BubbaNub Habermas

I'm struggling to wrap my head around the concept that modernity is "dominant but dead" (101). Is that to say there is nothing new to develop, no new concepts or unique perspectives? Every modern revolution in itself has drawn on elements from the past. If you look at rock N roll, none of these artists were original they all took various things from past greats. As Habermas points out the French Revolution was based heavily on the ideals of Ancient Rome. So could it not be said the modernity in itself is merely an evolution of the old, the recycling of history into something unique itself. I do not understand how modernity can ever be dead, let alone understand how postmodernity is not a hypocritical statement in itself. But is it meant to be? After all, the architecture we viewed as being postmodern was hypocritical and ironic in nature (disharmonious harmony and the like). But how can the modern cease to exist? As time goes on we will always refer to new ideals and concepts as being modern, even if we are taking from things in the past.

Hasn't history taught us anything? The most important thing about history is to learn from our mistakes, to evolve and adapt the very ideals and characteristics that may have led to a past societies downfall. For every step we take back, we always attempt to take two steps forward. I feel as though something is missing from my ability to analyze or swallow this reading. If all this is not confusing enough, Habermas brings forth an idea of that which we consider classical in its ability to transcend time. Would we then consider classical to be persisting modernity? I realize that this post may be mainly questions/reflections on the reading, however rather than spout off some B.S. and pretend anyone knows whats goin on here, I feel as though we have too many questions for these concepts and not enough tools to properly analyze or accept the ideas that Habermas is throwing around in this reading.