Simultaneously studying software architecture and Ken Wilber brought be to the dazzling idea that postmodernism is essentially an attempt to split up our cultural "big ball of mud" into different systems of truth (aka contexts), and create loose coupling between them.
There is no longer a requirement for true and meaningful claims to be consistent across system boundaries, only within them.
In software development, this means teams no longer have to check how new functionality impacts some other department, which greatly reduces the complexity of their work.
Complexity is a great limitation on progress. If it only takes a year to learn how a system works, you can spend the rest of your time extending it. But extending it makes the learning time greater. The story becomes longer.
At some point, the time it takes to understand a system is so great that extending it becomes near impossible, and progress grinds to a halt. You can solve this by splitting the system up. Pieces of it that were already relatively self-contained, become systems in their own right.
We know various ways to do that with software, but how do you do it with a culture? Well maybe: deny the concept of objective truth, of which there can only be one, and affirm subjectivism and pluralism. No longer one global judge of truth and meaning, but many local ones.
I'm not defending postmodernism in its entirety here, because obviously the pendulum has swung too far, but consider how relaxing our ever so stringent requirements on truth might help us make more epistemic value attempts.