This is a great introductory video for a term I have only come across in the past month or so. However, like several others who commented I had been working with similar ideas motivated not from a philosophical and cultural theorist place but from a hands on everyday experience doing psychotherapy. I began with noticing that I had to use a completely different language and set of psychological assumptions depending on whether I was working with a person who was traditional or modern. Since I live in the southern bible belt of the US and began counseling in the 80s most of my contact was with people with a traditional worldview. I think from working with the public that depending on where you live 20% to 80% of the population will have a traditional worldview and these people should not just be seen as "the problem" their need to be included in this inclusive worldview. The difference between the traditional, modern and post modern set of assumptions and structure of feeling is essential to understanding the culture wars, our suffering, and our psychological experience. I have often said it is the real reason behind most of the divorces I have seen. For over 20 years I have said that we need a new worldview or cultural environment and have worked to bring this to individuals and the local environment. However, I used to say that we were like preemies who had to build our own incubator, well with the metamodern there is finally an adequate incubator or culture that can help many more of us thrive. I hope to work with this channel and anywhere I can to help flesh out how the metamodern is already present in the areas of psychotherapy, education, and community building.
Thank you for this video - I agree it is dense, but time limitations are a characteristic of our lives. You have opened a door to what I have been searching for - to inform the work I am doing. I believe learning more about metamodernism will give me a platform to develop.
Bless you Brendan! Yours is a “bandwagon” I can definitely jump upon! While I remain heavily influenced by the Traditionalist School of Philosophy (maintaining a “commitment” to one Tradition in particular), the School suggests a “higher commitment” to the Perennial Philosophy. Metamodernisn is also a vehicle for developing a “personal mythology” (I’m a Romantic at Heart!). I look forward to reading all the books in the Metamodern Spirituality Series, and plan to support your work.😊👍
Cool to hear this lexicon. I have been calling this the era of integration. Doing the sequential: hunter gatherer, agricultural, industrial, information, and we are firmly in integration
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey I am not. Interested to learn. I’ve been developing my own thought processes and would love to see what the people who are miles ahead have come up with
@@RepentRenew McLuhan mentions that since we live in an age of electricity and automation, the medium tend toward integration as print and mechanical technology tends toward fragmentation.
Nothing is ever new in that sense. Hegelian dialectics suggest 3 step-process of human development: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. In this case, modernism is a thesis, an initial idea; postmodernism is antithesis, an opposing idea; and metamodernism is synthesis, a clashing of previous two forming a new higher-level idea. It's how we develop through history.
@@gagi6294 Hegelian dialectics is not the be-all and end-all, of understanding processes in the world, but rather a theory that must be rejected if you want to make sense of anything at all. The metamodernist synthesis, if it sticks, will be the final nail in the coffin which Truth will be buried in. In the manifestation of this dialectic in question here, already the modernist paradigm was full of absurdities. But instead of stepping back and reevaluate, we allowed the postmodernists (if one may even generalize them like this) to formulate an even more absurd position, that is the rejection of any actual position, that any metanarrative could be truer than any other, and thus truth became relative, and in a sense absurd, because how could you posit that your truth is more truthful than my truth? Alas, we now allow the naivete of modernism and the cynical rejection of the modernist naivete in the postmodern position, reconcile in what amounts to what seems to me like a complete victory of the absurd: the acceptance as well as embracing of it. Maybe nothing is can be proven true, but let's pretend like we believe in some truth anyway.
Brendan, your take on the development between modern and postmodern has a common mistake in it: You frame it only as a "critique" ; Post modernity wasn't only a critique of modern philosophy, it was addressing problems with the ways modern philosophy handles knowledge and language: The problem that for example, Modern philosophy depends too much in a structuralist approach and that it presupposes that language doesn't change through the ages. It is a well known fact that language in fact changes and evolves; Making old knowledge increasingly alien as time increases the "cultural distance" between generations. The reason the post modern philosophers didn't drop the "modern" part is that in essence postmodernity is not a philosophical doctrine but instead a series of problems that these thinkers saw in modern philosophy. They we huge fans of modern philosophy and they didn't want to replace it, but rather address these problems and predict what the outcomes would be if these issues continued. This is why postmodernity is often called a "descriptor" One of the biggest issues i see with philosophy discussed in you tube is that these philosophical systems are not seen as reactions or amendments on the past but rather as opposed one to another. But the truth is there is still a lot of modern thinking in our legal and economic systems. Modern and classical forms of art flow together with the postmodern. Residual doctrines flow with the emergent. Looking at everything as opposing forces makes us forget about the individual particular missions these philosophers were addressing. It turns nuanced systems of belief into football teams or fandoms. One of the biggest problems with Metamodern thinking is that mostly it emerged as an aesthetic movement. and it is quickly dying as one as well. Metamodernism doesn't address the fact that a lot of postmodern predictions came true and they continue to become true as we move into a society where is difficult to pinpoint what is truth and what is fiction because of the explosion of conflicting information we are always under. A lot of Metamodern thinking feels shallow , almost like the new age movement in the 90's The reason I found this video is because I'm trying to find some depth in metamodern philosophy. but sadly I mostly find misunderstandings of how philosophy developed.
Nice, makes sense and easy to digest. Sounds like metamodernism is postmodernism without greed and rampant consumerism. Sounds like a good place to head for. With you on the spiritual side of things, a spiritual evolution of the species would solve many problems. Knowing who we really are as a species would be super useful, perhaps AI will unexpectedly take us there by accident.
The spirit of the age, has to be defined by the events of the age, not just out of touch intellectuals, as such our current age is defined by environmental pressures leading to wars, wether this gets worse or better remains to be seen. So will we see decades of progress or destruction will be what defines the zeitgeist.
If the spirit of the age came from another dimension like a Messiah, this would make sense. This phrase is coined always post facto, after it's almost ended.
This is exactly what I have been looking for! Thank you! Are there any particular books on metamodernism, and specifically metamodernist spirituality you would recommend?
Great! Glad it helped. As for books on metamodern spirituality, you can check out my book series titled (appropriate enough) the Metamodern Spirituality Series. Book descriptions here: www.brendangrahamdempsey.com/writing. Also recommended: ""Metamodernity: Dispatches from a Time Between Worlds," specifically Layman Pascal's article (www.amazon.com/Dispatches-Time-Between-Worlds-metamodernity/dp/1914568044). Many folks writing in the Integral community (and the works of Ken Wilber in particular) Layman Pascal rightly thinks of as "metamodern theology." As for metamodernism more generally, I'd definitely pick up Hanzi Freinacht's "The Listening Society," (www.amazon.com/Listening-Society-Metamodern-Politics-Guides/dp/8799973901/) and Lene Rachel Andersen's "Metamodernity: Meaning and Hope in a Complex World" (www.amazon.com/Dispatches-Time-Between-Worlds-metamodernity/dp/1914568044/).
I've had a tough time with the "oscillation" idea, because (though it scratches my Jungian itch) it doesn't seem to capture what's happening. Isn't it more of a simultaneous and immediate transcendence and inclusion of prior narratives rather than a bouncing back and forth? Isn't is more like a hologram that emerges when the previous narratives are charged with sufficient energy?
Yes, I think you’re right. The “oscillation” language comes from Vermeulen and van den Akker’s formulation, but I think the “transcend and include” language from Wilber is ultimately more fitting.
I think both apply. There is a new vision that cannot be unseen but there is a slight back and forth for a while as our eyes adjust to the new conditions.
I found this through a song and didn't understand these complicated explanations so here's a summary for dumb people like me: Basically we should critique our old beliefs and if we find out that the truth is those beliefs suck for humanity then we should change our beliefs to the thing that's good for humanity and not be closed minded to new and weird ideas that go against our current beliefs hope that makes sense. Anyway, great idea. Evolving our beliefs to better ones seems like a no brainer.
Well, metamodernism isn't exactly a critique of postmodernism, but a synthesis of postmodernism, modernism, and traditionalism, and whatever might occur before that. There is value in all of these perspectives and each one is needed to build on top of eachother. Each perspective has its place. A metamodernist perspective would consider, perhaps, treating the earth and humanity with a traditionalist perspective, that is, all life is sacred and should be honored as such, WITHOUT the harsh rule of the state. The postmodern perspective considers all viewpoints, but the hyperindividualism could be combatted with a traditionalist or modernist perspective. Think of it most as a synthesis of perspectives rather than a critique of just postmodernism!
As far as integral, the problem is that while we can recognize that each different school of thinking has value, I believe we still have to prioritize them. Wilber would have us believe we can see them all as being equal but I strongly disagree.
Each level is seen as valuable in that it has its own important purposes. Each evolution has its benefits and drawbacks, and everyone must gp through each of the levels to arrive at the conclusion of metamodernism. One does not go from becoming a staunch traditionalist to a post-modernist who values so many perspectives, it is very much a slow process, so each level matters.
I am aware of Paul's work, but haven't watched much of it. I know Vervaeke and Henriques well, and Damien Walter, too (all guests on my Metamodern Spirituality podcast, actually). Would like to become more acquainted with Paul, the work and the person. I hope we have a chat at some point. :)
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey he's been talking about metamodernism after Bishop Barron's talking about Mrs. Davis and using Thomas Flight's recent hit video ruclips.net/video/-HJHmxGcpzo/видео.html
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey awesome, there's tons of content :-) I just replied with three separate YT links (I know YT sometimes prevents links in comments)
Would one consider Slavoj Zizek a Meta-Modern Theorist? Cuz Hegel and Marx are Modernists, And Lacan is a Post-Modernist, He also talks a lot about Christianity generally a Traditionalist View. He seem to transent and work with figures from all these traditions!
Metamodernism seeks to integrate all of the previous viewpoints into a synthesized holistic perspective. It's not about making a judgment or critique necessarily but rather discussing the broad spectrum of integral levels of consciousness. The previous levels, such as post-modern modern and premodern, have a natural criticism amongst each other, viewing the others as inferior or bad. Metamodern analysis seems to unite all the levels of analysis and essentially create a more balanced perspective that has less bias overall. Premodernism (traditional): tends to focus on preservation, consistency, and collective morality while criticizing diverging from the collective order. Modernism: tends to focus on progressing the material or intellectual world valuing intellect and pragmatism and criticizes emotional or intuition based reasoning that is not peer reviewed or easily measurable. Postmodernism: tends to focus on the progression of social equality and egalitarianism. It values relativism and going outside of what is normal. It values the free sharing of information and shared collective emotions. It seeks to improve or grow itself as an individual with self-directed authority. It criticizes the status quo, dualistic thinking, perceptual objectivity, hard unchanging logic, and hedonic maximalism. Metamodernism: tends to focus on the synthesis and understanding of all of the previous stages. It seeks to integrate the strengths and deconstruct the weaknesses of each stage. It seeks a holistic, non dualistic, integral vision of everything. It seeks to criticize the critical and create a more inclusive perception of reality that includes the sensory, Intuitive, emotional, and thinking of the previous stages to begin to communicate with all walks, ages, cultures, and stages respectfully and inighfully.
Thank you for the video. A too overwhelming term, somehow pointless. I prefer the Liquid Modernity or Late Modernity. What are your thoughts on these other theories?
Listened carefully, thought about it deeply, and walked away with at best a vague idea of what was presented. Needs further clarification with concrete examples. Hopeful that I may come to understand. Might want to focus a bit on the word meta and explain how or why that modifies or influences modernism.
You may want to consult my other videos for a deeper analysis. I'd suggest checking out the 3 videos on metamodernism in my After Postmodernism series (or the whole series). This is just an intro.
This seems to be a description of what metamodernism isn’t rather than a description of what it is. Is it a form of inquiry or a type of ethics? Does it have it’s own specific axioms or methodologies? And if so, what are they?
For more about what metamodernism IS, you can see my two lengthier videos on this topic: ruclips.net/video/i-0zSy6nkoQ/видео.html ruclips.net/video/6UHMfa2wCSE/видео.html
Metamodernism sounds like radical centrism. I feel it's just a philosophical manifestations of the "we need to hear out both sides" meme. If that's the case, it's not going to change anything.
So . . . What is the difference between 'MetaModernism' AND 'Integral Theory' ? SoundsLike . . . 'Integral Theory' to me sans the personality & recognition of TheLifeWork of Ken Wilber ? So . . . Does MetaModern TransClude 'Wilberian' Integral? AndOr Is IT just a lateral move by Wilberian Integral 'students' to MoveTheMovement 'Forward'? DanceOn . . .
Everything I hear about this dialectical step into metamodernism, sounds a lot like accepting the death of epistemology in the Aristotelian sense, that is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that he formulated with the law of non-contradiction.
You failed to emphasize the extent to which modern virtues still exist within meta modernism, like truth, as something that can be pointed to but never gripped, as well as those of postmodernism, like relativism.
I don't think this current transcends and includes most of postmodernism. It looks more like a wider version of modernism that, as a response to postmodernism, tries to integrate those people that have been marginalized by modernity and also integrate some aspects of postmodernism. It also seems to communicate a message whose essence is serious in its great majority in order to attract modernists and it covers that essence with a somewhat joking form to attract postmodernists. Seriousness is typically linked to modernism, modernized interpretations of postmodernism and most of premodernism, while postmodernism is typically linked to joking. When the essence of a message is in its great majority serious instead of significantly joking and maybe serious to some degree, the message is probably modern or premodern and/or an expansion of modernism or of a form of premodernism. The cases related to modernism apply to metamodernism in some senses. It is at its core mainly modernism but its limits are much beyond it. It includes some parts of postmodernism, but not most of it, and it definitely doesn't transcend it. Postmodernism is a set of metaparadigms from which observe, deconstruct, question, and transcend paradigms and their narratives. That includes being skeptical of the modernized but antimodern interpretations of postmodernism such as critical theories. It also implies skepticism toward modernism, and yes, toward metamodernism too. It is useful to construct a consensual reality to facilitate the interaction among individuals with diverse ideologies, and future forms of metamodernism will probably be the main ideologies through which that consensual reality will be constructed. I say future forms of it because the current ones seem quite immature if they boast about transcending and including postmodernism in general when they don't and very probably will never do. The metamodern paradigms and the postmodern metaparadigms will have to learn to coexist and collaborate. Postmodernism will permeate the borders of the mainly metamodern consensual reality and it will also permeate the space between the individual ideologies and this new consensual reality.
Why the Civil Rights movement championed by Dr ML King Jr lumped together with postmodernity? In his speeches and writings King was very much Christian and biblical by thought and conviction. In fact, he stands in the traditional of the Old Testament prophet like Jeremiah who spoke out against a ruling power under God's judgment.
Indeed. Though Dr. King and the civil rights movement more broadly can also be seen as part of a cultural shift to integrate historically marginalized and oppressed voices--a project characteristic of postmodernity. That was the angle/emphasis here, though many lenses can of course be used.
"Claim"? "Method"? What world are you living in?, you wanna a "method"?, how about we ether change the way we conduct ourselves in the finite world we hope to suck the life out of, slowly killing both ourselves and our earth in the process, causing trickle down effects on our social life, bring into being repetitive "issues" that never truly get solved while still becoming worse and worse as time goes on, creating generations of dumb people who fall for the same tricks respectively, OR we can just continue doing the modern human thing of just running in circles screaming "WELL ACTUALLY" about any new philosophy because it offends our own weak will towards actual self realization.
Projection. haha relax there's no bad vibes or anything negative. I never stated any feeling toward their theory. We are all seeking 'truth', I only posed a framing statement expressing that either the theory is incoherent or I am not understanding it, as there was no defining claim(s), axioms of justification etc. I then asked about the relationships within one of the weaknesses. This is psychological and philosophical inquiry basics. Why the intense emotion? Do you have a definition for your version of self actualization? How are you attempting to achieve that? (definitions, methods, & claims) My questioning is coming from a place of trying to develop the theory more. As I do think we are in interesting times and contemporary philosophy has not kept up. Again, no negativity, it's the best in me challenging the best in you.
they have a few ideas maybe (benefit of the doubt) but overall it seems like most of these people are saying stuff without actually saying anything, you're right though
The biggest blind spot on this meta modernist movement that is happen is the way brown and black people are being left out of the conversation again. Just as it happen since the modern movement. The area of study that the creator of this video talks about has been explore by many people of color since modernism. In my view modern, post modern and now meta modernism are still stuck in the same traps. One can hope that as it promises meta modernism becomes a true working system for the modern system a system that does find solutions for all humans and all problems in a oscillation between all the extremes.
Hi. Yes, we certainly don't want to leave anyone out. You write "The area of study that the creator of this video talks about has been explore by many people of color since modernism." Can you direct me to their materials so I can read up on them and incorporate?
It seems like you conflated metamodernism and integral, but maybe all those people mesh with each other. I really liked "informed naivete." What about "postmodern orthodoxy?" Can that be considered a thing now? How much of game 'B' is just "slave morality" in disguise?
Well, yeah. But the characterization of the medieval period is somewhat wrong. That period, in Europe, was a very dynamic, variable, and complex mix with all kinds of progress and development, as well as many dangers and harsh realities, which had no obvious solutions. And many developing traditions. It was not monolithic in space or time.
but compared to how things are now, culturally, societally, things could be considered 'traditional'. Upholding a social order through might, through singular rule instead of democratization; that is the point.
@@kalebb4 Who was upholding a social order through might? From 500 to 1500, Europe was an ever-evolving reality in which Christianity was spreading and really actually creating what can now one identified as European culture. The suggestion the video makes of religion being this very dominating force upon the way people viewed their lives, as if all of Europe was completely Christian that entire time, is just false. Traditions varied by region and language. That's a thousand years, and stuff was happening and changing. The entire story of the dark ages was a PR move made by people in the Renaissance, and much that people think they know about the Middle Ages are outright lies from rampant anti-Catholic propaganda. In fact, rewatching this video just now, the entire thing is wrong. The generalizations and characterizations of what its calling modern and postmodern are not really correct either.
@@peterv7258 Generalizations are indeed general. With how long humanity has been around and within the variations of our lives, yes, this generalization made in this into video is not going to be able to touch upon the nuances of human existence.
Unfortunately, neither postmodernism or metamodernism solve any contemporary challenges connected to problems such as neo fascism, collective psychosis or environmental catastrophe. The wars we see today are just as bad as those hundred years ago, the political extremes are just getting worse and the climate crisis is unstoppable. All these severe dysfunctions in society are acellerating much faster than previously expected. In theory metamodernism is a nice idea, like art or literature, or a fun movie. In reality it teaches us nothing. These last weeks over 4000 children are killed in Gaza. This year will be the warmest in 125 000 years according to research data. This is not metamodernism. This is the stone age.
This is a great introductory video for a term I have only come across in the past month or so. However, like several others who commented I had been working with similar ideas motivated not from a philosophical and cultural theorist place but from a hands on everyday experience doing psychotherapy. I began with noticing that I had to use a completely different language and set of psychological assumptions depending on whether I was working with a person who was traditional or modern. Since I live in the southern bible belt of the US and began counseling in the 80s most of my contact was with people with a traditional worldview. I think from working with the public that depending on where you live 20% to 80% of the population will have a traditional worldview and these people should not just be seen as "the problem" their need to be included in this inclusive worldview. The difference between the traditional, modern and post modern set of assumptions and structure of feeling is essential to understanding the culture wars, our suffering, and our psychological experience. I have often said it is the real reason behind most of the divorces I have seen. For over 20 years I have said that we need a new worldview or cultural environment and have worked to bring this to individuals and the local environment. However, I used to say that we were like preemies who had to build our own incubator, well with the metamodern there is finally an adequate incubator or culture that can help many more of us thrive. I hope to work with this channel and anywhere I can to help flesh out how the metamodern is already present in the areas of psychotherapy, education, and community building.
Thank you for this video - I agree it is dense, but time limitations are a characteristic of our lives. You have opened a door to what I have been searching for - to inform the work I am doing. I believe learning more about metamodernism will give me a platform to develop.
Bless you Brendan! Yours is a “bandwagon” I can definitely jump upon! While I remain heavily influenced by the Traditionalist School of Philosophy (maintaining a “commitment” to one Tradition in particular), the School suggests a “higher commitment” to the Perennial Philosophy. Metamodernisn is also a vehicle for developing a “personal mythology” (I’m a Romantic at Heart!). I look forward to reading all the books in the Metamodern Spirituality Series, and plan to support your work.😊👍
Hi Robin. Glad to hear it resonates! Cheers. :)
Cool to hear this lexicon. I have been calling this the era of integration. Doing the sequential: hunter gatherer, agricultural, industrial, information, and we are firmly in integration
Indeed! Are you familiar with integral theory and the work of Ken Wilber?
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey I am not. Interested to learn. I’ve been developing my own thought processes and would love to see what the people who are miles ahead have come up with
@@RepentRenew McLuhan mentions that since we live in an age of electricity and automation, the medium tend toward integration as print and mechanical technology tends toward fragmentation.
Short and dense! Introduced me to a few new thinkers around this topic! Thanks!
It seems more like a reconciliation between postmodern and modern rather than something truly new.
Nothing is ever new in that sense. Hegelian dialectics suggest 3 step-process of human development: thesis, antithesis and synthesis. In this case, modernism is a thesis, an initial idea; postmodernism is antithesis, an opposing idea; and metamodernism is synthesis, a clashing of previous two forming a new higher-level idea. It's how we develop through history.
@@gagi6294I get it! So, next time somebody has any idea, let's hurry up and have two ideas more to save us trouble XD
@@gagi6294 Hegelian dialectics is not the be-all and end-all, of understanding processes in the world, but rather a theory that must be rejected if you want to make sense of anything at all. The metamodernist synthesis, if it sticks, will be the final nail in the coffin which Truth will be buried in.
In the manifestation of this dialectic in question here, already the modernist paradigm was full of absurdities. But instead of stepping back and reevaluate, we allowed the postmodernists (if one may even generalize them like this) to formulate an even more absurd position, that is the rejection of any actual position, that any metanarrative could be truer than any other, and thus truth became relative, and in a sense absurd, because how could you posit that your truth is more truthful than my truth?
Alas, we now allow the naivete of modernism and the cynical rejection of the modernist naivete in the postmodern position, reconcile in what amounts to what seems to me like a complete victory of the absurd: the acceptance as well as embracing of it. Maybe nothing is can be proven true, but let's pretend like we believe in some truth anyway.
Brendan, your take on the development between modern and postmodern has a common mistake in it: You frame it only as a "critique" ; Post modernity wasn't only a critique of modern philosophy, it was addressing problems with the ways modern philosophy handles knowledge and language: The problem that for example, Modern philosophy depends too much in a structuralist approach and that it presupposes that language doesn't change through the ages. It is a well known fact that language in fact changes and evolves; Making old knowledge increasingly alien as time increases the "cultural distance" between generations. The reason the post modern philosophers didn't drop the "modern" part is that in essence postmodernity is not a philosophical doctrine but instead a series of problems that these thinkers saw in modern philosophy. They we huge fans of modern philosophy and they didn't want to replace it, but rather address these problems and predict what the outcomes would be if these issues continued. This is why postmodernity is often called a "descriptor"
One of the biggest issues i see with philosophy discussed in you tube is that these philosophical systems are not seen as reactions or amendments on the past but rather as opposed one to another. But the truth is there is still a lot of modern thinking in our legal and economic systems. Modern and classical forms of art flow together with the postmodern. Residual doctrines flow with the emergent. Looking at everything as opposing forces makes us forget about the individual particular missions these philosophers were addressing. It turns nuanced systems of belief into football teams or fandoms.
One of the biggest problems with Metamodern thinking is that mostly it emerged as an aesthetic movement. and it is quickly dying as one as well. Metamodernism doesn't address the fact that a lot of postmodern predictions came true and they continue to become true as we move into a society where is difficult to pinpoint what is truth and what is fiction because of the explosion of conflicting information we are always under. A lot of Metamodern thinking feels shallow , almost like the new age movement in the 90's The reason I found this video is because I'm trying to find some depth in metamodern philosophy. but sadly I mostly find misunderstandings of how philosophy developed.
Great video! This is what I'll send to my uninitiated friends from now on.
Nice, makes sense and easy to digest. Sounds like metamodernism is postmodernism without greed and rampant consumerism. Sounds like a good place to head for. With you on the spiritual side of things, a spiritual evolution of the species would solve many problems. Knowing who we really are as a species would be super useful, perhaps AI will unexpectedly take us there by accident.
The spirit of the age, has to be defined by the events of the age, not just out of touch intellectuals, as such our current age is defined by environmental pressures leading to wars, wether this gets worse or better remains to be seen. So will we see decades of progress or destruction will be what defines the zeitgeist.
If the spirit of the age came from another dimension like a Messiah, this would make sense. This phrase is coined always post facto, after it's almost ended.
This is exactly what I have been looking for! Thank you! Are there any particular books on metamodernism, and specifically metamodernist spirituality you would recommend?
Great! Glad it helped. As for books on metamodern spirituality, you can check out my book series titled (appropriate enough) the Metamodern Spirituality Series. Book descriptions here: www.brendangrahamdempsey.com/writing. Also recommended: ""Metamodernity: Dispatches from a Time Between Worlds," specifically Layman Pascal's article (www.amazon.com/Dispatches-Time-Between-Worlds-metamodernity/dp/1914568044). Many folks writing in the Integral community (and the works of Ken Wilber in particular) Layman Pascal rightly thinks of as "metamodern theology."
As for metamodernism more generally, I'd definitely pick up Hanzi Freinacht's "The Listening Society," (www.amazon.com/Listening-Society-Metamodern-Politics-Guides/dp/8799973901/) and Lene Rachel Andersen's "Metamodernity: Meaning and Hope in a Complex World" (www.amazon.com/Dispatches-Time-Between-Worlds-metamodernity/dp/1914568044/).
An excellent and concise summation.
Thanks for the video tho, great simplification for what I was looking for!
Nice video. It was easy for me to understand
Thank you for your continued work covering these topics. Can you provide info/source for the chart at 7:29? It looks super interesting to me.
Sure! That's Ken Wilber's "Quadrants" map (see Integral Theory for more on these ideas). I'd recommend Wilber's book Integral Psychology for more.
I've had a tough time with the "oscillation" idea, because (though it scratches my Jungian itch) it doesn't seem to capture what's happening. Isn't it more of a simultaneous and immediate transcendence and inclusion of prior narratives rather than a bouncing back and forth? Isn't is more like a hologram that emerges when the previous narratives are charged with sufficient energy?
Yes, I think you’re right. The “oscillation” language comes from Vermeulen and van den Akker’s formulation, but I think the “transcend and include” language from Wilber is ultimately more fitting.
I think both apply.
There is a new vision that cannot be unseen but there is a slight back and forth for a while as our eyes adjust to the new conditions.
I found this through a song and didn't understand these complicated explanations so here's a summary for dumb people like me:
Basically we should critique our old beliefs and if we find out that the truth is those beliefs suck for humanity then we should change our beliefs to the thing that's good for humanity and not be closed minded to new and weird ideas that go against our current beliefs
hope that makes sense. Anyway, great idea. Evolving our beliefs to better ones seems like a no brainer.
Well, metamodernism isn't exactly a critique of postmodernism, but a synthesis of postmodernism, modernism, and traditionalism, and whatever might occur before that. There is value in all of these perspectives and each one is needed to build on top of eachother. Each perspective has its place. A metamodernist perspective would consider, perhaps, treating the earth and humanity with a traditionalist perspective, that is, all life is sacred and should be honored as such, WITHOUT the harsh rule of the state. The postmodern perspective considers all viewpoints, but the hyperindividualism could be combatted with a traditionalist or modernist perspective. Think of it most as a synthesis of perspectives rather than a critique of just postmodernism!
So good. Helps calibrate others quickly to my participatory worldview.
- fellow of John Vervaeke
Intersubjectivity and co-creation.
Just saying :)
As far as integral, the problem is that while we can recognize that each different school of thinking has value, I believe we still have to prioritize them. Wilber would have us believe we can see them all as being equal but I strongly disagree.
Each level is seen as valuable in that it has its own important purposes. Each evolution has its benefits and drawbacks, and everyone must gp through each of the levels to arrive at the conclusion of metamodernism. One does not go from becoming a staunch traditionalist to a post-modernist who values so many perspectives, it is very much a slow process, so each level matters.
Are you aware of Paul VanderKlay’s work? He’s talked to Vervaeke and Henriques. Damien Walter hopefully soon
I am aware of Paul's work, but haven't watched much of it. I know Vervaeke and Henriques well, and Damien Walter, too (all guests on my Metamodern Spirituality podcast, actually). Would like to become more acquainted with Paul, the work and the person. I hope we have a chat at some point. :)
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey he's been talking about metamodernism after Bishop Barron's talking about Mrs. Davis and using Thomas Flight's recent hit video ruclips.net/video/-HJHmxGcpzo/видео.html
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey John and Paul's chat at the recent Chino conference ruclips.net/video/Txw9OscbroE/видео.html
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey Two videos between PVK and Gregg ruclips.net/video/3AMW20SOUOo/видео.html
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey awesome, there's tons of content :-) I just replied with three separate YT links (I know YT sometimes prevents links in comments)
Would one consider Slavoj Zizek a Meta-Modern Theorist?
Cuz Hegel and Marx are Modernists,
And Lacan is a Post-Modernist, He also talks a lot about Christianity generally a Traditionalist View.
He seem to transent and work with figures from all these traditions!
That is why he is a MetaModernist.
Metamodernism seeks to integrate all of the previous viewpoints into a synthesized holistic perspective.
It's not about making a judgment or critique necessarily but rather discussing the broad spectrum of integral levels of consciousness.
The previous levels, such as post-modern modern and premodern, have a natural criticism amongst each other, viewing the others as inferior or bad.
Metamodern analysis seems to unite all the levels of analysis and essentially create a more balanced perspective that has less bias overall.
Premodernism (traditional): tends to focus on preservation, consistency, and collective morality while criticizing diverging from the collective order.
Modernism: tends to focus on progressing the material or intellectual world valuing intellect and pragmatism and criticizes emotional or intuition based reasoning that is not peer reviewed or easily measurable.
Postmodernism: tends to focus on the progression of social equality and egalitarianism. It values relativism and going outside of what is normal. It values the free sharing of information and shared collective emotions. It seeks to improve or grow itself as an individual with self-directed authority. It criticizes the status quo, dualistic thinking, perceptual objectivity, hard unchanging logic, and hedonic maximalism.
Metamodernism: tends to focus on the synthesis and understanding of all of the previous stages. It seeks to integrate the strengths and deconstruct the weaknesses of each stage. It seeks a holistic, non dualistic, integral vision of everything. It seeks to criticize the critical and create a more inclusive perception of reality that includes the sensory, Intuitive, emotional, and thinking of the previous stages to begin to communicate with all walks, ages, cultures, and stages respectfully and inighfully.
Thank you for the video. A too overwhelming term, somehow pointless. I prefer the Liquid Modernity or Late Modernity. What are your thoughts on these other theories?
So in short it's about getting better with time by filtering through the pros and cons of all the pre-existing eras like modern and postmodern.
Yes, but I believe we still have to prioritize those different schools. I don't think they can all be seen as equals.
great video. thanks!
Listened carefully, thought about it deeply, and walked away with at best a vague idea of what was presented. Needs further clarification with concrete examples. Hopeful that I may come to understand. Might want to focus a bit on the word meta and explain how or why that modifies or influences modernism.
You may want to consult my other videos for a deeper analysis. I'd suggest checking out the 3 videos on metamodernism in my After Postmodernism series (or the whole series). This is just an intro.
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey thank you. I will do that.
This seems to be a description of what metamodernism isn’t rather than a description of what it is. Is it a form of inquiry or a type of ethics? Does it have it’s own specific axioms or methodologies? And if so, what are they?
For more about what metamodernism IS, you can see my two lengthier videos on this topic:
ruclips.net/video/i-0zSy6nkoQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/6UHMfa2wCSE/видео.html
Metamodernism sounds like radical centrism. I feel it's just a philosophical manifestations of the "we need to hear out both sides" meme. If that's the case, it's not going to change anything.
So . . .
What is the difference
between
'MetaModernism'
AND
'Integral Theory'
?
SoundsLike . . .
'Integral Theory'
to me
sans
the personality & recognition
of TheLifeWork of Ken Wilber ?
So . . .
Does
MetaModern TransClude 'Wilberian' Integral?
AndOr
Is IT just a lateral move by
Wilberian Integral 'students'
to
MoveTheMovement
'Forward'?
DanceOn . . .
It includes and supercedes. As metamodern recognizes cog sci, game b, the positives of religion
Great video.
Everything I hear about this dialectical step into metamodernism, sounds a lot like accepting the death of epistemology in the Aristotelian sense, that is the axiomatic basis of knowledge that he formulated with the law of non-contradiction.
He never metamodern he didn't like. :D
Is it called meta to avoid saying post-postmodernism?
You failed to emphasize the extent to which modern virtues still exist within meta modernism, like truth, as something that can be pointed to but never gripped, as well as those of postmodernism, like relativism.
Postmodern nihilism is the blight of our age. It can only be effectively addressed at the deepest, most profound, spiritual level.
fact
I don't think this current transcends and includes most of postmodernism. It looks more like a wider version of modernism that, as a response to postmodernism, tries to integrate those people that have been marginalized by modernity and also integrate some aspects of postmodernism.
It also seems to communicate a message whose essence is serious in its great majority in order to attract modernists and it covers that essence with a somewhat joking form to attract postmodernists. Seriousness is typically linked to modernism, modernized interpretations of postmodernism and most of premodernism, while postmodernism is typically linked to joking. When the essence of a message is in its great majority serious instead of significantly joking and maybe serious to some degree, the message is probably modern or premodern and/or an expansion of modernism or of a form of premodernism. The cases related to modernism apply to metamodernism in some senses.
It is at its core mainly modernism but its limits are much beyond it. It includes some parts of postmodernism, but not most of it, and it definitely doesn't transcend it.
Postmodernism is a set of metaparadigms from which observe, deconstruct, question, and transcend paradigms and their narratives. That includes being skeptical of the modernized but antimodern interpretations of postmodernism such as critical theories. It also implies skepticism toward modernism, and yes, toward metamodernism too.
It is useful to construct a consensual reality to facilitate the interaction among individuals with diverse ideologies, and future forms of metamodernism will probably be the main ideologies through which that consensual reality will be constructed. I say future forms of it because the current ones seem quite immature if they boast about transcending and including postmodernism in general when they don't and very probably will never do.
The metamodern paradigms and the postmodern metaparadigms will have to learn to coexist and collaborate. Postmodernism will permeate the borders of the mainly metamodern consensual reality and it will also permeate the space between the individual ideologies and this new consensual reality.
Can we say that as much as PostModernism was a "no saying", MetaModernism is a "yes saying"?
How does one decide as a metamodernist? When is the naivite sufficiently informed?
The background music is distracting
Why am I 2 years late to this?
Better late than never. Welcome!
or just kali yuga
This is by far the most boring cycle of the kali yuga out of all of them
Why the Civil Rights movement championed by Dr ML King Jr lumped together with postmodernity? In his speeches and writings King was very much Christian and biblical by thought and conviction. In fact, he stands in the traditional of the Old Testament prophet like Jeremiah who spoke out against a ruling power under God's judgment.
Indeed. Though Dr. King and the civil rights movement more broadly can also be seen as part of a cultural shift to integrate historically marginalized and oppressed voices--a project characteristic of postmodernity. That was the angle/emphasis here, though many lenses can of course be used.
Metamodernism doesnt seem to be saying much at all. Mostly observations with no claim or real method. Oscillation, isn't that just inquiry?
"Claim"? "Method"? What world are you living in?, you wanna a "method"?, how about we ether change the way we conduct ourselves in the finite world we hope to suck the life out of, slowly killing both ourselves and our earth in the process, causing trickle down effects on our social life, bring into being repetitive "issues" that never truly get solved while still becoming worse and worse as time goes on, creating generations of dumb people who fall for the same tricks respectively, OR we can just continue doing the modern human thing of just running in circles screaming "WELL ACTUALLY" about any new philosophy because it offends our own weak will towards actual self realization.
Projection. haha relax there's no bad vibes or anything negative. I never stated any feeling toward their theory. We are all seeking 'truth', I only posed a framing statement expressing that either the theory is incoherent or I am not understanding it, as there was no defining claim(s), axioms of justification etc. I then asked about the relationships within one of the weaknesses. This is psychological and philosophical inquiry basics. Why the intense emotion? Do you have a definition for your version of self actualization? How are you attempting to achieve that? (definitions, methods, & claims) My questioning is coming from a place of trying to develop the theory more. As I do think we are in interesting times and contemporary philosophy has not kept up. Again, no negativity, it's the best in me challenging the best in you.
@@AppliedSpaceit's been 2 years since you have made these comments. Care to critique it? 😜
they have a few ideas maybe (benefit of the doubt) but overall it seems like most of these people are saying stuff without actually saying anything, you're right though
How meta….😊
Bruegel sightings
metamodanism = post Apophatic theology
not really a defition more like conjecture of characteristics
The biggest blind spot on this meta modernist movement that is happen is the way brown and black people are being left out of the conversation again. Just as it happen since the modern movement. The area of study that the creator of this video talks about has been explore by many people of color since modernism. In my view modern, post modern and now meta modernism are still stuck in the same traps. One can hope that as it promises meta modernism becomes a true working system for the modern system a system that does find solutions for all humans and all problems in a oscillation between all the extremes.
Hi. Yes, we certainly don't want to leave anyone out. You write "The area of study that the creator of this video talks about has been explore by many people of color since modernism." Can you direct me to their materials so I can read up on them and incorporate?
umm. For example?
It seems like you conflated metamodernism and integral, but maybe all those people mesh with each other. I really liked "informed naivete." What about "postmodern orthodoxy?" Can that be considered a thing now?
How much of game 'B' is just "slave morality" in disguise?
I like modernism the most ngl.
Well, yeah. But the characterization of the medieval period is somewhat wrong. That period, in Europe, was a very dynamic, variable, and complex mix with all kinds of progress and development, as well as many dangers and harsh realities, which had no obvious solutions. And many developing traditions. It was not monolithic in space or time.
but compared to how things are now, culturally, societally, things could be considered 'traditional'. Upholding a social order through might, through singular rule instead of democratization; that is the point.
@@kalebb4 Who was upholding a social order through might? From 500 to 1500, Europe was an ever-evolving reality in which Christianity was spreading and really actually creating what can now one identified as European culture. The suggestion the video makes of religion being this very dominating force upon the way people viewed their lives, as if all of Europe was completely Christian that entire time, is just false. Traditions varied by region and language. That's a thousand years, and stuff was happening and changing. The entire story of the dark ages was a PR move made by people in the Renaissance, and much that people think they know about the Middle Ages are outright lies from rampant anti-Catholic propaganda. In fact, rewatching this video just now, the entire thing is wrong. The generalizations and characterizations of what its calling modern and postmodern are not really correct either.
@@peterv7258 Generalizations are indeed general. With how long humanity has been around and within the variations of our lives, yes, this generalization made in this into video is not going to be able to touch upon the nuances of human existence.
Unfortunately, neither postmodernism or metamodernism solve any contemporary challenges connected to problems such as neo fascism, collective psychosis or environmental catastrophe. The wars we see today are just as bad as those hundred years ago, the political extremes are just getting worse and the climate crisis is unstoppable. All these severe dysfunctions in society are acellerating much faster than previously expected. In theory metamodernism is a nice idea, like art or literature, or a fun movie. In reality it teaches us nothing. These last weeks over 4000 children are killed in Gaza. This year will be the warmest in 125 000 years according to research data. This is not metamodernism. This is the stone age.
Give me neo-feudalism any day!
I often cringe when I hear the word "spirituality".