Post modernsm and its lust for 'meaning'

Although I am quite a fan of  Postmodernism and Semiotics (my juvenilia) I will proceed with the following critique.

Ordinary logic is ‘extensional’: the truth or falsehood of any complex sentence depends on the truth or falsehood of its parts. Yet  modern logic has developed almost entirely on the assumption of extensionality: without that assumption logic strays in vain babbling

And so, wherever literature is taught, students have to perceive it through the veil of this new scholasticism, their observations muddled by technicalities borrowed from a premature sciences, distracted by ‘methods’ which regard Mickey Mouse and the Mona Lisa, Superman and King Lear, advertising jingles and the works of Schoenberg, as equally legitimate objects of inquiry. 

this is a kind speculative, that is rooted in fallacy driven by a lust for meaning which  authors whose work ia under the academic microscope would not have recognized

These postmodern type references nevertheless create an illusion of objectivity. They put the ‘semiological critic’ in a position of peculiar superiority.  This kind of literary appreciation or 

‘suggestiveness’, has paradigm switch first to the auditory confusion of Stockhausen and then to the fastidious impressionism of Mallarmé and Debussy. What begins  by seeming to be a genuine theory ends as a concatenation of independent distinctions, none of them adequately characterized.

Bruno  Eco’s enterprise is distinguished by spasmodic attempts at clarity, and Ian Fleming is a writer of closed texts, James Joyce a writer of open texts. We have here an important critical distinction, corresponding to the more familiar distinction between mechanical contrivance and creative art. Unfortunately, semiosis soon sets in, and the distinction rots away. The text becomes ‘blown up’, and then ‘narcotised’, a purveyor of ‘topics’, ‘isotopics’, ‘semantic markers’. Words like ‘extensional’, ‘intensional’ and ‘macroproposition’ enter without explanation.

.