>> It was a sense that we were finding the universal laws of everything and we could make things equal and fair via uniform architecture for example.
Sorry guys. No flex intended. It was only a metaphor.
Modernism is the idea that we've discovered all of the ways of doing things from nature and now we're just honing in on doing those better. My subject was "How people interact with the technology they create". In this sense, whether it's process, coding, UI or whatnot, most everything you read is just another example of old standards we've had for decades: structured code, CMMI, RUP, XP, FP, and so on. Whatever you pick, the idea is that there are already pre-discovered and well-trodden paths ahead of you. The message from modernism is "Don't worry; we've figured it all out. This is the way it should be."
Continuing the metaphor, postmodernism is a critique of each of these from a standpoint of tearing them apart by way of understanding what's good and what's bad about each. It's certainly not a rejection of modernism by any means. It's simply an understanding of the various modern paths and what's wrong with each of them. In its classic sense, postmodernism is a way of deeply understanding and critiquing, many times by creating new works to contrast with the old methods, in order that the overall field can move forward. It's not a path of its own
Maybe this is where we ventured off-course. The word "postmodernism" has come to mean the universal tearing apart of anything that is traditional, ie deconstructionism. That was not my intent at all. In my mind, postmodernism at its best is a severe recognition of the flaws of various modern techniques as a way of honestly dealing with them, the challenging of the idea that everything important has all figured out from nature, not the tearing apart of western civilization. It's an analytical technique, which can involve creating new works of its own to show contrast. In its purest form it shouldn't be a movement, fetish, fad, or any of the things many of the practitioners and detractors squabble about.
Agreed that it could be a trigger word for many, especially how it's used today. That was not my intent. I'm just used to the deeper and more traditional use of the word. It honestly didn't occur to me what all that it's evolved into. I knew better and just wasn't thinking. Apologies for the confusion.