A Punk Rock Schizophrenic Writing Really Isn't All That Complicated 

Foucault implicitly makes this distinction between the modern episteme and what we would read now as a post-modern espiteme. He shys away from explicitly giving specific details about this "other" episteme because its full fruition has yet to surface. However, another reason is that the two "modes of thought" are not wholly distinct. One can associate the postmodern with chaos and the modern with order as Faigley does, but then we can also see that the two episteme's share a commonality. For example: From a binary basis, slam dancing can be equated with chaos in opposition to mainstream order. Its cultural meaning is constructed through this binary relation. But slam dancing is not complete chaos; it has its own order. Popular culture ethnographers might point out that in one time/place the circular dance always moved counter-clockwise, while in another group it may have always run clockwise. Or that certain groups had certain rules of etiquette. Or that in another instance these rules were purposely resisted/subverted. As all was ordered in the renaissance, the poststructuralist episteme makes seeing such structure and order in chaos possible. It allows Foucault's object in the Order of Things to not be an object in the positivist sense. Once the subject disappears, the binary is broken down. Instead, the knowledge and understanding of his "object" that is no longer in an oppositon to a "subject" is his object. 

But perhaps more needs to be said, other examples posited. 

I'll posit again the the circular image of slam dancing: But this time quote at length from Fredric Jameson's forward to Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition.

...although he has polemically endorsed the slogan of "postmodernism" and has been involved in the defense of some of its more controversial productions, Lyotard is in reality quite unwilling to posit a postmodernist stage radically different from the period of high modernism and involving a fundamental historical and cultural break from the last. Rather, seeing postmoderninsm as a discontent with a disintegration of this or that high modernist style--a moment in the perpetual "revolution" and innovation of high modernism, to be succeeded by a fresh burst of formal invention--in a striking formula he has characterized postmodernism, not as that which follows moderism and its particular legitimation crisis, but rather as a cyclical moment that returns before the emergence of ever new modernisms in the stricter sense (emphasis mine, xvi). 

Lyotard's affiliations here would seem to be with the Anti-Oedipus of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, who also warned us, at the end of that work, that the schizophrenic ethic they proposed was not at all a revolutionary one, but a way of surviving under capitalism, producing fresh desires within the structural limits of the capitalist mode of production as such (xviii).

breeaaaaaaak 

I have no metanarrative that legitimates my claim(s). I only have a string of thoughts, loosely connected in a little narrative and linked to other thoughts in a seemingly haphazard manner...."There are many different language games--a heterogeneity of elements. They only give rise to institutions in patches--local determinism" (Lyotard, from his introduction, xxiv). 

But as Foucault notes in his preFACE to Anti-Oedipus, such a situation only "motivates us to go further" (xii). He reads Anti-Oedipus as a book on ethics--"a life style, a way of thinking and living" (xiii). Perhaps, too, we can see it as a way of writing...one that does not foreclose thought but motivates it, calls it to invent yet again. As Lyotard notes in his introduction, "invention is always born of dissension" (xxv). This dissension, though, isn't outside nor does it claim to get us outside, outside of a text, outside of capitalism, outside of some order. It is always within it and merely asks us to (re)begin again. Hence, my fetish for forwards, preFACEs, and introductions in this post/page/section/thought...is another indication that my project is not a compostion. It doesn't (fore)close. It is but an introduction to a work that will have been written in a style that will have been invented. Perhaps this is what my project is about.