In Jameson's writing on post-structuralism, I question whether he is referring to the physical, the psychological, or both. For instance, he claims that post-modernism relies on the idea of borrowing and recycling from the past yet he also believes that a post-modern product is rooted in the present and contains no history. Do the actions of borrowing and recycling result only within physical space? If such is the case, is it the psychological state that inhibits the past? Which state is responsible for post-modernism? For Jameson, post-modernism is fragmented (In the physical and psychological? In the past and the present? In the idea of mixed media?) yet also flat. Is postmodernism fragmented in the sense of aesthetics? It seems that if the period were to be fragmented in the sense of the psychological, post-modernism would hardly be depthless or flat.