Attacking the diachronic actually makes thinking history the central vocation of thought

Evidence

What results then is the paradox that the diachronic becomes coterminous with “thinking” itself and is established as the privileged terrain of philosophy by the very force of the onslaughts upon it. If “poststructuralism,” or, as I prefer, “theoretical discourse,” is at one with the demonstration of the necessary incoherence and impossibility of all thinking, then by virtue of the very persistence of its critiques of the diachronic, and by way of the targeting mechanism itself, which consistently finds temporal and historical conceptualities positioned at the center of its objective, the attempt to think “history” — in however confused or internally contradictory a fashion — at length becomes identified with the very vocation of thought itself. — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 485

Categorization

• QUESTION: This paradox — that critique of history elevates history — deserves chasing for the reader’s falsifiability test of the cultural-dominant thesis.
• XREF: connects to: Systematizing the unsystematic can force a historical way of thinking — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 894; Dialectical critique exposes ontology as disguised history — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 694
• yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Systematizing the unsystematic can force a historical way of thinking — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 894; Dialectical critique exposes ontology as disguised history — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 694