本文嘗試由詹明信所提的「順勢療法」來解讀不同的後現代理論，並用「內在批判」的觀點將這些理論加以串連。對後現代主體所進行的「同位療法」或「內在批判」的精髓在於齊傑克所謂的「二次犧牲」或波西亞所謂的「二次死亡」。後現代主體的內在矛盾是主體必先以解構自己的方式來表現自己。但這種解構網網導向「多元論」或「遊牧式主體」，喪失主體安身立命的立足點，而陷入種種理論或實際政治操作上的困難。「多元論」或「遊牧式主體」偏向於「革命」或「超越」的理論取向，在超越「他者」的同時，終究不自覺地陷入「他者」所建立的標準或價值觀上。主體要達到真正的自由或超脫，不僅要革「他者」的命，也要革「自己」的命。這種革「自己」的命的舉動就是詹明信所謂的「同位療法」，以毒攻毒。後現代主體必須先拆解自身，才能悠遊於「去畛域化」或「虛擬化」的後現代社會；解構必須以後現代主體的「背反性」（內在分裂）為基礎才能竟其功。一直以來，波希亞、德勒茲、或拉岡等人的理論常被解讀為「解構主義」的同路人。本文嘗試由後現代主體的「自宮策略」來重新解讀他們三人的理論，並從這個新解中，為後現代主體找尋新的出路。本文認為波希亞所提出的「災難」，德勒茲所提出的「感染」，拉岡所提出的「消散」是後現代主體「自宮策略」的不同表現方式，都能點出後現代主體的「內在超越」策略。

The concern of this paper is to give some postmodernist theories which share in an “immanent critique” of the postmodern subject, a critique informed by what Žižek calls “sacrifice of sacrifice” or what Baudrillard calls “death against death.” The constitutive contradiction of postmodern subjectivity is that, to manifest itself, it first has to efface itself: not only does the postmodern subject have to sacritice its traditional imaginary or symbolic mandates or roles, but it also has to sacrifice the act of sacrifice itself. As Žižek puts it, “the subject must‘disappear,’ die, yet his sacrifice will not become a myth.” This redefines the parameters of identification. To sacrifice the sacrifice, to fight death with death, is what Jameson calls the “homeopathic” critique of the (post) modern subject and, as Baudrillard calls it, a “fatal strategy.” This approach requires the (post) modern subject to decenter and deterritorize itself in a radical way to survive the postmodern world of hyperreality, simulations, or deterritorization. But the fatal strategies of the subject should not be mistaken for postmodern pluralism or politics of difference; rather, the fatal strategy should be taken as what Lacan calls “the second death” by which the (death) drive, thanks to the transformation of the human form of identification, can manifest itself in the mode of the Deleuzian flux of desire or body without organs. Based on a re-reading of Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Lacan, who have long been aligned with poststructuralism, this paper will remap the postmodern subject through the homeopathic critique of poststructuralism provided by the three theorists. Baudrillard entices the postmodern subject to follow the fatal strategies of the object by which the postmodern subject can turn itself into a catatrophic subject adn fight catastrophe with catastrophe. Deleuze calls for the postmodern subject to create multiplicity or inner variation, an act which Deleuze calls “contagion.” Lacan appeals to aphanisis or subjective destitution of the postmodern subject, to its “second death” by which the subject can be “separated” from the Other and turn alienation (from the Other) into a death drive (of the subject).