Love the channel? Want early access and other stuff? Check out the Patreon page 💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 00:00 Introduction 03:11 The Metamodern Synthesis 05:50 What is Metamodernism? 07:34 Ironic Sincerity: the Tone of Metamodernism
I feel like summarizing this metamodernism as - sincerity that doesn't deny difficulties - grand narratives that don't deny edge cases and nuances - cautious optimism without descending into either pollyannaish naivete or depressing nihilism/cynicism What does everyone else think?
this is certainly what it looks like from the exterior but not the core of metamodernism, understanding the world through an integral perspective allows you to keep your systems in balance and maintain these traits
Alright, after all this time, it turns out that I've been a metamodernist for years without knowing it. This channel is worth every minute of one's time!
My feelings too 100%. But where does this club meet? How does it maintain a spirit of collaboration towards positive change? So many of my friends are wrapped up in despair and/or cynicism.
This reminds me of when I was a college student just diving into the world of philosophy wanting desperately to solve the conundrum of Modernism Vs Postmodernism. I want to synthesize some sort of new, unifying world view that would give new grand meaning to the world and positive direction to the trajectory of history. I called it “Neomodernism” and I used a venn diagram with three categories (‘objective’, ‘subjective’ and ‘meta’) to try to forge a unifying narrative. I ended up just making my own flavor of postmodernism with a "mystical positivity" heavily influenced by Soren Kierkegaard, Immanual Levinas and Quakerism. Anyone seriously trying to step beyond Postmodernism is going to have to answer to Heidegger. I do not see that addressed in "Metamodernism” so far. Every philosopher since has been a footnote to the Postmodern OG as far as I can tell. I apologize for being cynical (hahaha) but this appears to me to be more of an aesthetic project than a serious philosophical venture. BUT I would love to be proven wrong! I will keep watch and love the content.
Ooh now that's a hot take! That sounds like it was an epic undertaking! I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on Heidegger and why you think anyone trying to step beyond pomo would have to answer to him. That sounds like something I need to know!
Steven, I’m really curious as to why you state we have to answer to Heidegger, a little specificity would be most appreciated! Having a “mystical positivity” myself and being a fan of Kierkegaard I fail to see Heidegger’s point, he’s brilliant of course, but to me he just describes the landscape better. Where does he go?
I've been notocing this trend too, but I'd rather describe it as unapologetic sincerity. its definitely more freeing in terms of self expression than hiding under 10 layers of irony, which was the staple of growing up in the 2000-10's
as much as I enjoy a lot of sociological post moderm analysis, this really does adress a lot of it's shortcomings. I hope I'm not falling into the trap of idealising the past, but I always envied modernist movements for how idealistic and ready to take action these people were. but I guess people because disillusioned with idealism after the horrors of WW2, where capitalism communism and fascism clashed and left each party involved more miserable than before. I hope we can come back to a more positive outlook on the future
Find an essay by author David Foster Wallace titled, "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction" and jump to the last few paragraphs. A sample I've committed to memory- "Then next real literary rebels... might we'll emerge as,.. anti-rebels... dead on the page, too sincere... quaint, naive, anachronistic- maybe that will be the point "
The next era will be the opposite of today's era, irony will be replaced by sincerity, minimalism will be replaced by maximalism, rehashes will be replaced by innovation... etc. Think of the current era as "the Big Pause", we are just rehashing, being ironic and minimalistic, just taking in what has happened before, once those of the early 20th century pass away, we will stop all this retromania and move towards a new future.
Truly warm and insightful work as always. I can hardly express my appreciation enough!!! What I'm hearing: Metamodernism seems to be a natural and essential bridge that accepts that it is constantly being built. Much like the philosophy of Daisaku Ikeda and Nichiren Daishonin, and very much in alignment with David Eagleman's work "The Runaway Species". The structure and optimism of Modernism has value as does the perspective and skepticism of Postmodernism. Structures are good if they allow for flexibility and accepts that we will be in a constant process of seeking. Ikeda often speaks of this when discussing how great good emerges from great challenges. Like Eagleman, we accept that there isn't a universal beauty or truth, but a constant process of adding on (80% familiarity, 20% novelty). I'm so encouraged and eager to see what comes next!
Thanks a million Kevin delighted you enjoyed it! Never heard of Daishonin or Ikeda but sounds really interesting especially adding in Eagleman's idea of familiarity and novelty (also new to me)
Excellent summation of transitions between the principles of modernity, postmodernism and the new metamodernism. In philosophical terms we are looking at a Hegelian Thesis (Modernism), Anti-Thesis (Postmodernism) and Synthesis (Metamodernism). As much as I welcome the idea of an end to postmodernism, I get the feeling metamodernism is not going to be a long-lived era just like its predecessor postmodernism. Postmodernism cannot exist without modernism because it is merely a critique of modernism, it is not a self-sustaining, viable new era. As modernism is being rejected and approaching and end, so will its critique which is postmodernism. Modernism is still very much around us and alive in science, engineering, architecture and technology. We are living and will be living in a very modern physical world or house if you will for a while. What the pre-modern age and the modern age had in common was the belief in a singular truth which needed to be pursued. In pre-modernity it was the truth of a monotheistic God which then turned into the rational truth of science in modernity which did not permit what it considered error. Postmodernism with its multiplicity of perspectives now arrived at nearly infinite individual truths which are too many to practically form and build a new era with. The two cannot be easily synthesized because multiple juxtae opposed truths cannot be rationalized and reduced into an elegant energy pattern. I embrace metamodernism as a departure from postmodern disharmony. But I see a reemergence of spiritual truth, integrated with intelligent, life affirming technologies, promoting positive outcomes for all, as being the next great era. It has already begun but is broadly not recognized by the secular rationale of existing modernism and the self-preoccupation of postmodernism. Both are being manipulated by political powers aiming to keep old paradigms of control in place.
I don't think the idea is to abandon modernism and postmodernism but synthesize them. Practically, I think the esotericists had a good example all along: they- and there are many types- tend to see the All as fragmented while simultaneously whole. I look at it as a globe of nodes interconnected into one big network. Esotericists- like those of the ancient mystery schools- tend to see more similarities among the world's great cultures while the orthodox focus on differences. Spirituality aside, I think people have established symbiotic relationships by finding commonality first. We were just in an era where people are retracting into their enclaves. I think a synthesis is primed and in some spots, it's probably already happening. Let's trade notes like certain Knight Templars and Sufi Islamists. Let's seek understanding of ourselves and eachother. Subjective Truth can still ride to a Universal flow. "We must approach subjective things in an objective way." -Dion Fortune (1929)
I love this channel and thanks for posting this. This video kept popping up as a suggested video and I am glad I clicked on it. Not only is Metamodernism the most important idea you will encounter this year it may be the most hopeful idea since 1968. I used this video in two of my discussion groups and realized I had already used one of your other videos on the four quadrants in previous discussion groups. Our discussion group came to the realization that many individuals have been living in this metamodern mind space sometimes for years but it needed a name to become impactful and consequential on the social level. I see it as an emerging and converging new narrative. I have a little saying playing off the family therapy aphorism, The child doesn't need perfect mothering what they really need is good enough mothering - maybe Donald Winnicott. Culture no longer needs the one perfect grand narrative but what we really do need is good enough narrative. I would like to throw my weight and energy in support of this developing narrative, with a special emphasis on this question, "What are the educational and psychological forms and processes and curriculum that can culture or nurture or give birth to the metamodern mental space in individuals and in the larger social culture." I bet small group discussions and dialogue around content like this would be a great start.
I like that you don't dumb down things to a point where they lose substance. That picture of Liberté guidant le Peuple for example is very fitting, and you trust that it will be understood and have an impact on those that will catch it. Your choice of pictures in general allow for those who have followed a different path than yours to attach whatever their knowledge and experiences are to what you speak of. Maybe it would be good to cite the pictures in the description for those who would want to look further into the artist, person or body of work it belongs with. Either way I am recommending you to everyone I know. Stay down to earth, but never stop what you've been doing. You make great food for thought, without a doubt.
Wow thank you so much Vic that's so nice and it's really moving to hear. I can't tell you how much comments like this mean to me. I have thought about doing this with the photos and I do have the best of intentions I've put it it a bit on the long finger for now thinking when I can afford to have someone helping me I'll have more time to make finishing touches like that. I love the way you've framed (no pun intended) the way the paintings work as well. I hadn't articulated it before but I guess that is what I am trying to do
This was fascinating. I remember about 16 years ago at university we did a lecture on the move away from post modernism to an age of super complexity. Sadly I cannot tell what the specific reader for this was...
For a long period I was thinking what could be subsequent revolution to our cultural movement, is it here yet? or is it going to a few decades more? Turns out the revolution has already started in the 2010s.. I am so happy that I found this channel. I have just found out Metamodernism through this video and I shall keep learning about it. Thank you so much for making this. God Bless you.
This is the best easy-to-follow description of metamodernism I have found! But there is one thing needed - what are some practical ways we can apply this outlook to our daily lives?
Fantastic video. You explained modernity and post-modernity in ways I could never hope to. You're video brought together many thoughts I've had with empirical information to appreciate. Thank you for this, you've opened my eyes for the better.
See, my issue here is that I don't think postmodernism excludes the consideration of metanarratives; it just questions them. For example, you can have a spiritual worldview within postmodernism, and you can argue that that worldview is healthy and leads to meaningful progress. It's just that you aren't claiming that you know objective truth or that everyone should think the same way you do. It's true that some postmodernists are awfully cynical, but I certainly don't think that's true of all of them. What I've read of Foucault, Butler, and Deleuze and Guattari don't seem that way to me. And while their focus is in different places, I do think the themes are cohesive enough to group them under the same school of thought. Honestly, my biggest problem with postmodernism isn't its cynicism or rejection of narrative (I do think individual thinkers may have a tendency to do this, but if so, I think it's a failure to live up to the foundational intentions of the movement), but with its focus on the social. That's why I prefer the ontological turn; Karen Barad is someone I like a lot, for example.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Structuralism led into Post-Structuralism which led in Post-Modernism AND Structuralism denies Agency...hence your irritation with Post-Modern minds infatuation with the Arena, or the society, or the system, or the structure, or the environment rather the Dynamic interpentetrating Agent/Arena eternal duality in which we are always Participating in. At best they subconsciously displace, or deny as dissonance, Agency/individual responsibility. That or they do an insane oscillation into radical inarticulable Subjectivism when mentioning individuality.
This video has been exceptionally insightful and has greatly enhanced my understanding of a subject i was finding hard to grasp. I sincerely wish there were more RUclips channels that offered such high-quality and comprehensive content.
But apparently honesty is cringe because being too vulnerable is cringe. So it has to be couched in humour because humour is somehow more trustworthy, or something like that.
Honestly. First impression. I thought he was just another post modern activist. But actually this guy is much much much better than that. I'm learning to listen to someone who is sincerely interested in the truth. What is really going on now and where we are headed. Because otherwise I am just an agent for more confusion. Part of the problem instead of the answer. It's always good to listen to someone who is genuinely smarter and more articulate than you. And shares the same values .
This ironic sincerity of metamodernism reminded me of my reading of Carlos Casteneda's books back in the 1990s. Although laden with whacky ideas, there were wonderful gems of wisdom. To quote, "But we must know first that our acts are useless, and yet we must proceed as if we didn't know it. That's a sorcerer's controlled folly."
Modernism: Crowds following their favourite smart individual Postmodernism: egalitarian collectives deciding things democratically Metamodernism: Individuals finding their autonomous way, focussing on their long-term-interests while seeing others as individuals as well. I think what characterizes metamodernism is the new kind of individualism, that defeats modernism as pseudo-individualistic. It emancipates from show and extravagant self-expression into practical use of the mind's capacities for what seems to matter after personal deduction, not by tribe logic. Metamodernism steps right into the complexity of grey areas, ready to be everyone's hate object for not taking a collective side.
Just wanted to mention it was Prof. Harari's concept of "intersubjective reality" that helped me grasp Metamodernism. For instance, there is now no condemnation of others who live inside their own, more primitive, intersubjective realities.
Something I think is missing is the pre-modern. I think the Renaissance also left out some important things - a connection to past rituals, attachment to the land. Whatever it is that has people resurrecting things shamanism and mysticism. There's some human need that's not being fulfilled. I'm only just delving into this subject, so would love to discuss.
Malevich's "Black Square" put an end to the portrayal of reality and laid the foundations for the development of all modern art. Before the First World War, Hobbes's ideas had reached their limit, as historians say the spirit of war was in the air. 1911 "Gioconda" is stolen the French blame the Germans and France is going to declare war on Germany. Malevich expressed the sense of the inevitability of the approaching end in his "Black Square". Later, his ideas would serve as an impetus for Victor Vasarely and the creation of a new style of art, Op Art, on the basis of which all computer graphics is built. We are on the threshold of the discovery of the quantum computer and here the main role is played by light, so "Victory over black..." • "Victory over black ..." - "Победа... is inevitable
As always, love your take ands accessible explanation. Still seems like solving a problem within and with the confines of the thought system that created it. I’ve been attempting to frame things in terms of reconciling the experience and feeling of things (feminine, abyss, void, mystery, energy, potential) which is where post-modernism would align, with the understanding and logic of modernity (male, reason, consciousness, awareness, contemplation). My point being, however reasonable, ironic, or sincere, meta-modernism doesn’t go far enough. It seems to be still coming from a modernists grasp and conception of the post-modern. Post-modernism seems to make sense but never really does because it’s not trying to, it’s not even in its nature, it’s simply pointing out the flaws and saying fix ’em. It doesn’t care how or even if it can be fixed, it just screams fix it. So, seems to me something’s still missing, but maybe I missed it or maybe you’ll be articulating it in your next episode.
Exactly. I think the move back to the awareness of the importance of #spirituality is a great leap forward from both the secular anti-religious spirit of most modernists, & the cynicism of the postmoderns, but you, I & everyone need to go the whole hog & recognize that the West lost its way when it abandoned #Christ.
@@aclark903 as long as you take Christ to mean the interconnected consciousness of all that is as its meaning and that it is applied religiously (without exception) and not connotating any religion or dogma, then yes, that is a good way of articulating the point. Tao, Buddha-ness, the Self and so on are the same thing, synonyms for the same referent, the sign doesn’t matter to me.
@@aclark903 Nietzsche point to this point with his frase God is dead. Science was the supplant of religion in modernity but it fell short. The logical positivism movement was proven wrong and then what. It all goes back to a question I ask myself when I was 13 years old. Can I be an Atheist Catholic?
As far as I'm concerned, most of Christianity has been "taking the Lord's name in vain." The instant you suggest that *one, specific being* desires for all of us to do or not do *specific things,* is the instant you begin serving what the Gnostics considered to be the *Demiurge.* An evil being obsessed with controlling little people, thrusting squares through circles. As soon as enough Christians are able to stop serving the Demiurge; other religions and secularists can begin to take them seriously, instead of throwing the valuable Christian baby out with the bathwater. Most Eastern religions get along swimmingly enough to pray at the other's shrines, and try to learn from one another. They work together to understand The Eightfold Path, and the many forks in the road. Meanwhile, a million denominations of Christianity wrestle each other while casting shifty eyes at the Jews. When they need to unify, they unify on the dogma of Christ being the supernatural Son of God and rebuke anyone who says otherwise as a doubting liar who doesn't deserve Providence. Telling others to "serve Christ above all else" is *taking YHWH's name in vain,* to exclude the spiritual experiences of all other beings who have seen God's other faces. You're actually *cutting yourself off from God* by doing this in *His* name.
Around 7 years ago i proposed myself to become a "philosopher". I began reading the greeks, then the medievals, to the modern... And I just knew Hegel was the pinnacle of modernism; of "progress". Then I felt the despair of wittgensteins conclusions that all philosophy is just mental masturbation. However, even though I felt the same way as Ludwig, it felt like this "masturbation" was something really important. I have been struggling philosophically the last two years, trying to find my spot in the philosophical spectrum. A need for a philosophical identity. Coming to the conclusion that THE philosophical dialogue has vomited us here, in a void that has too much resolution (post-modernism) to be useful at all. So I cling back to the big narratives, because otherwise it's spiritual, mental death. However feeling that I must lie to myself, in order to believe them. Listening to your video I was literally in tears, because I felt I finally found my spot. And it obviously emerges from the ones who suffer the same predicaments as me. And through philosophical and emotional maturity, comes metamodernism. Thank you for teaching me this. I feel like the final pieces are being set in a bigger than life puzzle. Thanks a lot. I don't even know your name, but please know that I carry you close to the heart.
I here ya bud!...me a man just shy of a shot @ war Gen71Xer....you wanna go in on a Pallet of Progesterone then exchange shaving eachothers Assbeardo's...@ your local Women's Public Restroom..the instructional 12 step tech. has me just find my size 6'2 265lbs...Martha Stewart Strawberry Shortcake Country Estate Sun Dress if you can p/u the 12pack meet you in the open stalls look 4 the Charles's is Paramore women's facilities T for Texas.....yes & its T for Timbuckroomfor2 i can't believe its not real butter you better be willing to work against your The Maker detach from 6th step if your spirit is refusing to family feudalism cant wait to meat 🥩 you security Alastair like Meat🥩on a Hook🪝type of affair...is this Love....Cocreate we openly r to shave eachothers Assweeds your to gorilla glue your to mine mine to yours face what a deal ....can u feel it this is true balance 9 miles skiddin' on a 10mile ride hun bun gravel road WTMixedTeriyakiComboBenzVia i made you a custom biSequenctial personal Benzoid Android cam Application Baster+Taster mmmm sounds tasty don't it...who could have thought Civil...You cam plumborBob your apple ofAdam any1lookin4 somedeepwho can deny who can deny owhyee ohidahoee🥿🙆♀️💃🤸♀️
I can't stop thinking about this lately. There's been a lot of political heat between people. How can we learn to live in a world where there is conflict of idealogies? Why can't people be friends regardless of what we believe? How can we live with peace and harmony even though our beliefs are opposite or different? How can we learn to respect each other opinions without being hypocritical ? Is it even possible to find a middle ground where we can all peacefully settle (without any protest and violence) ? Can philosophy give us answers?
Regarding your 2nd question, I've always thought that people tend to cling onto their believes too much - I feel like part of the solution for this problem is thinking in terms of possibility instead of right-wrong, because why would anyone be so sure about pretty much anything. If a sufficient amount of people (majority perhaps, not sure about where the threshold would be) approached a conversation with the attitude of 'if I'm presented with arguments better than the ones that are linking me with my certain belief I can change it anytime' it would be so great. I understand that this idea is based on a strong belief in reason, I can see risks that it generates, lets not go there though haha The other part is it would be great for the idea of decency (in its purest form, I imagine the word has been used to justify horrible, far from decent deeds) was more popular. I believe that if people were more aware of their limitations and less attached to their worldviews, more decency would follow. How do you feel about that? Is there a flaw in my reasoning, I can see that it might be a oversimplification. It also could not be realistic to consider such a change possible, one could also say that the idea is good but how would one go about implementing it
Around a decade ago I realized the only way I could endure this life with at least a socially acceptable type of insanity and any true joy to compliment the agony which nihilism had endowed upon my soul, as well as sustain another attempt at a relationship I can approach whole heartedly and even optimistically despite my many doubts, I realized I needed to stop being so half assed about life. I needed to take things seriously and be an adult. I decided that I could only do this, not by “trying hard”, and not by “screwing around” and pretending I don’t care to cope with failures, but instead I needed to approach life with an absolute and dead serious playfulness. my expectations had to change from total success or total failure to being fixed in the un-fixedness and sense of delight at the thought of the mythic yet realistic possibilities of my unknown but possibly predetermined, fated future and legacy. I can love my little play I call my life. It’s already been tragic, exciting, sweet, bitter, boring, and exhilarating…so I stopped fearing some one dimensional idea of what my existence amounts to and embraced the multifaceted truths, subjective and objective. I even realized I was simultaneously both an atheist and a devout believer, not an agnostic. I both knew God personally yet knew God didn’t exist. This all seemed to occur to me around the same time and that was when I started describing my life worldview as a commitment to living in a state of stable oscillation within all poles of a metaxy. Omnimodernism, complex integral systems….no label seemed to fit, which worked since that wouldn’t suit my new approach to my life, but a few years later I read the metamodern manifesto and click…my paradigm shift wasn’t just mine, it was the developing perspective among others in the war against nihilism and or lying to ourselves. And it’s the coming global zeitgeist, if not already here!
metamodernism is to me a conceptual, critical space in which to exist within the confines of our condition while being able at the same time to harness difference and create solutions. A flight that at the same time looks for a weapon.
the anarch as opposed to the anarchist? being rather than seeming? are we brought back to the existentialist question or challenge of authenticity. Assertion rather than critique. To be on the verge of creation without worshiping production...
You said something about recognizing that our fantasies our ideas of an ideal world are just ideas or something like that. This is from memory. It's when you were talking about pragmatic idealism. It's obvious, but it's incredibly important and I didn't see that myself. So thanks.
The explosion of modernism, the correction of post-modernism, and finally meta-modernism as a homely return to a sense of continuous history. Modernism and post-modernism were the ace pilots guiding the project of our new mega-techne. I believe this narrative primarily because I cannot help but feel that meta-modernism must have been an attitude for many displaced peoples in history, that certain syncretic mellowness - how else for instance could a religious state be ruled in dignity by a hegemon of another religion if not for an implicit conception of metaxis. Sadly I also do not believe what I have written about the end of phasic history because of the state of the world, how metamodern...
Before we even get into the limitations of philosophy or the misdirection of history we must determine the first 5 steps necessary to simply embark on the road to civilisation: 1. Free food (vegetarian) for everyone 2. Free shelter/housing for everyone 3. Free education (not merely academic) for everyone 4. Free medicine/treatment for everyone 5. Proper and respectful treatment of the elderly everywhere After these steps are taken then we can conjecture till the cows come home... E
and the result will be.... 1. less nutritious food 2. smaller housing 3. more mass indoctrination/crisis advertising 4. more mass medical experiments and inverted quarantines/lockdowns 5. treating the elderly according to the size of their bank accounts after these steps are taken any conjecture will be made illegal and cows will be outlawed.
This interesting. Definitely confirms my belief that in the postmodern era, people refuse to look for answers and just want to be politicians. To them its easier to pick a side and blame the other, than it is to discard it and move forward
The Metamodernism described in the video seems to be a style of delivery rather than a philosophical position. Basically the approach is to take a position, deliver it lightly, and acknowledge its potential flaws. I’m left wondering is what argument is metamodernism actually making.
Great video, particularly liked the placement of BO Burnham as an exemplar of the metamodern, 'ironic sincerity', it is an intriguing place to attempt such a project.
Do you have a video or done any research on Object Oriented Ontology, the philosophy and new theory of everything by Graham Harman? I’d love to hear a video on OOO, it’s a very interesting and worth some reading into!
I'd never heard of it before but after a quick scan of the wikipedia page I have to say it sounds fascinating I'll definitely be checking it out at some point. I was having a similar vein of thought the other day thinking about AI and about Teilhard de Chardin's work and taking a less human-centric perspective. Would love to hear what the OOO folk have come up with. Any recommendations on good learning resources books/articles/videos?
@@TheLivingPhilosophy so I really start to get an base level understanding watching some lectures. Graham presents in a such an digestible way for me. Hopefully this link works to his lecture : ruclips.net/video/bnBoeEF_Kl4/видео.html And then for the book, I’d say it starts with his 2018 publication: Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything Cheers! It is some interesting stuff!
Albert Borgman was the first to call for a metamodernism. In 1992 he wrote Crossing the Postmodern Divide, where he proposed a 'postmodern realism'. The same year he wrote a chapter in a book on a meeting in Valencia (I forgot the name), here he called the same views 'metamodernism'.
Ah thanks a million Brendan! I LOVED your intro to metamodernism and delighted to see all the related content loads of gems to dig into so your kind words mean a lot!
DUDE! I just now posted a comment on someone else here recommending David Foster Wallace I scribbled your name down from a comment I read of yours in a Will Schoder, or Schroeder, video: DFW The Problem With Irony. Cheers and let's hear it for synchronous thought and vivid memory. The universe threads it's needle.
I think Postmodernism was worse in the US because we are very bad at French and German philosophy. Our intellectuals pick up on those parts that reinforce their thinking, but reject the nuance that contradicts it. In the US we take a thought and measure how it will get our policy enacted. Less often the thought impacts the policy.
The depiction of modernity as sure and assertive is simplistic to me. Way before post-modernism there has been a real catastrophy of centainty within science and philosophy. Just think of the Relativity Theory and of the Quantum Mechanics at the very beginning of the 20th century. So no, I wouldn't confuse Modernity with Positivism and Scientism, which were indeed at the end of the 19th century naively confident that they could describe the whole reality and had a blind faith in science.
Ace one dude. I watched all your Wilber stuff a while back, and this is my second time going over these vids. You have put in some real work, and got your head around a lot of stuff, and managed to pitch it for a popular audience. I'm certainly getting a lot of clarity from your work, and presentations. Many thanx. Peace out bro. 💚💛❤😎
And better yet if we can continue to synthesise meta-modernism with understanding about the things and processes that underly / constitute the complex stuff that we have now, which is also the nature of a lot of our problems. Also add emergence and a thorough understanding of it of that, as well as utilising the advances in AI and modelling in general to allow for us to grow our knowledge/understanding about the issues as well as the complex and emergent phenomenon. I think the youth (current) is ready to take forward a new system of thinking, so there's hope that this could gain some momentum at least in the more broad/general idea of meta-modernism. It's something that's already taken root and has formed naturally out of the foundations that are society has been relying upon (which includes for a large part the modern / post-modern stuff).
Good video. I hear a lot of ideas in this video about the mode of tackling large scale problems that the metamodernist perspective entails, but I hear no epistemic justification for it. It sounds like a completely pragmatic endeavor, that's not really about ascertaining what's true, but rather pretend things like, grand narratives, to be true. But who decides this, and how? Who are the agents acting in the metamodernist mode, and how do they epistemically justify this position? Statisticians, using data? Or philosophers? With the increasingly fracture in epistemic fields together combined with ever growing sets of data, how would a dialogue work out, considering that philosophers cannot possibly be an epistemic agent in a general sense today, but rather must be specialized in certain fields; so to create this metamodernist synthesis (if I understand the mode correctly), there must be a communication between these different epistemic fields. Maybe AI will become a crucial tool for this type of work. Maybe there will be need for a category of synthesizing philosophers (a synthesis of statistician and philosopher!) Here are two other questions. -Does the metamodernist bring back Telos into the world? Not as a metaphysical presupposition but rather a pragmatic. -What about the big religious societies that absolutely not would agree that humanity as a whole is going through a meaning crisis, but would rather point out that sections of it might do?
Your recap on modernity as a sense of absolutism I agree with only in part. What Wittgenstein and Einstein did was open the door to relativity (in meaning and physics) by obliterating the absolute (metaphysics, complete and consistent mathematics, and Newtonian space time). Thus they opened the door to post modernity.
Bajtin greatly praises humour because, according to him, in order to laugh at something or mock it in any way you need to closely examine the object in ways you wouldn't need to with other types of discourses. In this sense, we could understand the language of playfulness and irony of our era as very critical of it. Perhaps as a general sense of discomfort with a time that we all understand as wrong and we deeply analyze through humour.
I'm confused as to why Bo Burnam's opening song isn't still cringy. It seems like he's wrapping a self-important, power-differential fueled, mocking of content consumerism message to his audience as a self-aware apology. Maybe that is meta-modern but you can obviously still be ironic, sarcastic, etc. and/or cringy as long as you are showing your self-awareness of doing those things. I thought that metamodernity was characterized by the expression of ultimately genuine narratives and self-awareness was to be used for the sake of vulnerability and a demonstration of a shared humanity.
Something greater than ourselves...a refreshing thing to hear after so many tiresome narrative of musicians, artists, skateboarders, and on and on who basically talk about the meaning of life being them following their dreams, and about doing it your own way. Maybe this metamodernism can help people be a bit more community or even humanity minded.
I agree that we're enduring many crises. Although for me I cannot be crowned with iron-y but only light. I know it's harder for many people to accept but everything we really need is as simple as looking back and tending toward our soil and attending our families.
I'll submit this poem here once again might the reader understand. Inextricable by Your Quality Apologist This knot cannot be unwound.. Tick-tock, fruit falls to the ground. Perennial proverbs, we're cursed to the tree. A snake like a dragon is looking at me! Such slippery slices, who pieced it for pies? We're building a lodge, we measure a G.. Every point on a line, leaves us the Y- (-s-) -z! What's free versus those frisking for fees.. A deity dies, dices what's priceless! Gal in the gallows, a gulag for guy. Oh it's Osiris I-O also ISIS! God! What's the dogma? Dirty dogs in a sty.. A project of vices, to cause all the crisis.. O, designer of mouths, hands and these eyes! So we wander and wonder and isn't for naught.. I was looking for something, sum ring once sought.. I'm seeking a thought, my memory maunders.. Lackluster light know now casts lots.. These guts are all we got! Sheep to the slaughter.. Scape goats weren't what we bought. Retribution, good Gods would not conjure! A gift begotten but eventually brought. For fake fickle feathers Icarus drops! Sly serpents slither right now surely stronger.. Forsaken for now, fear forwardly fought! The glory the splendor, gutsy when shot.. For I'm no slave a true child to foster! Forgive me, for this forgery I've forgot! Forewarned to forfeit if focus of fraught.. What things I stare at when it is that I ponder? Dark glass reflections, a war that I've wrought! Inside are some vessels, on surface cracked-pot.. Siphoning stares I am assuredly squandered.. So as our days near their ends, we are not long in yonder, in all of their honor, temporarily removed from our friends. Writing letters with these pens, A wall! It there to defend. The tickets I've sold to go saunter. Those up feel frisky for flaunter! Travels postponing-work pends. I'm still here for an encore, with back turned to the condor, jokeRs played into a joke to a t-end. I've charged those who offend, O, fend 'er ascend her! My kin! The banter is bond for- What we pretend are not sins.. These nightmares I've conquered, the cold behind- still somber.. What dreams that I long for.. as I aid in a launder.. All the energy simply is spent! All of this will soon cease as our haunter. My treasures' in heaven, pockets are lient!
Sounds great, I'm in. Yay! I'm a part of a thing, but I'm not growing my hair again, no way. I shall vanguard the Metamodern Minimalist Pragmatists. The MMP will be all about high quality personal electronics, low fi music made in basements, and getting stuff done.
Surprised didn’t mention Jürgen Habermas, per Wikipedia, “While Habermas has stated that the Enlightenment is an "unfinished project," he argues it should be corrected and complemented, not discarded.[19] In this he distances himself from the Frankfurt School, criticizing it, as well as much of postmodernist thought, for excessive pessimism, radicalism, and exaggerations.” Seems to fit within what the video discusses.
And you know what he's a massive influence on Wilber who's the main influence on Hanzi Freinacht so you are right to make the connection. Him and Foucault had some words about Enlightenment. I think he'll end up being a big deal for me at some point but for now I remain ignorant of most of his thinking
@@TheLivingPhilosophy My impression of comments about him is that he thought deconstruction was a dead end, so needed a philosophy to build with. A panelist on Partially Examined Life said Habermas is a popular writer with students.
I doubt it. Introducing words while we do not understand words like "love", "hypocricy" or "woman". It is all feigned kindness and accountability, and it is going to crumble: "Fake it till it overwhelmes you."
How about challenging the source of the crises? Challenging the notion of crises pedalled by those who would control you. Defend your humanity - it doesn't change.
I would put metamodernism as a necessary synthesis and cautious resolution to the tension coming from this inevitable modernism-postmodernism thesis-antithesis thingy
I don't use irony as a delivery mechanism for deep sincerity. I use openness as a delivery mechanism for deep sincerity. I share with people how I feel, what I love, how my environment connects to my childhood memories. And they in turn shit all over it. They goad me, saying these old houses will soon be demolished, you're living in the past. If you want warmth and coziness, you better find a girlfriend, because you won't find it in society. I say how wonderful those traditional villages are in the mountains in Asia. And they cringe and say there's nothing good about traditional culture, it can be pretty backwards.
Woah shits insane. This school of thought has been something I’ve stumbled across thru my own self observation. Glad there is already a term and some sort of structure behind what could be the next step for us. A year late but nonetheless great video!
Metamodernism is simply an admission by certain cohorts that no matter how hard they tried, they didn’t get their way. We live life on LIFE’S terms, not the other way around.
metamodernism or ironic sincerity specifically is just postmodernism pt. 2 it's rooted in shame, denial and avoids the hard subjects by holding on them with only a weak grasp. For society to move on one must be able to embrace even the most viscerally cringe in full sincerity probably even with a stronger grip.
I don't think ironic sincerity is what we need. Bo Burnham's apology or whatever is palatable not because it has a layer of irony, but because it is expressed via an artistic medium. If I am a fan of a poet, and he doesn't write anything for a while, I don't want from him an essay or a tweet in which he apologies for not writing, I want a poem. If that poem then addresses his lack of writing, and a bonus, my own frustration waiting for him, than he will be forgiven. This honestly is a can of worms in terms of how we comodify art and expect artists to have output, thus them being the producers of a product rather than artists, i.e. why would he need forgiveness in the first place, but I digress. To get back to Bo, the irony works for him because he is a comedian, and irony is an aspect of comedy. Irony IMO is dangerous, as it allows us to backtrack if needed, introduces a layer of ambiguity in the interpretation of the art, which can then be co-opted towards a certain goal by a third party (see "Starship Troopers"), and it separates us from the reality of our feelings, while also enabling us to participate in harmful actions that we would otherwise not agree with (see Joker in "Full Metal Jacket"). I think irony is good as a coping mechanism, but making it the an integral part of a new philosophy seems to me to not be conducive to a long lasting paradigm shift.
Dude, you're so fucking serious. You make everything you say sound sooooo important. Are we really in all of these crises? I look outside and the sun is shining and the birds are singing. Life feels fucking awesome! When is life, the "world," this whole shebang NOT in flux, in change, in the process of birth and death, of one world dying and another being born? Reality IS liminality. For those who don't see change as the only constant the world is in never-ending "crisis."
Thank you for this video, much to ponder as always. Can I recommend Jessica Benjamin, particularly 'Beyond Doer and Done to: Recognition Theory, Intersubjectivity and the Third'? there is a free PDF otherwise the book costs 4 million quid... apologies if you're already familiar, but I think (in my ignorance) that recognition theory and the intersubjective third suggests a way in which metamodernism can be manifested in human relations... not exactly a playbook but possible guide rail? all best
Cool I shall check it out and see if I can avoid paying the 4 million quid while I'm at it! Sounds like a fascinating new theory to add into the mix thanks for sending her my way
Metamodernism is DFW's new sincerity schtick with extra theoretical frills. People have been pushing for something beyond PoMo for at least 10 - 15+ years but we have yet to even find the door.
really enjoying the channel. now i understand why some academics say and know, the post modernist ideology will be a flash in the pan. i guess when a philosophy is just anti the previous one, then it has really nothing to offer and implodes on itself. maybe a needed intermediate between modernist and meta?
Metamodernism “Meta” means in-between It’s in between postmodernism and modernism, but not exactly in between. It combines ideas from both categories. We have complex problems so we need a complex solution, modernist answers were too simplistic, we trusted in grand narratives, in the possibility of ideas that could explain everything’s and create a utopia. Einstein believed that his theory of relativism could explain all of physics, Marx beloved that all conflict could be understand through class struggle and all social changes could be explained through technological change, Freud believed that all psychiatric disorders could be explained through repression of sexuality and sexual trauma, Kant believed that all conflicts could be resolved through rationalism which would bind people together. Postmodernism rejects these grand-narratives and is characterised by skepticism, apathy, cynicism and relativism. It tears other ideas down but doesn’t create any of its own. We need a grand narrative, but it must be extensively tested.
My problem with all philosophers is that they're brilliant people, and brilliant people tend to hyper focus on one thing. Imo the hyper fixation on the thing is the problem, but I'm also not a philosopher tho so what do I know
I'm relatively friendly toward postmodernist thought, and while I find metamodernism attractive, I honestly do not see how it is different from (at least the less giddy forms of) postmodernism. Honestly, when you talk about metamodernists unapolagetically holding to grand narratives they realize to some degree are necessary illusions/fictions, I think of Nietzsche and Foucault, who seemed to both say something similar. Foucault knew that we could not abandon epistemes, or networks of power relations, even if we knew they were contingent and historically produced. He pointed out that the same contingencies that constrain us also in some sense form us. We can't remove them without becoming formless. Rorty's "liberal ironism" said the same. Both were firmly postmodern. I get that some postmodernists were sort of giddy and got carried away with the alleged freedom in recognizing contingency and heterogeneity. But I can't see how the more nuanced of the postmdoernists didn't already identify anything good about metamodernism. What am I missing?
Very beatiful term:"ironic sincerety". You gathered fighting ideas of two approaches very succesfully. just I am not sure to coin a new term as metamodernismmay help, it may easily give way to a "post" one. Rather to rehabilate illnesses by emposing new terms, just to explain the weaknesses as you very succesfully do here, might trigger to think a bit more delicately and help to eliminate arrogance.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the channel? Want early access and other stuff? Check out the Patreon page
💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction
03:11 The Metamodern Synthesis
05:50 What is Metamodernism?
07:34 Ironic Sincerity: the Tone of Metamodernism
Yay, I do!
Done!
@@LeonVelazquez Thanks Leon!!
Source on painting at 1:48?
@@JakeTvisterOfficial De windstoot by Léon Spilliaert commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L%C3%A9on_Spilliaert_(1904)_-_De_Windstoot.jpg
I feel like summarizing this metamodernism as
- sincerity that doesn't deny difficulties
- grand narratives that don't deny edge cases and nuances
- cautious optimism without descending into either pollyannaish naivete or depressing nihilism/cynicism
What does everyone else think?
I think it’s everything I’ve been looking for
Isn't this framing Metamodernism to the younger generation of Gen Zs. DOn't u think it's a bit premature to define it as such?
this is certainly what it looks like from the exterior but not the core of metamodernism, understanding the world through an integral perspective allows you to keep your systems in balance and maintain these traits
Alright, after all this time, it turns out that I've been a metamodernist for years without knowing it. This channel is worth every minute of one's time!
Haha result! Glad you now have a name to stick on it! Thank you for the kind words.
I got exactly the same feeling watching it. Idealist pragmatism is the perfect oxymoron. I need to read about this, I found my home!
I'm still a modernist, but a pre-Kantian one. Rousseau, Kant, Hegel ruined modernity 200 years ago and more.
I agree. 55 years old and I finally found my school.
My feelings too 100%. But where does this club meet? How does it maintain a spirit of collaboration towards positive change? So many of my friends are wrapped up in despair and/or cynicism.
This reminds me of when I was a college student just diving into the world of philosophy wanting desperately to solve the conundrum of Modernism Vs Postmodernism. I want to synthesize some sort of new, unifying world view that would give new grand meaning to the world and positive direction to the trajectory of history. I called it “Neomodernism” and I used a venn diagram with three categories (‘objective’, ‘subjective’ and ‘meta’) to try to forge a unifying narrative. I ended up just making my own flavor of postmodernism with a "mystical positivity" heavily influenced by Soren Kierkegaard, Immanual Levinas and Quakerism. Anyone seriously trying to step beyond Postmodernism is going to have to answer to Heidegger. I do not see that addressed in "Metamodernism” so far. Every philosopher since has been a footnote to the Postmodern OG as far as I can tell. I apologize for being cynical (hahaha) but this appears to me to be more of an aesthetic project than a serious philosophical venture. BUT I would love to be proven wrong! I will keep watch and love the content.
Ooh now that's a hot take! That sounds like it was an epic undertaking! I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on Heidegger and why you think anyone trying to step beyond pomo would have to answer to him. That sounds like something I need to know!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy agreed. I’d really like to know more about this Heidegger view.
Commenting so that I get notified in case of an answer
Steven, I’m really curious as to why you state we have to answer to Heidegger, a little specificity would be most appreciated! Having a “mystical positivity” myself and being a fan of Kierkegaard I fail to see Heidegger’s point, he’s brilliant of course, but to me he just describes the landscape better. Where does he go?
@@dawesgap6544 same, I want to see how this thread grows
I've been notocing this trend too, but I'd rather describe it as unapologetic sincerity. its definitely more freeing in terms of self expression than hiding under 10 layers of irony, which was the staple of growing up in the 2000-10's
as much as I enjoy a lot of sociological post moderm analysis, this really does adress a lot of it's shortcomings. I hope I'm not falling into the trap of idealising the past, but I always envied modernist movements for how idealistic and ready to take action these people were. but I guess people because disillusioned with idealism after the horrors of WW2, where capitalism communism and fascism clashed and left each party involved more miserable than before. I hope we can come back to a more positive outlook on the future
Find an essay by author David Foster Wallace titled, "E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction" and jump to the last few paragraphs. A sample I've committed to memory-
"Then next real literary rebels... might we'll emerge as,.. anti-rebels... dead on the page, too sincere... quaint, naive, anachronistic- maybe that will be the point "
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sincerity
The next era will be the opposite of today's era, irony will be replaced by sincerity, minimalism will be replaced by maximalism, rehashes will be replaced by innovation... etc. Think of the current era as "the Big Pause", we are just rehashing, being ironic and minimalistic, just taking in what has happened before, once those of the early 20th century pass away, we will stop all this retromania and move towards a new future.
You know what would be even more freeing? If people would just say what they mean and not feel the need to be so performative all the time.
Truly warm and insightful work as always. I can hardly express my appreciation enough!!!
What I'm hearing: Metamodernism seems to be a natural and essential bridge that accepts that it is constantly being built. Much like the philosophy of Daisaku Ikeda and Nichiren Daishonin, and very much in alignment with David Eagleman's work "The Runaway Species". The structure and optimism of Modernism has value as does the perspective and skepticism of Postmodernism. Structures are good if they allow for flexibility and accepts that we will be in a constant process of seeking. Ikeda often speaks of this when discussing how great good emerges from great challenges. Like Eagleman, we accept that there isn't a universal beauty or truth, but a constant process of adding on (80% familiarity, 20% novelty).
I'm so encouraged and eager to see what comes next!
Thanks a million Kevin delighted you enjoyed it! Never heard of Daishonin or Ikeda but sounds really interesting especially adding in Eagleman's idea of familiarity and novelty (also new to me)
Excellent summation of transitions between the principles of modernity, postmodernism and the new metamodernism. In philosophical terms we are looking at a Hegelian Thesis (Modernism), Anti-Thesis (Postmodernism) and Synthesis (Metamodernism). As much as I welcome the idea of an end to postmodernism, I get the feeling metamodernism is not going to be a long-lived era just like its predecessor postmodernism. Postmodernism cannot exist without modernism because it is merely a critique of modernism, it is not a self-sustaining, viable new era. As modernism is being rejected and approaching and end, so will its critique which is postmodernism. Modernism is still very much around us and alive in science, engineering, architecture and technology. We are living and will be living in a very modern physical world or house if you will for a while. What the pre-modern age and the modern age had in common was the belief in a singular truth which needed to be pursued. In pre-modernity it was the truth of a monotheistic God which then turned into the rational truth of science in modernity which did not permit what it considered error. Postmodernism with its multiplicity of perspectives now arrived at nearly infinite individual truths which are too many to practically form and build a new era with. The two cannot be easily synthesized because multiple juxtae opposed truths cannot be rationalized and reduced into an elegant energy pattern. I embrace metamodernism as a departure from postmodern disharmony. But I see a reemergence of spiritual truth, integrated with intelligent, life affirming technologies, promoting positive outcomes for all, as being the next great era. It has already begun but is broadly not recognized by the secular rationale of existing modernism and the self-preoccupation of postmodernism. Both are being manipulated by political powers aiming to keep old paradigms of control in place.
Great response, curious what you mean by spiritual truth integrated with intelligent life affirming technology?
I don't think the idea is to abandon modernism and postmodernism but synthesize them. Practically, I think the esotericists had a good example all along: they- and there are many types- tend to see
the All as fragmented while simultaneously whole. I look at it as a globe of nodes interconnected into one big network. Esotericists- like those of the ancient mystery schools- tend to see more similarities among the world's great cultures while the orthodox focus on differences. Spirituality aside, I think people have established symbiotic relationships by finding commonality first. We were just in an era where people are retracting into their enclaves. I think a synthesis is primed and in some spots, it's probably already happening. Let's trade notes like certain Knight Templars and Sufi Islamists. Let's seek understanding of ourselves and eachother. Subjective Truth can still ride to a Universal flow. "We must approach subjective things in an objective way." -Dion Fortune (1929)
I love this channel and thanks for posting this. This video kept popping up as a suggested video and I am glad I clicked on it. Not only is Metamodernism the most important idea you will encounter this year it may be the most hopeful idea since 1968. I used this video in two of my discussion groups and realized I had already used one of your other videos on the four quadrants in previous discussion groups. Our discussion group came to the realization that many individuals have been living in this metamodern mind space sometimes for years but it needed a name to become impactful and consequential on the social level. I see it as an emerging and converging new narrative. I have a little saying playing off the family therapy aphorism, The child doesn't need perfect mothering what they really need is good enough mothering - maybe Donald Winnicott. Culture no longer needs the one perfect grand narrative but what we really do need is good enough narrative. I would like to throw my weight and energy in support of this developing narrative, with a special emphasis on this question, "What are the educational and psychological forms and processes and curriculum that can culture or nurture or give birth to the metamodern mental space in individuals and in the larger social culture." I bet small group discussions and dialogue around content like this would be a great start.
I like that you don't dumb down things to a point where they lose substance. That picture of Liberté guidant le Peuple for example is very fitting, and you trust that it will be understood and have an impact on those that will catch it. Your choice of pictures in general allow for those who have followed a different path than yours to attach whatever their knowledge and experiences are to what you speak of. Maybe it would be good to cite the pictures in the description for those who would want to look further into the artist, person or body of work it belongs with.
Either way I am recommending you to everyone I know. Stay down to earth, but never stop what you've been doing. You make great food for thought, without a doubt.
Wow thank you so much Vic that's so nice and it's really moving to hear. I can't tell you how much comments like this mean to me. I have thought about doing this with the photos and I do have the best of intentions I've put it it a bit on the long finger for now thinking when I can afford to have someone helping me I'll have more time to make finishing touches like that. I love the way you've framed (no pun intended) the way the paintings work as well. I hadn't articulated it before but I guess that is what I am trying to do
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you for the response!
I'll be sure to follow the next pieces you produce. I wish you all the best and good luck!
@@g-manvic3958 Thanks Vic!
This was fascinating. I remember about 16 years ago at university we did a lecture on the move away from post modernism to an age of super complexity. Sadly I cannot tell what the specific reader for this was...
For a long period I was thinking what could be subsequent revolution to our cultural movement, is it here yet? or is it going to a few decades more? Turns out the revolution has already started in the 2010s.. I am so happy that I found this channel. I have just found out Metamodernism through this video and I shall keep learning about it. Thank you so much for making this. God Bless you.
I agree, 💯
This is the best easy-to-follow description of metamodernism I have found! But there is one thing needed - what are some practical ways we can apply this outlook to our daily lives?
Fantastic video. You explained modernity and post-modernity in ways I could never hope to. You're video brought together many thoughts I've had with empirical information to appreciate. Thank you for this, you've opened my eyes for the better.
I truly hope empathy becomes the fuel for this paradigm.
The metamodern mien of the narrator speaks volumes of what the synthesis of the order and disorder of this philosophy is all about.
See, my issue here is that I don't think postmodernism excludes the consideration of metanarratives; it just questions them. For example, you can have a spiritual worldview within postmodernism, and you can argue that that worldview is healthy and leads to meaningful progress. It's just that you aren't claiming that you know objective truth or that everyone should think the same way you do. It's true that some postmodernists are awfully cynical, but I certainly don't think that's true of all of them. What I've read of Foucault, Butler, and Deleuze and Guattari don't seem that way to me. And while their focus is in different places, I do think the themes are cohesive enough to group them under the same school of thought. Honestly, my biggest problem with postmodernism isn't its cynicism or rejection of narrative (I do think individual thinkers may have a tendency to do this, but if so, I think it's a failure to live up to the foundational intentions of the movement), but with its focus on the social. That's why I prefer the ontological turn; Karen Barad is someone I like a lot, for example.
This is a great point and I've never heard of Karen Barad so thanks for introducing me
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Structuralism led into Post-Structuralism which led in Post-Modernism AND Structuralism denies Agency...hence your irritation with Post-Modern minds infatuation with the Arena, or the society, or the system, or the structure, or the environment rather the Dynamic interpentetrating Agent/Arena eternal duality in which we are always Participating in. At best they subconsciously displace, or deny as dissonance, Agency/individual responsibility. That or they do an insane oscillation into radical inarticulable Subjectivism when mentioning individuality.
This video has been exceptionally insightful and has greatly enhanced my understanding of a subject i was finding hard to grasp. I sincerely wish there were more RUclips channels that offered such high-quality and comprehensive content.
Irony doesn't bring trust. Honesty brings trust.
But apparently honesty is cringe because being too vulnerable is cringe. So it has to be couched in humour because humour is somehow more trustworthy, or something like that.
Honestly. First impression. I thought he was just another post modern activist. But actually this guy is much much much better than that. I'm learning to listen to someone who is sincerely interested in the truth. What is really going on now and where we are headed. Because otherwise I am just an agent for more confusion. Part of the problem instead of the answer. It's always good to listen to someone who is genuinely smarter and more articulate than you. And shares the same values .
This ironic sincerity of metamodernism reminded me of my reading of Carlos Casteneda's books back in the 1990s. Although laden with whacky ideas, there were wonderful gems of wisdom. To quote, "But we must know first that our acts are useless, and yet we must proceed as if we didn't know it. That's a sorcerer's controlled folly."
Modernism: Crowds following their favourite smart individual
Postmodernism: egalitarian collectives deciding things democratically
Metamodernism: Individuals finding their autonomous way, focussing on their long-term-interests while seeing others as individuals as well.
I think what characterizes metamodernism is the new kind of individualism, that defeats modernism as pseudo-individualistic. It emancipates from show and extravagant self-expression into practical use of the mind's capacities for what seems to matter after personal deduction, not by tribe logic. Metamodernism steps right into the complexity of grey areas, ready to be everyone's hate object for not taking a collective side.
Great refreshers, your vids. Any chance you could identify for me that painting of the two swans at 5:50?
Just wanted to mention it was Prof. Harari's concept of "intersubjective reality" that helped me grasp Metamodernism. For instance, there is now no condemnation of others who live inside their own, more primitive, intersubjective realities.
Something I think is missing is the pre-modern. I think the Renaissance also left out some important things - a connection to past rituals, attachment to the land. Whatever it is that has people resurrecting things shamanism and mysticism. There's some human need that's not being fulfilled.
I'm only just delving into this subject, so would love to discuss.
I love the 'playful' aspect of metamodernism
I know right! Every philosophy needs a little more playfulness
And while watching the video I thought, where is it??
Malevich's "Black Square" put an end to the portrayal of reality and laid the foundations for the development of all modern art. Before the First World War, Hobbes's ideas had reached their limit, as historians say the spirit of war was in the air. 1911 "Gioconda" is stolen the French blame the Germans and France is going to declare war on Germany. Malevich expressed the sense of the inevitability of the approaching end in his "Black Square". Later, his ideas would serve as an impetus for Victor Vasarely and the creation of a new style of art, Op Art, on the basis of which all computer graphics is built. We are on the threshold of the discovery of the quantum computer and here the main role is played by light, so "Victory over black..."
• "Victory over black ..." - "Победа... is inevitable
As always, love your take ands accessible explanation. Still seems like solving a problem within and with the confines of the thought system that created it. I’ve been attempting to frame things in terms of reconciling the experience and feeling of things (feminine, abyss, void, mystery, energy, potential) which is where post-modernism would align, with the understanding and logic of modernity (male, reason, consciousness, awareness, contemplation). My point being, however reasonable, ironic, or sincere, meta-modernism doesn’t go far enough. It seems to be still coming from a modernists grasp and conception of the post-modern. Post-modernism seems to make sense but never really does because it’s not trying to, it’s not even in its nature, it’s simply pointing out the flaws and saying fix ’em. It doesn’t care how or even if it can be fixed, it just screams fix it. So, seems to me something’s still missing, but maybe I missed it or maybe you’ll be articulating it in your next episode.
Exactly. I think the move back to the awareness of the importance of #spirituality is a great leap forward from both the secular anti-religious spirit of most modernists, & the cynicism of the postmoderns, but you, I & everyone need to go the whole hog & recognize that the West lost its way when it abandoned #Christ.
@@aclark903 as long as you take Christ to mean the interconnected consciousness of all that is as its meaning and that it is applied religiously (without exception) and not connotating any religion or dogma, then yes, that is a good way of articulating the point. Tao, Buddha-ness, the Self and so on are the same thing, synonyms for the same referent, the sign doesn’t matter to me.
@@aclark903 Nietzsche point to this point with his frase God is dead. Science was the supplant of religion in modernity but it fell short. The logical positivism movement was proven wrong and then what. It all goes back to a question I ask myself when I was 13 years old. Can I be an Atheist Catholic?
@@eliaschevette God died. All Catholics believe that.
As far as I'm concerned, most of Christianity has been "taking the Lord's name in vain."
The instant you suggest that *one, specific being* desires for all of us to do or not do *specific things,* is the instant you begin serving what the Gnostics considered to be the *Demiurge.* An evil being obsessed with controlling little people, thrusting squares through circles.
As soon as enough Christians are able to stop serving the Demiurge; other religions and secularists can begin to take them seriously, instead of throwing the valuable Christian baby out with the bathwater.
Most Eastern religions get along swimmingly enough to pray at the other's shrines, and try to learn from one another. They work together to understand The Eightfold Path, and the many forks in the road.
Meanwhile, a million denominations of Christianity wrestle each other while casting shifty eyes at the Jews. When they need to unify, they unify on the dogma of Christ being the supernatural Son of God and rebuke anyone who says otherwise as a doubting liar who doesn't deserve Providence.
Telling others to "serve Christ above all else" is *taking YHWH's name in vain,* to exclude the spiritual experiences of all other beings who have seen God's other faces. You're actually *cutting yourself off from God* by doing this in *His* name.
Around 7 years ago i proposed myself to become a "philosopher". I began reading the greeks, then the medievals, to the modern... And I just knew Hegel was the pinnacle of modernism; of "progress". Then I felt the despair of wittgensteins conclusions that all philosophy is just mental masturbation. However, even though I felt the same way as Ludwig, it felt like this "masturbation" was something really important. I have been struggling philosophically the last two years, trying to find my spot in the philosophical spectrum. A need for a philosophical identity. Coming to the conclusion that THE philosophical dialogue has vomited us here, in a void that has too much resolution (post-modernism) to be useful at all. So I cling back to the big narratives, because otherwise it's spiritual, mental death. However feeling that I must lie to myself, in order to believe them.
Listening to your video I was literally in tears, because I felt I finally found my spot. And it obviously emerges from the ones who suffer the same predicaments as me. And through philosophical and emotional maturity, comes metamodernism. Thank you for teaching me this. I feel like the final pieces are being set in a bigger than life puzzle. Thanks a lot. I don't even know your name, but please know that I carry you close to the heart.
I here ya bud!...me a man just shy of a shot @ war Gen71Xer....you wanna go in on a Pallet of Progesterone then exchange shaving eachothers Assbeardo's...@ your local Women's Public Restroom..the instructional 12 step tech. has me just find my size 6'2 265lbs...Martha Stewart Strawberry Shortcake Country Estate Sun Dress if you can p/u the 12pack meet you in the open stalls look 4 the Charles's is Paramore women's facilities T for Texas.....yes & its T for Timbuckroomfor2 i can't believe its not real butter you better be willing to work against your The Maker detach from 6th step if your spirit is refusing to family feudalism cant wait to meat 🥩 you security Alastair like Meat🥩on a Hook🪝type of affair...is this Love....Cocreate we openly r to shave eachothers Assweeds your to gorilla glue your to mine mine to yours face what a deal ....can u feel it this is true balance 9 miles skiddin' on a 10mile ride hun bun gravel road WTMixedTeriyakiComboBenzVia i made you a custom biSequenctial personal Benzoid Android cam Application Baster+Taster mmmm sounds tasty don't it...who could have thought Civil...You cam plumborBob your apple ofAdam any1lookin4 somedeepwho can deny who can deny owhyee ohidahoee🥿🙆♀️💃🤸♀️
I can't stop thinking about this lately. There's been a lot of political heat between people. How can we learn to live in a world where there is conflict of idealogies? Why can't people be friends regardless of what we believe? How can we live with peace and harmony even though our beliefs are opposite or different? How can we learn to respect each other opinions without being hypocritical ? Is it even possible to find a middle ground where we can all peacefully settle (without any protest and violence) ? Can philosophy give us answers?
Regarding your 2nd question, I've always thought that people tend to cling onto their believes too much - I feel like part of the solution for this problem is thinking in terms of possibility instead of right-wrong, because why would anyone be so sure about pretty much anything. If a sufficient amount of people (majority perhaps, not sure about where the threshold would be) approached a conversation with the attitude of 'if I'm presented with arguments better than the ones that are linking me with my certain belief I can change it anytime' it would be so great. I understand that this idea is based on a strong belief in reason, I can see risks that it generates, lets not go there though haha The other part is it would be great for the idea of decency (in its purest form, I imagine the word has been used to justify horrible, far from decent deeds) was more popular. I believe that if people were more aware of their limitations and less attached to their worldviews, more decency would follow. How do you feel about that? Is there a flaw in my reasoning, I can see that it might be a oversimplification. It also could not be realistic to consider such a change possible, one could also say that the idea is good but how would one go about implementing it
Around a decade ago I realized the only way I could endure this life with at least a socially acceptable type of insanity and any true joy to compliment the agony which nihilism had endowed upon my soul, as well as sustain another attempt at a relationship I can approach whole heartedly and even optimistically despite my many doubts, I realized I needed to stop being so half assed about life. I needed to take things seriously and be an adult. I decided that I could only do this, not by “trying hard”, and not by “screwing around” and pretending I don’t care to cope with failures, but instead I needed to approach life with an absolute and dead serious playfulness. my expectations had to change from total success or total failure to being fixed in the un-fixedness and sense of delight at the thought of the mythic yet realistic possibilities of my unknown but possibly predetermined, fated future and legacy. I can love my little play I call my life. It’s already been tragic, exciting, sweet, bitter, boring, and exhilarating…so I stopped fearing some one dimensional idea of what my existence amounts to and embraced the multifaceted truths, subjective and objective. I even realized I was simultaneously both an atheist and a devout believer, not an agnostic. I both knew God personally yet knew God didn’t exist. This all seemed to occur to me around the same time and that was when I started describing my life worldview as a commitment to living in a state of stable oscillation within all poles of a metaxy. Omnimodernism, complex integral systems….no label seemed to fit, which worked since that wouldn’t suit my new approach to my life, but a few years later I read the metamodern manifesto and click…my paradigm shift wasn’t just mine, it was the developing perspective among others in the war against nihilism and or lying to ourselves. And it’s the coming global zeitgeist, if not already here!
Wow that was a gorgeous read Rob thanks for that
metamodernism is to me a conceptual, critical space in which to exist within the confines of our condition while being able at the same time to harness difference and create solutions. A flight that at the same time looks for a weapon.
the anarch as opposed to the anarchist? being rather than seeming? are we brought back to the existentialist question or challenge of authenticity. Assertion rather than critique. To be on the verge of creation without worshiping production...
You said something about recognizing that our fantasies our ideas of an ideal world are just ideas or something like that. This is from memory. It's when you were talking about pragmatic idealism.
It's obvious, but it's incredibly important and I didn't see that myself. So thanks.
That was quite compelling. Do you have any books you like to recommend for digging into this more deeply?
Thanks Joshua! The go to book for this is Hanzi Freinacht's The Listening Society. Highly recommend
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thank you, I’ll add it to my list!
The explosion of modernism, the correction of post-modernism, and finally meta-modernism as a homely return to a sense of continuous history. Modernism and post-modernism were the ace pilots guiding the project of our new mega-techne. I believe this narrative primarily because I cannot help but feel that meta-modernism must have been an attitude for many displaced peoples in history, that certain syncretic mellowness - how else for instance could a religious state be ruled in dignity by a hegemon of another religion if not for an implicit conception of metaxis.
Sadly I also do not believe what I have written about the end of phasic history because of the state of the world, how metamodern...
Whenever I encounter a new idea like this it takes a large amount of videos to get a sense of what it is...
Before we even get into the limitations of philosophy or the misdirection of history we must determine the first 5 steps necessary to simply embark on the road to civilisation:
1. Free food (vegetarian) for everyone
2. Free shelter/housing for everyone
3. Free education (not merely academic) for everyone
4. Free medicine/treatment for everyone
5. Proper and respectful treatment of the elderly everywhere
After these steps are taken then we can conjecture till the cows come home...
E
and the result will be....
1. less nutritious food
2. smaller housing
3. more mass indoctrination/crisis advertising
4. more mass medical experiments and inverted quarantines/lockdowns
5. treating the elderly according to the size of their bank accounts
after these steps are taken any conjecture will be made illegal and cows will be outlawed.
Found this channel this morning been binging all day
You are genius
The way I see it, from the way you explain it... Is... That we want our innocence back, basically it's idealism, but, unattainable idealism.
Lucas Fain’s “Primal Philosophy” is a seminal work touching on Metamodernism. GROUNDBREAKING.
Ah! Just looked it up there Joe sounds fascinating!
very interesting movement. Could you make a video analysing hanzi freinatch's thought please
Terminology and ideological descriptions do heal the pre-perceptive setup on lot of phenomenology. Thank you!
This just changed my life dear god
This interesting. Definitely confirms my belief that in the postmodern era, people refuse to look for answers and just want to be politicians. To them its easier to pick a side and blame the other, than it is to discard it and move forward
Politicians ought to be finding solutions rather than profiting from crises.
The Metamodernism described in the video seems to be a style of delivery rather than a philosophical position. Basically the approach is to take a position, deliver it lightly, and acknowledge its potential flaws. I’m left wondering is what argument is metamodernism actually making.
Great video, particularly liked the placement of BO Burnham as an exemplar of the metamodern, 'ironic sincerity', it is an intriguing place to attempt such a project.
So glad I found this channel. Going to post summary of this video (with credits ofc) on my insta blog page.
Very happy to hear that feeling consolidated into an ideology so clearly. Fantastic video.
Do you have a video or done any research on Object Oriented Ontology, the philosophy and new theory of everything by Graham Harman? I’d love to hear a video on OOO, it’s a very interesting and worth some reading into!
I'd never heard of it before but after a quick scan of the wikipedia page I have to say it sounds fascinating I'll definitely be checking it out at some point. I was having a similar vein of thought the other day thinking about AI and about Teilhard de Chardin's work and taking a less human-centric perspective. Would love to hear what the OOO folk have come up with. Any recommendations on good learning resources books/articles/videos?
@@TheLivingPhilosophy so I really start to get an base level understanding watching some lectures. Graham presents in a such an digestible way for me. Hopefully this link works to his lecture : ruclips.net/video/bnBoeEF_Kl4/видео.html
And then for the book, I’d say it starts with his 2018 publication: Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything
Cheers! It is some interesting stuff!
@@D4G13 Ah awesome that's exactly what I was looking for. I'll check out the lecture and then see where that leds me thanks for the starting points!
Albert Borgman was the first to call for a metamodernism. In 1992 he wrote Crossing the Postmodern Divide, where he proposed a 'postmodern realism'. The same year he wrote a chapter in a book on a meeting in Valencia (I forgot the name), here he called the same views 'metamodernism'.
Somebody recently classified my painting as metamodern. I had no idea what that meant. Thanks for the breakdown!
A fantastic intro to metamodernism!
Ah thanks a million Brendan! I LOVED your intro to metamodernism and delighted to see all the related content loads of gems to dig into so your kind words mean a lot!
DUDE! I just now posted a comment on someone else here recommending David Foster Wallace I scribbled your name down from a comment I read of yours in a Will Schoder, or Schroeder, video: DFW The Problem With Irony.
Cheers and let's hear it for synchronous thought and vivid memory. The universe threads it's needle.
I think Postmodernism was worse in the US because we are very bad at French and German philosophy. Our intellectuals pick up on those parts that reinforce their thinking, but reject the nuance that contradicts it. In the US we take a thought and measure how it will get our policy enacted. Less often the thought impacts the policy.
"Rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" ouch, but good metaphor
Aaaah, finally.. the real new avantgarde.
Thank you.
The depiction of modernity as sure and assertive is simplistic to me. Way before post-modernism there has been a real catastrophy of centainty within science and philosophy. Just think of the Relativity Theory and of the Quantum Mechanics at the very beginning of the 20th century. So no, I wouldn't confuse Modernity with Positivism and Scientism, which were indeed at the end of the 19th century naively confident that they could describe the whole reality and had a blind faith in science.
Ace one dude. I watched all your Wilber stuff a while back, and this is my second time going over these vids. You have put in some real work, and got your head around a lot of stuff, and managed to pitch it for a popular audience. I'm certainly getting a lot of clarity from your work, and presentations. Many thanx. Peace out bro. 💚💛❤😎
Thank you for the kind words glad you're enjoying the channel 🙏
loved this, so clearly put and isn't it grand to have a bit of hope in our lives!
And better yet if we can continue to synthesise meta-modernism with understanding about the things and processes that underly / constitute the complex stuff that we have now, which is also the nature of a lot of our problems. Also add emergence and a thorough understanding of it of that, as well as utilising the advances in AI and modelling in general to allow for us to grow our knowledge/understanding about the issues as well as the complex and emergent phenomenon. I think the youth (current) is ready to take forward a new system of thinking, so there's hope that this could gain some momentum at least in the more broad/general idea of meta-modernism. It's something that's already taken root and has formed naturally out of the foundations that are society has been relying upon (which includes for a large part the modern / post-modern stuff).
Would you consider there to be parallels between Metamodernism and Absurdism?
Good video.
I hear a lot of ideas in this video about the mode of tackling large scale problems that the metamodernist perspective entails, but I hear no epistemic justification for it. It sounds like a completely pragmatic endeavor, that's not really about ascertaining what's true, but rather pretend things like, grand narratives, to be true. But who decides this, and how?
Who are the agents acting in the metamodernist mode, and how do they epistemically justify this position? Statisticians, using data? Or philosophers? With the increasingly fracture in epistemic fields together combined with ever growing sets of data, how would a dialogue work out, considering that philosophers cannot possibly be an epistemic agent in a general sense today, but rather must be specialized in certain fields; so to create this metamodernist synthesis (if I understand the mode correctly), there must be a communication between these different epistemic fields. Maybe AI will become a crucial tool for this type of work. Maybe there will be need for a category of synthesizing philosophers (a synthesis of statistician and philosopher!)
Here are two other questions.
-Does the metamodernist bring back Telos into the world? Not as a metaphysical presupposition but rather a pragmatic.
-What about the big religious societies that absolutely not would agree that humanity as a whole is going through a meaning crisis, but would rather point out that sections of it might do?
I can’t stress what an excellent video this was. I thoroughly thoroughly enjoyed it am definitely staying subscribed.
Delighted to hear it Paul thanks a million!!
You pump out such great content so consistently. Keep it up brother
Thanks Trevor!
Your recap on modernity as a sense of absolutism I agree with only in part. What Wittgenstein and Einstein did was open the door to relativity (in meaning and physics) by obliterating the absolute (metaphysics, complete and consistent mathematics, and Newtonian space time). Thus they opened the door to post modernity.
Bajtin greatly praises humour because, according to him, in order to laugh at something or mock it in any way you need to closely examine the object in ways you wouldn't need to with other types of discourses. In this sense, we could understand the language of playfulness and irony of our era as very critical of it. Perhaps as a general sense of discomfort with a time that we all understand as wrong and we deeply analyze through humour.
I'm confused as to why Bo Burnam's opening song isn't still cringy. It seems like he's wrapping a self-important, power-differential fueled, mocking of content consumerism message to his audience as a self-aware apology. Maybe that is meta-modern but you can obviously still be ironic, sarcastic, etc. and/or cringy as long as you are showing your self-awareness of doing those things. I thought that metamodernity was characterized by the expression of ultimately genuine narratives and self-awareness was to be used for the sake of vulnerability and a demonstration of a shared humanity.
I think if you were to stop at that song it would feel like Burnham was still his old self, but Inside as a whole is very sincere.
Great video! Metamodernism seems like an interesting and much needed hybrid!
I know right! Very much fits my feeling of postmodernism not being a dead end but also not being enough transcend and include all the way!
Excited for the post meta modernism essays
Just discovered your channel, You decently explain really complex ideas! Please KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
Something greater than ourselves...a refreshing thing to hear after so many tiresome narrative of musicians, artists, skateboarders, and on and on who basically talk about the meaning of life being them following their dreams, and about doing it your own way. Maybe this metamodernism can help people be a bit more community or even humanity minded.
I agree that we're enduring many crises. Although for me I cannot be crowned with iron-y but only light. I know it's harder for many people to accept but everything we really need is as simple as looking back and tending toward our soil and attending our families.
I'll submit this poem here once again might the reader understand.
Inextricable
by Your Quality Apologist
This knot cannot be unwound..
Tick-tock, fruit falls to the ground.
Perennial proverbs, we're cursed to the tree.
A snake like a dragon is looking at me!
Such slippery slices, who pieced it for pies?
We're building a lodge, we measure a G..
Every point on a line, leaves us the Y- (-s-) -z!
What's free versus those frisking for fees..
A deity dies, dices what's priceless!
Gal in the gallows, a gulag for guy.
Oh it's Osiris I-O also ISIS!
God! What's the dogma? Dirty dogs in a sty..
A project of vices, to cause all the crisis..
O, designer of mouths, hands and these eyes!
So we wander and wonder and isn't for naught..
I was looking for something, sum ring once sought..
I'm seeking a thought, my memory maunders..
Lackluster light know now casts lots..
These guts are all we got!
Sheep to the slaughter..
Scape goats weren't what we bought.
Retribution, good Gods would not conjure!
A gift begotten but eventually brought.
For fake fickle feathers Icarus drops!
Sly serpents slither right now surely stronger..
Forsaken for now, fear forwardly fought!
The glory the splendor, gutsy when shot..
For I'm no slave a true child to foster!
Forgive me, for this forgery I've forgot!
Forewarned to forfeit if focus of fraught..
What things I stare at when it is that I ponder?
Dark glass reflections, a war that I've wrought!
Inside are some vessels, on surface cracked-pot..
Siphoning stares I am assuredly squandered..
So as our days near their ends,
we are not long in yonder,
in all of their honor,
temporarily removed from our friends.
Writing letters with these pens,
A wall! It there to defend.
The tickets I've sold to go saunter.
Those up feel frisky for flaunter!
Travels postponing-work pends.
I'm still here for an encore,
with back turned to the condor,
jokeRs played into a joke to a t-end.
I've charged those who offend,
O, fend 'er ascend her! My kin!
The banter is bond for-
What we pretend are not sins..
These nightmares I've conquered,
the cold behind- still somber..
What dreams that I long for..
as I aid in a launder..
All the energy simply is spent!
All of this will soon cease as our haunter.
My treasures' in heaven, pockets are lient!
Thanks for this.
Sounds great, I'm in. Yay! I'm a part of a thing, but I'm not growing my hair again, no way. I shall vanguard the Metamodern Minimalist Pragmatists. The MMP will be all about high quality personal electronics, low fi music made in basements, and getting stuff done.
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” -GK Chesterton
AMAZING!! I loved it! you made your points super clear and explained it all really neatly.
thank you dude!
Yet another excellent and informative knowledge transfer from this channel. There are a few threads to nondualism here, love that.
Surprised didn’t mention Jürgen Habermas, per Wikipedia, “While Habermas has stated that the Enlightenment is an "unfinished project," he argues it should be corrected and complemented, not discarded.[19] In this he distances himself from the Frankfurt School, criticizing it, as well as much of postmodernist thought, for excessive pessimism, radicalism, and exaggerations.” Seems to fit within what the video discusses.
And you know what he's a massive influence on Wilber who's the main influence on Hanzi Freinacht so you are right to make the connection. Him and Foucault had some words about Enlightenment. I think he'll end up being a big deal for me at some point but for now I remain ignorant of most of his thinking
@@TheLivingPhilosophy
My impression of comments about him is that he thought deconstruction was a dead end, so needed a philosophy to build with. A panelist on Partially Examined Life said Habermas is a popular writer with students.
I doubt it. Introducing words while we do not understand words like "love", "hypocricy" or "woman".
It is all feigned kindness and accountability, and it is going to crumble: "Fake it till it overwhelmes you."
How about challenging the source of the crises? Challenging the notion of crises pedalled by those who would control you. Defend your humanity - it doesn't change.
I would put metamodernism as a necessary synthesis and cautious resolution to the tension coming from this inevitable modernism-postmodernism thesis-antithesis thingy
I don't use irony as a delivery mechanism for deep sincerity. I use openness as a delivery mechanism for deep sincerity. I share with people how I feel, what I love, how my environment connects to my childhood memories. And they in turn shit all over it. They goad me, saying these old houses will soon be demolished, you're living in the past. If you want warmth and coziness, you better find a girlfriend, because you won't find it in society. I say how wonderful those traditional villages are in the mountains in Asia. And they cringe and say there's nothing good about traditional culture, it can be pretty backwards.
Woah shits insane. This school of thought has been something I’ve stumbled across thru my own self observation. Glad there is already a term and some sort of structure behind what could be the next step for us. A year late but nonetheless great video!
Thanks for this content. I'll use it for learning English
Metamodernism is simply an admission by certain cohorts that no matter how hard they tried, they didn’t get their way. We live life on LIFE’S terms, not the other way around.
The ad that interrupted my my attempt to comment changed the comment itself. So, I'm good.
metamodernism or ironic sincerity specifically is just postmodernism pt. 2 it's rooted in shame, denial and avoids the hard subjects by holding on them with only a weak grasp. For society to move on one must be able to embrace even the most viscerally cringe in full sincerity probably even with a stronger grip.
I don't think ironic sincerity is what we need. Bo Burnham's apology or whatever is palatable not because it has a layer of irony, but because it is expressed via an artistic medium. If I am a fan of a poet, and he doesn't write anything for a while, I don't want from him an essay or a tweet in which he apologies for not writing, I want a poem. If that poem then addresses his lack of writing, and a bonus, my own frustration waiting for him, than he will be forgiven. This honestly is a can of worms in terms of how we comodify art and expect artists to have output, thus them being the producers of a product rather than artists, i.e. why would he need forgiveness in the first place, but I digress. To get back to Bo, the irony works for him because he is a comedian, and irony is an aspect of comedy. Irony IMO is dangerous, as it allows us to backtrack if needed, introduces a layer of ambiguity in the interpretation of the art, which can then be co-opted towards a certain goal by a third party (see "Starship Troopers"), and it separates us from the reality of our feelings, while also enabling us to participate in harmful actions that we would otherwise not agree with (see Joker in "Full Metal Jacket"). I think irony is good as a coping mechanism, but making it the an integral part of a new philosophy seems to me to not be conducive to a long lasting paradigm shift.
Dude, you're so fucking serious. You make everything you say sound sooooo important. Are we really in all of these crises? I look outside and the sun is shining and the birds are singing. Life feels fucking awesome! When is life, the "world," this whole shebang NOT in flux, in change, in the process of birth and death, of one world dying and another being born? Reality IS liminality. For those who don't see change as the only constant the world is in never-ending "crisis."
Thank you for this video, much to ponder as always. Can I recommend Jessica Benjamin, particularly 'Beyond Doer and Done to: Recognition Theory, Intersubjectivity and the Third'? there is a free PDF otherwise the book costs 4 million quid... apologies if you're already familiar, but I think (in my ignorance) that recognition theory and the intersubjective third suggests a way in which metamodernism can be manifested in human relations... not exactly a playbook but possible guide rail? all best
Cool I shall check it out and see if I can avoid paying the 4 million quid while I'm at it! Sounds like a fascinating new theory to add into the mix thanks for sending her my way
Nice one. Talk to Alexander Bard yet? Would be a great show.
Metamodernism is DFW's new sincerity schtick with extra theoretical frills. People have been pushing for something beyond PoMo for at least 10 - 15+ years but we have yet to even find the door.
Just want to say this is excellent.
Thanks Micah!
really enjoying the channel. now i understand why some academics say and know, the post modernist ideology will be a flash in the pan. i guess when a philosophy is just anti the previous one, then it has really nothing to offer and implodes on itself. maybe a needed intermediate between modernist and meta?
Metamodernism
“Meta” means in-between
It’s in between postmodernism and modernism, but not exactly in between. It combines ideas from both categories.
We have complex problems so we need a complex solution, modernist answers were too simplistic, we trusted in grand narratives, in the possibility of ideas that could explain everything’s and create a utopia. Einstein believed that his theory of relativism could explain all of physics, Marx beloved that all conflict could be understand through class struggle and all social changes could be explained through technological change, Freud believed that all psychiatric disorders could be explained through repression of sexuality and sexual trauma, Kant believed that all conflicts could be resolved through rationalism which would bind people together.
Postmodernism rejects these grand-narratives and is characterised by skepticism, apathy, cynicism and relativism. It tears other ideas down but doesn’t create any of its own.
We need a grand narrative, but it must be extensively tested.
I feel called out but more than that, I feel I didn't learn or adopt metamodernism, but I was a party to creating the same.
I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but postmodernism never felt right to me. This makes much more sense.
My problem with all philosophers is that they're brilliant people, and brilliant people tend to hyper focus on one thing. Imo the hyper fixation on the thing is the problem, but I'm also not a philosopher tho so what do I know
I'm relatively friendly toward postmodernist thought, and while I find metamodernism attractive, I honestly do not see how it is different from (at least the less giddy forms of) postmodernism. Honestly, when you talk about metamodernists unapolagetically holding to grand narratives they realize to some degree are necessary illusions/fictions, I think of Nietzsche and Foucault, who seemed to both say something similar. Foucault knew that we could not abandon epistemes, or networks of power relations, even if we knew they were contingent and historically produced. He pointed out that the same contingencies that constrain us also in some sense form us. We can't remove them without becoming formless. Rorty's "liberal ironism" said the same. Both were firmly postmodern.
I get that some postmodernists were sort of giddy and got carried away with the alleged freedom in recognizing contingency and heterogeneity. But I can't see how the more nuanced of the postmdoernists didn't already identify anything good about metamodernism. What am I missing?
Just a brief correction: thesis and antithesis aren't Hegelian terms.
Very beatiful term:"ironic sincerety". You gathered fighting ideas of two approaches very succesfully. just I am not sure to coin a new term as metamodernismmay help, it may easily give way to a "post" one. Rather to rehabilate illnesses by emposing new terms, just to explain the weaknesses as you very succesfully do here, might trigger to think a bit more delicately and help to eliminate arrogance.
Thanks for this. But what happened to the ironic sincerity?