Metamodernism Explained

[grundomatic]

@HB
The good in learning about this stuff, for me, is better understanding the world I inhabit. I, too, very much want to understand my role in the world. Most around here have rejected the "get job, pay bills" role in life, so what now? Live out my values? Great--what are they? As I think, I start wondering things like where did I get these values? Why do others have different values? Where did they get those? Which values are better? What if I get it wrong?

I'd say the -isms being discussed here are very practical philosophies, as they dictate the values, views, and behaviors of billions of people, many of whom may have never given thought to what might be driving their values, views, and behaviors.

Will you find value in learning about this stuff? I wish I could answer that. I have, but I'm a sucker for anything that might lead to me better understanding why I am the way I am, and why others often seem so different.

[Hristo Botev]

I am not entirely sure metaphysics has really changed much in 3000+ years. There is basically dualism, non-dualism and materialism. God in the box, god outside the box, or just an empty box. I am no expert on all this but I am not even sure human thinking has changed much at all.

Certainly seems to me that you are correct wrt the lack of progress in human thinking. No doubt I'm just a semi-literate caveman (in the SNL sense, not the Plato's Cave sense, but also that), but as I read through the Greeks it sure as hell all looks really familiar to me, just stated much more clearly and succinctly, before the academics with all their "-isms" got involved and started overcomplicating things. As I read the tragedies, and the histories, and Plato, I certainly don't get the sense that any of what I'm reading is antiquated; or, stated differently: "Ahh yes, interesting to read about how those ancient Greeks were trying to work out an answer to X; sure am glad human reason has progressed enough that, thanks to modernity, we finally figured out that the answer to X is Y!" For us Bible Thumpers (stealing from @Henry), what has changed since the Classics is the incarnation, which answered X and, thanks to Aquinas and the Scholastics, pretty much all the other questions. Seems like most everything since the Scholastics has been yet another attempt to replace God with man.

[chenda]

What is SNL ? I agree to some extent - when I read the likes of Epicurus or Plotinus they feel like modern writers. Perhaps the only major breakthrough in the last 2000 years is the scientific method.

As for replacing God with man, I not quite sure what that means. The way I look at it, God exists within all sentient beings, and service to man is service to God. Selfless service as worship. Man and God are ultimately one and the same.

[Henry]

There are four metaphysics that people work from whether they know it or not:

(1) Trinitarianism - God outside and inside - Christianity; (2) Deism - God outside not inside - Greek philosophy (Aristotle's first mover) watered down Christianity (Thomas Jefferson), Judaism, Islam; (3) Pantheism - god(s) inside not outside - Hindu/Buddhism/New Age (4) Materialsim - God/gods neither inside nor outside - Christopher Hitchens/Richard Dawkins;

There is ontological dualism in numerous traditions - such as Christian Gnosticism - but I would argue it's really moral dualism spiritualized - not a possible architectonic structure of the universe.

[Henry]

Man and God are ultimately one and the same.

Pantheism

[chenda]

You can find numerous varieties of those four schools in Hinduism e.g. Advaita, Dvaita, Bhedābheda, Charvaka. (Pantheism, Dualism, Inside and Outside, Atheism/Materialism/Dawkins et al) There are lots of nuances and subtleties between them of course. The Samkhya school is dualistic but traditionally non-theistic and kinda duo-pantheistic.

Pantheism

Right, in the sense matter is an emergent property (if only an illusionary property) of consciousness. Which has existed in some Islamic traditions. I'd be surprised if Christianity hasn't had pantheistic (or at least panentheistic) schools of thought but I admittedly know almost nothing about Christian metaphysics.

[Henry]

There is a lot to discuss here but I don't want to hijack this thread anymore. Plus I got a 169 pages of Moby Dick to read by January 8th.

[Hristo Botev]

What is SNL ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzAFqrxfeY

[7Wannabe5]

Postmodernists love to point out that our understanding is limited by contexts we are insufficiently acquainted with or unaware of, asserting this as the end of the discussion, But this can effectively be countered by questioning the assumption why the presence of higher-level contexts should refrain us from pursuing the matter in question on the lower level; why statements demonstrated to be accordance with truth criteria on the lower level should be considered invalid by mere reference to those of the higher level. However, this is rarely asserted by modernists when confronted by the postmodernists, and when it is, often not accepted by the postmodernists themselves. Still, it is currently accepted that theology, for instance, can be discussed within the context of the religious thought perspective. Despite the ways in which religion often contradicts the higher context of science and rational thought, modernists and postmodernists are often willing to accept that the work conducted by theologists can be true or false within the context of religious discourse. But the same courtesy is rarely seen when modernism and postmodernism clash today- a situation not entirely dissimilar to that when the remorseless battle between religion and rationality was at its height prior to the modern breakthrough.

- Bjorkman- "The World We Create."

The hardware humans are equipped with in order to reason or answer "Why?" hasn't improved (actually may have declined) over the last 2000 years, but the software (culture/technology) we've accumulated that allows us to form and answer rational inquiry of "How?" has improved. If I conjecture further along with this suggestion from Bjorkman, it might be the case that Late Modernity/Early Postmodernity in the form of the Market attempts to answer "What?", and Later Postmodernity attempts to answer something like "Who?"

Obviously, the fact that metamodern thought breaks away from postmodern thought in once again establishing value hierarchies ( the use of "higher" in quote above) makes it instantly subject to charge of elitism or similar. It might be interesting to note that the fact that it smacks of elitism is true whether metamodernity is viewed from pre-modern (religious), modern, or post-modern perspective.

Simplest answer to why anybody would want to learn more about this thought perspective would be that we increasingly live in a world that is wholly symbolic, and those with the best grip on symbol languages will have more options/opportunities. For instance, mathematics might be the universal symbol language most closely associated with the Modern era or thought perspective. Reading the classical philosophers as they reason in words is not too difficult. Trying to go to the moon or construct the modern market by manipulating ideal forms with a compass and a straight edge, not so easy.

[7Wannabe5]

The Two Loops Model of Transition from One System to Another



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcyHKKc2LVg

The Postmodern System of Thought is not yet Dominant, it is at the phase where it has gained real political power but is not yet seen as normative (the water we unconsciously swim in, which is currently The Modern in the West),but already the Pioneers of the Metamodern System of Thought emerge.

[jacob]

@7wb5 - I suspect that at least a three loop system might be needed.

Currently culture war battles are between traditionalists and postmodernists with modernists stuck in the middle w/o knowing how to resolve the battle. This can be mapped to left-right political blocks in most countries (I can't think of an exception) possibly in the shape of a horse shoe (See horse shoe theory). Typically blue/orange vs orange/green with orange in the middle. The horseshoe comes from red serving as partisans for both blue/orange and orange/green---the values mattering less than defeating the other.

Future culture wars may be modernists vs metamodernists with postmodernists stuck in the middle w/o a way to resolve.

[7Wannabe5]

Future culture wars may be modernists vs metamodernists with postmodernists stuck in the middle w/o a way to resolve.

Wouldn't this just be the Rational Optimists vs. System Thinkers "war" that has been going on since at least 1972 (50 years!)

It might be more the case that Modern is up and off to the side in "war" between Traditional and Post-modern, because both Traditional and Post-Modern care about how we live as a society (and, therefore, sometimes Nuns and hippie moms find themselves on same committee), whereas uber-Modern, in the neo-liberal voice of Margaret Thatcher, simply claims "And, as you know, there is no such thing as society."

[Henry]

Found this symposium on metamodernism: 4 brief essays in response to "Metamodernism: The Future of Theory" by Jason Ananda Joseph Storm released by University of Chicago Press. Philosophical treatment so not sure what interest it holds to the diagram crowd.

https://adfontesjournal.com/member-excl ... modernism/