It seems to me that engaging in rhetorical claims and counter claims about the possibility or impossibility of absolutes or "independent standards" is exactly what created the post-modern "rupture" in the first instance. It would also seem to me that the activity is subordinate to the more important discussion of whether or not any of us can in fact claim to know what a given absolute would be.Consequently, I think that the value of post-modern discourse lies in the establishment of perception as a necessary mediator and predictor; rather than in the so called dismissal of "universal absolutes" (which cannot be fully apprehended anyway). I also suspect that our actions are more likely governed by our "personal standards" rather than by supposed "universal standards", irrespective of whether we universalise our personal beliefs or not.
Moreover, if relativism forces us to acknowledge as valid (but not necessarily appealing) another's position, based on their perceptions (and beliefs), then it also creates the opportunity and framework for dialogue, and eventually increased understanding. When we take the time to genuinely seek to understand a position different from our own, the synthesis of thesis and anti-thesis actually produces a positive outcome(transcendence). Simply put, thinking does not make it so universally, but it does make it so personally.
Moreover, relativism does not leave us naked in the wilderness, bereft of hope, but clothed with a framework for understanding and equipped with the hope of transcendence. Our individual perceptions (and weltanschauung) create the ground for both our own actions and our analysis of the actions of others. I also hope that every time we encounter difference we seek to understand and not to impose.
In the final analysis, if “universal standards” (or absolute knowledge) exist, their contingent nature makes them transcendent, and quite paradoxically relativism opens a path to transcendence.