done as often as possible in order to destabilize the institutions which attempt to limit it and thereby constrain us. So long as we are discussing boundaries, we are moving them.