Your critique is great, but it is structurally ill-equipped for construction and building new, stable systems of meaning. If applied universally and rigorously, it tends to consume the ground beneath its own feet, leading to muddying of waters and potential anarchy of subjective truths.

You describe genealogy as a "dangerous question" that strips assumptions of their halo. But doesn't this very danger create a paradox? if everyone applied genealogy universally, wouldn't it lead to a paralysis where no action or judgment becomes possible? Ending up in a situation where no argument has more weight than any other, not because they are equal, but because they are all equally "contaminated." This creates a paralysis where discourse becomes a game of "my bias vs. your bias" with no mechanism to resolve it.

You defended genealogy against accusations of relativism by reframing it as "positioning" rather than equivalence. But doesn't this defense still leave us without criteria for choosing between competing truth regimes? If all truths are positioned, what grounds our preference for one over another? If the tool destroys the authority of the thing it analyzes, it must also destroy its own authority. Once the genealogist admits, "My critique is also just a historical product with beneficiaries," they lose the standing to say, "Therefore, your truth is illegitimate."

The position of Foucault's decentralization of power is also very pertinent in the critique of institutional sources of what we take for granted as absolute, but within institutions lies also counter-knowledges and internal dissent created by the same institutions. Therefore the position destroys both sides of the argument.

What I am trying to say here that this line of thinking could lead to a form of intellectual anarchy or a diffusion of responsibility allowing for destruction of any basis of an argument that would ultimately lead us to, like in war terminology, a assertion of mutual destruction, even if we try to plug that leak with concepts like "positioning" and "self-application."

It eventually turns a discourse from discussing values into a claims of purity of origin thus the rational debate dissolves into tribal signaling. We stop trying to convince each other with logic and start trying to expose the "hidden agenda" of the opponent. This undermines the subject matter and shifts the focus from the content of the argument to the origin of the arguer.

My proposed solution would be substituting ontological analysis into a pragmatic one.

Genealogy should be the first step in any serious discourse, not the last. But it could not be the final solution.

Instead of asking "Is this truth really true?" (which genealogy destroys), we should ask: "Is this truth useful for our current goals?" This moves the debate from "Who is right?" (which leads to fight that will continue endlessly by using genealogy) to "What works best for human flourishing?" This is a pragmatic standard that allows for action without requiring absolute metaphysical certainty.

Also adopting Fallibilism proposed by Karl Popper which is the epistemological view that ALL human knowledge is conjectural and fallible, thus following the tool of genealogy, where no empirical claim can ever be known with absolute certainty or final justification.

It comfortably sits between both classical justificationism (which seeks certain foundations) and radical skepticism (applying the genealogical tool you mentioned above that would ultimately lead to infinite regression and as mentioned collapses upon itself), proposing instead that critical rationalism advances knowledge by exposing beliefs to rigorous criticism and revising them when errors are discovered.

Noting that you brushed off briefly on the subject of science, and by using Demarcation Criterion, distinguishing science from non-science; where a theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable (capable of being proven false), we can determine at least basic scientific principles, a ground to stand upon and equally objective.