identifying blindspots

[Snowcake]

I don't think it is abut
"identifying sth by one's blindspots",
but about
"identifying sth by its blindspots".

Now,
blind spot: area in the retina of the eye which is not sensitive to light; area which is outside of one's field of vision
I'd say, like exceptions to a rule, or weak points on a solid object/argument

"Postmodernism has come so much to take for granted universality, - that -, it can only apparently identify universality by (realizing)/(looking at) those things in which universality is not present / not to be seen"

Not a teacher, but that's what I understand.

The sentence as a whole is peculiar - at least to me, and without having any further context.

Is it clear that 'its' (blindspots) refers to universality, or perhaps even to postmodernism?

What I understood is:

Postmodernism has accepted universality without questioning it, or analysing it painstakingly.

Another idea that comes to my mind is that blindspots are those points that you aren't aware of / don't know = you yourself have a blind spot. Exactly those spots/points blind you to the points which are the blind spot of the other side.

I'm not quite sure if I am able to make clear what I mean.

[nimsooze]

No, I am certainly sure that postmodernism has nothing to do with universality and on contrary it favours for the particular.
Another guess: a blindspot is a weakpoint for visual system , it is where our vision can not see and thereby is not complete.
blindspots of universality (or any other theory) is where it neglects something or its explaining power is so weak. am I right?

[Snowcake]

It seems we are talking at cross purposes. (my last idea was meant to be a metaphor, following up on Kraken's explanation) Anyway, I'm not able to put my thoughts into understandable and clear words. So anyone else might take a stab at it.

Sorry ...