Having felt a similar sort of response as KF mentioned in class - one of both great intrigue and at once horror at the idea of No Future - I am quite compelled by Edelman's discussion around the work of Politics against the politics of the sign, as well as the marking that occurs with queerness as resistive practice.
Ok! I finally got through the Jameson. I would just like to echo KF's plea that we should NOT ever, under any circumstance, emulate Jameson's writing style. Yuck. That said, I do feel as though Jameson brings up some interesting issues revolving around the "Postmodern" that were especially alluring, namely explorations of the term that involved architecture.
Jameson submits two critiques of knowledge in the context of postmodernity. First, he claims that "[postmodern] theory seems necessarily imperfect or impure," since "no [self-coherent theories of the postmodern] have yet appeared"; indeed, this would require "an antifoundationalism that really eschews all foundations altogether, a nonessentialism without the last shred of an essence in it" (Introduction, xi-xii). In other words, slogans such as "no more meta-narratives" or "it's all about context" end up reinscribing the very metaphysical claims they set out to admonish.
I think Guattari Hero's question about the convergences, or lack thereof, between Derrida and Lyotard gets at the heart of a meta-level tension that runs through much postmodern/poststructural theory. Namely, are the developments that characterize postmodernity representative of a rupture unique to that (this?) period, or, rather, have such "developments" always "been the case," and we are just now coming to realize their validity/utility? There is probably a techinical name for this distinction; in fact, it might be postmodernism v. poststructuralism. We should ask Professor Fitzpatrick.