Metamodernism Explained

[7Wannabe5]

I happened upon this interview of Tomas Bjorkman (of Perspectiva) by Nate Hagens on his podcast "The Great Simplification." Both gentlemen present themselves as reasonably humble and plain-spoken given the topic at hand. So, I think it might serve as a good introduction to the concept/model for those who don't feel particularly compelled to dive deeply into the literature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJa_6AHjLw0

I find the model interesting and valid on some levels. One argument I sometimes have with it is whether or not even the Post-Modern, let alone Metamodern, is a true paradigm or "thought perspective" alteration. Maybe it's just an argument with the Modern still within the paradigm of the Modern, and that which will really astound us out of the Modern is yet to come.

[jacob]

I note that the youtube transcript function has gotten a lot better. It's possible to read it rather than listen to it.

I still see metamodernism or post-postmodernism as a band-aid on postmodernism. Specifically, reintroducing hierarchies in terms of perspectives and asserting that some perspectives are simply more true than others. E.g. an engineer has a more valid perspective on how a steam engine works than a 6 year old or a shaman. What's mindblowing is that [strong] postmodernists will actually reject this because it's considered oppressive that anyone person should know more about something than any other. <- That value overrides everything for the strong postmodernist and this in turn creates a lot of "stupid" when it comes to e.g. fixing the steam engine.

But I don't think metamodernism offers something new as yet as much as it offers a ladder out of the postmodern trap.

Will inner development---especially in the sense of increasing inner complexity---work? I'd be a hypocrite if I thought otherwise. The renaissance ideal is inner development but certainly with a focus on being self-reliant on the right-hand-side (objective skills and interobjective systems). Not about increasing psychological states through yoga and meditation as much of the metamodern seems to focus on.

I actually didn't know that the Nordic "h0jskoler" was translated into "folk schools", but that term makes a lot of sense. Today (or rather 20 years ago) they had kinda turned into holding pens for troubled teenagers who didn't quite know what they wanted to do with their lives so they'd spend 1-2 years there while figuring out where to go for tertiary education. Ambitions (the difference that made a difference) was probably much higher 150 years ago when most left with a 7 grad education from the village school. Perhaps the concept would still work but that's basically not the difference they're making these days. It's conceivable that insofar folk schools taught people how to think using the metamodernist framework, it would be a fundamental improvement over postmodern, modern, and traditional(*) schools of thought (or the lack thereof). For the most part these schools do not teach thinking. It's the respective waters the respective fish swim it and they tend to clash rather heavily when they run into each other's waters.

(*) Traditionalism is almost dead having been supplanted. This is somewhat ironic since the folk school movement was led by traditional philosophers.

[daylen]

Sometimes I wonder how these categories will be viewed in a few hundred years. Will the spiral, so to speak, still be recognizable to what it appears to be now? Will integral/metamodernism/etc. be lumped together with postmodernism? Will it all be traditional? Will there be more degrees of distinction along the spiral we cannot yet fathom? Are spirals the wrong way to think about it? So many questions.

[jacob]

Sometimes I wonder how these categories will be viewed in a few hundred years. Will the spiral, so to speak, still be recognizable to what it appears to be now? Will integral/metamodernism/etc. be lumped together with postmodernism? Will it all be traditional? Will there be more degrees of distinction along the spiral we cannot yet fathom? Are spirals the wrong way to think about it? So many questions.

Viewed by whom is the question. An interesting piece of information of this article (I forgot whether the SD book also covered this) is the distinction between population and the power held by that population. The population gauge is likely more durable (robust) than the power gauge in terms of a few hundred years in the future. In the short term it's the other way around. Yellow and turquoise would be ignored if they didn't have influence beyond their tiny numbers.

Of particular notice is that the further up the spiral one goes, the required education/development gets increasingly expensive in time, effort, and sophistication. Turquoise requires sufficient surplus to spend 10-20 years staring at a wall with no other apparent benefit than improved subjective stages and states(!?) Yellow requires reading hundreds of books over 10+ years and effectively systematizing some research. Green is half that time with no requirement in terms of results. Orange is a 2-4 year degree. Blue is reading the same book for an hour every Sunday. Red is weapons training. How much will society or society's richest be able to afford? In that regard, it's currently the case and probably also historically that the most advanced stage were influential beyond their numbers.

[7Wannabe5]

Turquoise requires sufficient surplus to spend 10-20 years staring at a wall with no other apparent benefit than improved subjective stages and states(!?) Yellow requires reading hundreds of books over 10+ years and effectively systematizing some research. Green is half that time with no requirement in terms of results. Orange is a 2-4 year degree. Blue is reading the same book for an hour every Sunday. Red is weapons training. How much will society or society's richest be able to afford?

There's also the fact that advancement rarely occurs without risk taking. For instance, innovation as measured by patents issued to individuals is correlated with IQ and family wealth (ability to afford the process of failing before succeeding and/or access to a patent lawyer.) I've been skimming Robert Kiyosaki's "Before You Quit Your Job: 10 Real Life Lessons Every Entrepreneur Should Know About Building a Multimillion Dollar Business." and he writes about the difference in strategic orientation of Promoter vs. Trustee. Promoter is driven by perception of opportunity while Trustee is driven by control of resources. The Promoter prefers a structure that is flat with multiple informal networks while the Trustee prefers a formalized hierarchy with multiple tiers. The reward philosophy of the Promoter is value driven, performance based, team oriented, while the reward philosophy of the Trustee is security driven, resource-based, job promotion-oriented.

My rather muddled thought here being that some of the models for adult development, especially Kegan's, which are very closely analogous to grade school-> high school-> college-> grad school are missing the dimension that made Kiyosaki's father who held the title "School District Supervisor" the Poor Dad in his Rich Dad/Poor Dad dichotomy. So, some of the observations made by Bjorkman, which clearly came out of his entrepreneurial experience, seemed pretty insightful.

According to Graeber in "Debt", the first human word (Sumerian) to mean Freedom, amargi, literally translated to "return to Mother." According to Kiyosaki's rich dad, "Security and freedom are not the same... in fact they are opposites. The more security you seek, the less freedom you have." Somehow this ties in to how advancement is sometimes made my building new levels upon secure basis, but also some times in more volatile wave pattern.

[7Wannabe5]

From "Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny" by Robert Wright via "The World We Create: From God to Market" by Tomas Bjorkman.

Spending money is an informational act that sends a signal to confirm one's wants to the people involved in satisfying them.

From Bjorkman:

When the age-old tool of money is subjected to rational measures of calculating economic relations, it thus opens up entirely new ways for society to organize itself. With double-entry bookkeeping we can become capitalists, and thus begin to organise society in accordance with the iron-hard logic of profit. Thus started the development of the collective imaginary we now call "the market."

I thought the first quote was interesting, because it begs a number of questions such as "How do you signal to the market that what you want is more free time?"

The second quote is relevant to some discussions on this forum, because the implication is that the invention of double-entry bookkeeping was necessary condition for the invention of the notion of "capital."

[jacob]

I thought the first quote was interesting, because it begs a number of questions such as "How do you signal to the market that what you want is more free time?"

This is my pet peeve with the environmentalists who don't walk the talk. "Yes, you're certainly holding up a placard in front of Evil Corp HQ telling them how much you hate them, but tomorrow you're ordering products from Evil Corp with your credit card telling them how much you love them". No wonder CEOs are confused with the mixed messaging.

Back to your question. The simple answer is that time is money. So start buying time.

The second quote is relevant to some discussions on this forum, because the implication is that the invention of double-entry bookkeeping was necessary condition for the invention of the notion of "capital."

Yes, double entry book keeping is basically the idea that an asset on one side of the ledger is always a liability on the other side. E.g. on a balance sheet, the basic accounting equation is basically a law of nature: assets = liability + equity (equity just being a different kind of liability).

Capitalism is basically the idea that someone's asset can be someone else's liability. It is an emergent consequence of combining two different balance sheets and freely trading between them. I'd say that's the simplest possible definition of capitalism. Remove the last and you have a command&control economy. Remove the first and you don't have investing or credit but only "my eggs for your shoes".

[7Wannabe5]

This is my pet peeve with the environmentalists who don't walk the talk. "Yes, you're certainly holding up a placard in front of Evil Corp HQ telling them how much you hate them, but tomorrow you're ordering products from Evil Corp with your credit card telling them how much you love them". No wonder CEOs are confused with the mixed messaging.

I think Bjorkman would half agree with you. He argues that the void created by post-modernism creates a situation in which the market is socially dominant. He also argues, from the perspective of entrepreneurial investment banker (one who has "the market"), that the "efficiency" of the market is best left to the "invisible hand" or objective/scientific perspective (voting as a producer/consumer) , but the "fairness" of the market is perhaps best addressed by participating as a citizen from inter-subjective perspective. For instance, he believes that historically contingent/arbitrary constituent properties of the market, such as granting corporations the same rights as individuals can only be addressed at a level that takes into account both efficiency and fairness. IOW, we should recognize that it is a game that we have invented and can alter.

Back to your question. The simple answer is that time is money. So start buying time.

Eh, too simple! Even some hobo out gathering empty bottles for a living "knows" better.

Capitalism is basically the idea that someone's asset can be someone else's liability. It is an emergent consequence of combining two different balance sheets and freely trading between them. I'd say that's the simplest possible definition of capitalism. Remove the last and you have a command&control economy. Remove the first and you don't have investing or credit but only "my eggs for your shoes".

According to Graeber, Bjorkman etc., barter has never really been a thing with humans, likely because so inefficient. First you have gift economy. Then you have debt/IOUs. Then you have money, which might just be exchange of debt slips. Then a long time goes by, and then when double-entry bookkeeping is invented, you have the notion of capital.

The amusing thought* I had was that in terms of adult development, a capitalist is simply anybody with the cognitive bandwidth to perform double-entry bookkeeping. The hobo who gathers empty bottles and does double entry bookkeeping is a capitalist. Of course, whether or not he is a "successful" capitalist would be a different conversation.

*Actually, my question might be how do I signal the market that what I want is more thoughts that amuse me, but not at the expense of my theoretical great-grandchildren gnawing on tree bark in a post-apocalyptic AI controlled wasteland?

[Henry]

There was a Roman Catholic philosopher Dietrich Von Hildebrand who described the turn to modernism as a turn from the objectively valuable ie truth, beauty, good to the "merely subjectively satisfying." Metamodernism seems like just another stage in the ongoing micro-fragmenting of the subjective fueled by a culture fixated on individual expression and self-definition, aided and abetted by technological advancement. It's either more of the same, or more of the distinctions without differences (narcissism of small choices to the nth nth nth degree) depending on how you look at it. First person to impregnate and abort the fetus of a transgender sex doll with an I-Phone embedded in its forehead on the surface of Mars wins.

[jacob]

There was a Roman Catholic philosopher Dietrich Von Hildebrand who described the turn to modernism as a turn from the objectively valuable ie truth, beauty, good to the "merely subjectively satisfying."

Wait what?!

How about this?

Modernism at best ignored the beautiful and the good and at worst sacrificed them on the altar of objective truth. As a result, you get science, technological progress, and an expansion of life expectancy from 40 to 75. But you also get sweat shops, colonial empires, total wars, surveillance, and general oppression.

Postmodernism observing these losses---especially the loss of the good---declared that all truths are subjective including the objective ones (What happens when you hit the ground after jumping out of 22nd floor window is just an opinion.) thus throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The strongest proponents were willing to insist that truths are equal lest some be used to oppress others and destroy the good.

Metamodernism observing the loss of truth or rather that some "truths" are more true than others want to put truth back into the equation and undo the snag of postmoderns, who think that reality is only a matter of perception.

Methinks the verdict of "merely subjectively satisfying" fits postmodernism far better than modernism which is more along the lines of "merely objectively satisfying".

Otherwise, yes, the fragmentation of those isms likely just come down to humans going too far into the corner of the ancient truth, good, beautiful triangle and consequentially doing crazy stuff on a cultural scale that's incompatible with human nature. I think if anything metamodernism is recognizing that.

Add: Metamodernism = post-rationalism + post-postmodernism (?)

[7Wannabe5]

@Henry:

I think what you are describing would be more like a branch of uber-post-modernism. I am not claiming to be anything remotely like expert on the topic, but, for example, I think this painting which I happened upon recently ("Halloween" -2016 Bo Bartlett) is an example of the spirit of the meta-modern. The metamodern attempts to reconcile or recognize that which is of value in all that came before.

[Henry]

As you referenced, basing a thought system on how its adherents use/used said thought system is unfair to the thought system. Pointing out the crusades to attack Christianity is unfair to Christianity as is pointing out that Hitler/Stalin were modernists is unfair to modernism. It's the philosophical equivalent of attacking the libs. On the flip side, Galileo and Newton lived prior to modernism. Albert Einstein during. Science has made advancements in both ages.

Remember it was a Roman Catholic theologian who made the comment. Underlying his position is that the change from Judeo/Chrisitanity to Modernism (which to him is just a euphemism for atheism) involved a seismic shift in the basic metaphysical understanding of the world - man replaces God as the center of the universe ie the turn to the self (I think therefore I am). The epistemological and ethical fallout is that goodness, truth, and beauty simply cannot exist after the shift. It's basic abortion debate stuff.

[7Wannabe5]

The epistemological and ethical fallout is that goodness, truth, and beauty simply cannot exist after the shift.

From this perspective, was the shift avoidable?

[Slevin]

There was a Roman Catholic philosopher Dietrich Von Hildebrand who described the turn to modernism as a turn from the objectively valuable ie truth, beauty, good to the "merely subjectively satisfying." Metamodernism seems like just another stage in the ongoing micro-fragmenting of the subjective fueled by a culture fixated on individual expression and self-definition, aided and abetted by technological advancement. It's either more of the same, or more of the distinctions without differences (narcissism of small choices to the nth nth nth degree) depending on how you look at it. First person to impregnate and abort the fetus of a transgender sex doll with an I-Phone embedded in its forehead on the surface of Mars wins.

Pre note: haven't read Dietrich Von Hildebrand. Would have been interesting to see his take on the internet age though.

We are getting close to a game of mincing language here but "truth, beauty, good" are all vague subjective value markers, to the point that pointing at them as values is pointing at literally anything you want because you can always mutate the definition to include the things you want. So at best some shared definition would be inter-subjectively valuable enough to a large enough group that it can look "objective". This only works within a simple shared culture, where most can agree on value markers because of shared experience and shared value sets. But as groups get larger and more diverse (and groups do get larger and more diverse with larger populations, larger areas, and rapid knowledge / culture sharing like the internet, etc), "truth, beauty, and good" would inhabit very different value markers amount different subcultures. In fact, what Dietrich would probably call "truth, beauty, good", would likely be diametrically opposed to the viewpoints of other groups (let's just use the followers of "the satanic temple" or some other anti-christian group to be grossly opposed). Post modernism would claim both are equally valuable, equally rightful to exist groups, with equally valuable viewpoints. Meta modernism would try and look at the traits and value the ones from each that seem to have higher first and second order "value" for the participants in the group, and could possibly find one take on "truth" better than the other. It might also just find that different value sets work better for different sets of people, and they are equally valuable. But it would "pre-supppose" the equal value of the post-modernists.

Assume that the idea is something like looking at the higher order and emergent effects of having the value system as a way of constructing the value system. Obviously this is not a "winning" process where thought experiments can win out or be perfect, so they usually involve constant tuning and feedback (see all the books from Hanzi as a way of trying to do this at a massive scope).

[Hristo Botev]

Ha! Looks like something I could have written, though I couldn't have written it as succinctly as you did.

From this perspective, was the shift avoidable?

Seems to me man attempting to replace God with himself is THE story of humanity.

We are getting close to a game of mincing language here but "truth, beauty, good" are all vague subjective value markers, to the point that pointing at them as values is pointing at literally anything you want because you can always mutate the definition to include the things you want.

Plato and Aristotle would very much disagree, as would Aquinas.

Interestingly and worth noting is that in the great books seminar I participate in one of the ground rules is that, in addition to not talking about living individuals/current politics, everyone must believe in objective truth/goodness/beauty. Disagreements as to these truths/goods/beauties is inevitable and encouraged and pretty much all that we talk about at seminar, but if anyone throws in a "your truth" sort of mindset, it's grounds for dismissal. Seems right to me, because it's impossible to discuss what is true/good/beautiful with someone who takes a subjectivist position as to these things. Also, "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth claim.

If I can ask, what is the purpose of these various social science type -ism models? Are they meant to be a lens through which to understand institutions and peoples? Why should one take the time to grok what these various -isms are? What's the benefit? Or, dare I say, what is "the good" to the person in grokking the distinctions as between modernism, postmodenism, metamodernism, etc.? Admittedly, I'm one who has yet to see why it might make sense to "progress" (or regress) beyond scholasticism, at least from the level of someone who is just trying to make sense of my role on this earth, my responsibilities to God --> wife --> kids --> extended family --> neighbors --> strangers --> myself. But what role do these various -isms play in an individual's daily life? Are they meant to be practical philosophies? Are they "merely" academic? Are they worth an individual pursuing knowledge of?

[Henry]

Good question. Not sure I am qualified to answer but who cares, it's the fucking internet. I think everyone, irregardless of what they believe would say that it was unavoidable because of the secondary beliefs embedded in their primary belief of what the metaphysical structure of the universe to actually be. What the universe actually is has not changed since its inception, it's just whether your belief of its nature was/is in vogue. In 1322 you would be called crazy if you didn't believe what I believe today (not to mention there was really nothing else to believe into. That took hundreds of years to be codified). Now, in 2022 I am not only crazy for what I believe but I'm a racist menace. In somewhat reductionist terms, historically speaking, it has gone from positive, to neutral, to negative. And I'm not saying modernism has not made contributions to the world. Obviously it has made significant contributions. Post modernism as well because I think DFW is funny as fuck. I am just saying underneath the modernism-post-post post-meta unfolding there are metaphysical truth claims that not to long ago did not exist in the public consciousness. Furthermore, we have come to the point that what it shifted from, Judeo Christianity, cannot be truth, which is much different than treating it as an encounter with another truth claim. That might be required or just a fall out as modernism takes new forms. That being said, I treat modernism as legitimate. I just don't believe it.

[chenda]

I just don't believe it.

What do you believe ?

[Slevin]

Plato and Aristotle would very much disagree, as would Aquinas.

Interestingly and worth noting is that in the great books seminar I participate in one of the ground rules is that, in addition to not talking about living individuals/current politics, everyone must believe in objective truth/goodness/beauty. Disagreements as to these truths/goods/beauties is inevitable and encouraged and pretty much all that we talk about at seminar, but if anyone throws in a "your truth" sort of mindset, it's grounds for dismissal. Seems right to me, because it's impossible to discuss what is true/good/beautiful with someone who takes a subjectivist position as to these things. Also, "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth claim.

I suppose I'm 2500ish years of social and philosophical development later than Plato (and trained in mathematical / physics logic) which makes it hard for me to accept the precept frameworks of Plato without a lot of effort. I think I've grown too nihilistic and jaded to hold completely objective value memes for humans (I assume many will work but some will work better in dimension x or y, some may have better superpositional results when applied to a specific group of people, etc). I also probably shouldn't have thrown "truth" in as a subjective object (at least in the scientific sense), my error in editing.

This isn't to say I'm being dismissive of the value of the classics (they got us where we are now right, and we can't always use now understanding to understand the people of the past who had different frameworks, and argument a la Taleb that it is hard to know what was exactly important from them without adopting it all). And I see the value of your book club rules, if you are reading Plato and Aristotle and Aquinas and trying to argue through their lenses. You have be able to hold the viewpoint to be able to see what the viewpoint sees.

[Henry]

What do you believe ?

I am a Bible thumper.

And to clarify, I did not mean to disparage the incredibly nuanced taxonomies being discussed. Creating a better algorithm is a worthy endeavor and I'm sure if employed properly, it could be extremely beneficial to the pursuit of ERE. Contextualizing it in the the perennial philosophic question of the one and the many, can our ones maintain their onenesses with this many manies? Or is there even a "one" in metamodernism or does it leave the "one" behind in search of gathering as many manies as possible. When do you reach a tipping point that when are internal economy has reached a point of information hyperinflation.

And anyone who maintains even the slightest notion of a fixed human nature can engage with the classics. And if you don't have time to read Plato's Cave just watch The Matrix or The Truman Show instead.

[chenda]

And anyone who maintains even the slightest notion of a fixed human nature can engage with the classics. And if you don't have time to read Plato's Cave just watch The Matrix or The Truman Show instead.

I see. I've tried to watch The Matrix several times and couldn't get past the bit where yer man is trying to escape the cubicle at the gaming company he works for. However, I understand from google its rather like advaita vedanta, which I am very familiar with.

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.