Your example about God at the end made the experience of metamodernism real for me. I can be in a church or any house of worship and contemplate how this place was constructed around a construct, but still feel the power of God, which is both invented and real for me - a spirit of collective humanity, a supernatural force, an echo of the cosmos. Does it matter which one is real for each individual, or on a grand scale? It’s sure fun to think about.
I'm glad that resonated with you. None of this means much until it moves beyond the conceptual to something we see being descriptive of our own experience.
Perhaps the answer to your final question lies in the informed naivety and childlike humility of knowing there is a God and a Truth, but knowing we look through a glass darkly and can't fully comprehend it. So we make the best meaning of God that we can, to the limits of our slowly developing understanding, but in humble position of admitting that we can't ever claim to know it all.
About finding meaning despite knowing something is man-made, I personally struggle with that but I find that negative theology or even buddhism can interesting. In both cases, these philosophies are about the acceptance of not knowing, and even the spiritual possibilities in not knowing. Afterall, the notion of faith - and by extension hope - is to believe in spite of reason and logic.
After reading your article on metamoderism, and two of the responses to it, I had 3 initial thoughts/reactions as food for thought:
1. To whom and about whom is the content intended? It is, I believe, an attempt to explain the current zeigeist without the realization/appreciation that the historical changes/ages/eras you discuss took time. Compressing the evolution of revolutions (Industrial, political, religious, etc.) into philosophic sound bites is unwise without acknowledging that change itself sped up in direct relation to the development of speed itself.
And it's not like we didn't have Cassandras around warning of the dangers of the 'iron cages of bureaucracy' and explaining the inevitable 'anomie' (the quest for boundaries in a world of endless choices) of the disenchantment of the world view. Max Weber, for example, figured it out, but those responsible for the imparting & maintenance of values either retreated or abandoned their responsibilities. Yet, Weber is rarely mentioned in Sociology classes these days. Why? Because he was functionalist, not a Marxist. For example, Weber said that the role of the school is to prepare the child to overcome the narcissism engendered by familial love, as well as to make the child both moral and literate. For the Marxists, however, the family unit must be destroyed and the schools used as indoctrination canters ... i.e. madrasas for the masses.
2. Your article, obviously, was written for people who have heard of Derrida --and how many ordinary people have? Most people in America, at least, are butt-stupid because they've been indoctrinated, not educated. The consumerism qua meaning of life and personal identity, is the effect, not the cause of unhappiness/anxiety/cynicism etc. of which you lament. But, what would be the consequence if there was no consumerism? To draw an analogy, look at the sexual purity of the Shakers. We don't see many of them around, do we? Hence, terms such as, 'virtuous to a fault' and 'affluenza.' Do you really think your average Muslim in a 3rd world country think in terms of modernism, post, meta or otherwise? An i.e.d can 'deconstruct' a human body as well as any modernist painter.
3. You want to have your soul and deny it, too. On an emotional level, this is insanity, unless you (the general 'you') understands the full meaning and outcomes of cause and effect. Perhaps examples will help to clarify: a child molesting priest gets to act on his perversions AND be forgiven and holy at the same time. The fat person injects Ozempic to shed pounds AND eats a gallon of ice-cream every day. We want restriction for 'the other guy' while demanding we be free to do whatever we want ---all the while saying things like, people need meaning in their lives that "can and SHOULD lead us away from consumerism dependence to replace meaning." (Capitalization only for emphasis.) Really? In America, we have the right to pursue happiness, so if consumerism makes some, or a lot of people, happy, is it your business to tell them they should be more interested in philosophy than ---say -- tattooing? It sounds like you're torn between individualism and communalism and frustrated because you can't find a way to MAKE people care about their inner turmoil as much as you care about yours and nose into theirs.
I realize your article, and the responses to it, were intellectual exercises, and they were interesting to be sure. But, categorizing social changes into eras, and inventing descriptive terms for what intellectuals observe, is like comparing apples to oranges. It ignores differences in cultures, circumstances, economics, and the taboos of DNA, IQ, race, biological facts, the devastation of social invasion, the persistence of ideology over logic, and the reality that people will never universally agree on values.
Example: Why do Gaza Muslims despise Israeli Jews so much? Why kill over ocean-front property that has development possibilities (Trumps argument/solution for peace)? Because Judaism, as a religion, has those pesky 10 Commandments that include prohibitions against murder and adultery. For Islam, as a religion, to kill for Allah means 72 virgins and polygyny means screwing more than one woman (or boy or goat). Co-existence is impossible ---so, Uncle Sam, choose a side and decide who wins. There goes all the universal brotherhood, self-determination B.S.
I know you've read Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations ---so your article on meta-modernism is discussing issues relevant to (mostly) white, upper-class, college-educated, Marxist, social justice/environmentalist warriors having a 'dark night of the soul' crisis. That's fine. Everybody needs a hobby. :)
I'll suggest that you'd be better able to understand both sides of an issue, and the people impacted, if you took the time to understand what's being said instead of first filtering everything through conservatism. My comments on consumerism have nothing to do with taking away the joy of shopping or with your fear of Marxism. The concern I state was with consumer identity, which I explain is our need to define ourselves by what we purchase, a condition that's made worse if we aren't sure how else to give our lives meaning. For example, you give your life meaning through your adherence to conservatism.
Postmodernism would have said that your strict allegiance to that grand narrative robs you have human compassion, allowing you to use the "hate" of Gaza Muslims as an example even while they're being slaughtered and starved out of existence. It would use that as an example of the failure of grand narratives and the need for them to be rejected. Metamodernism would say that you can oscillate between your chosen truth and a compassion for those hurt by it. It would say that you can be conservative and still have compassion for people, including the people of Gaza.
Please note that I said my “initial” reactions and thoughts, and I never said I hated the people of Gaza. Moreover, I made it explicit that I was referring to the ‘general you’ and not you personally.
I used the MuslimGaza/JewishIsraeli divide as an example of a religious divide of unbridgeable values, thus making universal brotherhood/meta-modernism impossible. Even if you spoke Arabic, and I do not assume you cannot, you would not be allowed inside Mecca because you’re not a Muslim. It’s situations like that reality I thought about as I read your article. Theory is great mental masturbation, but I like to see if any theory is applicable to real-life.
It is sad that people, like you, who do feel genuine compassion for the suffering of this world, do not consider that their own pain may be a result of facing what they’re up against: a tsunami of resistance because of the realities I mentioned, including the taboo ones we can’t talk about, as your response clearly demonstrates.
As you, personally, said, to paraphrase, you’re asking questions as well as explaining. Your article sparked my interest. I think you’d be pleased you accomplished your goal, and got me thinking. Sorry if you’re offended.
Statements like "universal brotherhood" have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Metamodernism isn't a utopia but a description of how thought (and therefore art) has shifted out of postmodernism and into where we are now. If the question is how this applies to non-western thought, that's a good area of inquiry, but not one I'm equipped to answer.
Metamodernism cannot be defined existentially i.e. by sincerity. Modernism was sincere, from an existentialist pov, but so could be pomo, romanticism, enlightenment, mannerism, renaissance, baroque, they inherently buy their stuff. In terms of taking sincerity to simply mean "doesn't use irony", then you're probably not going to find any age that is "sincere." Modernism, as I pointed out earlier, has Kafka who clearly creates narratives he lampoons himself. Enlightenment had parody, romanticism had irony, mannerism was early modern postmodernism in a lot of ways (and queen Elizabeth still made herself a living icon). There's a reason we don't use existentialism for historiographical purposes. It's too ambiguous for that and existentialism will tell you that itself.
Point and Counterpoint. Simultaneously! Now that is the kind of position paper I like to see. Like discovery for the prosecution and the defense all sorted and argued by the same attorney. You can't lose! +1
Your example about God at the end made the experience of metamodernism real for me. I can be in a church or any house of worship and contemplate how this place was constructed around a construct, but still feel the power of God, which is both invented and real for me - a spirit of collective humanity, a supernatural force, an echo of the cosmos. Does it matter which one is real for each individual, or on a grand scale? It’s sure fun to think about.
I'm glad that resonated with you. None of this means much until it moves beyond the conceptual to something we see being descriptive of our own experience.
Perhaps the answer to your final question lies in the informed naivety and childlike humility of knowing there is a God and a Truth, but knowing we look through a glass darkly and can't fully comprehend it. So we make the best meaning of God that we can, to the limits of our slowly developing understanding, but in humble position of admitting that we can't ever claim to know it all.
Reminds me of The Cloud of Unknowing.
I really like that.
About finding meaning despite knowing something is man-made, I personally struggle with that but I find that negative theology or even buddhism can interesting. In both cases, these philosophies are about the acceptance of not knowing, and even the spiritual possibilities in not knowing. Afterall, the notion of faith - and by extension hope - is to believe in spite of reason and logic.
After reading your article on metamoderism, and two of the responses to it, I had 3 initial thoughts/reactions as food for thought:
1. To whom and about whom is the content intended? It is, I believe, an attempt to explain the current zeigeist without the realization/appreciation that the historical changes/ages/eras you discuss took time. Compressing the evolution of revolutions (Industrial, political, religious, etc.) into philosophic sound bites is unwise without acknowledging that change itself sped up in direct relation to the development of speed itself.
And it's not like we didn't have Cassandras around warning of the dangers of the 'iron cages of bureaucracy' and explaining the inevitable 'anomie' (the quest for boundaries in a world of endless choices) of the disenchantment of the world view. Max Weber, for example, figured it out, but those responsible for the imparting & maintenance of values either retreated or abandoned their responsibilities. Yet, Weber is rarely mentioned in Sociology classes these days. Why? Because he was functionalist, not a Marxist. For example, Weber said that the role of the school is to prepare the child to overcome the narcissism engendered by familial love, as well as to make the child both moral and literate. For the Marxists, however, the family unit must be destroyed and the schools used as indoctrination canters ... i.e. madrasas for the masses.
2. Your article, obviously, was written for people who have heard of Derrida --and how many ordinary people have? Most people in America, at least, are butt-stupid because they've been indoctrinated, not educated. The consumerism qua meaning of life and personal identity, is the effect, not the cause of unhappiness/anxiety/cynicism etc. of which you lament. But, what would be the consequence if there was no consumerism? To draw an analogy, look at the sexual purity of the Shakers. We don't see many of them around, do we? Hence, terms such as, 'virtuous to a fault' and 'affluenza.' Do you really think your average Muslim in a 3rd world country think in terms of modernism, post, meta or otherwise? An i.e.d can 'deconstruct' a human body as well as any modernist painter.
3. You want to have your soul and deny it, too. On an emotional level, this is insanity, unless you (the general 'you') understands the full meaning and outcomes of cause and effect. Perhaps examples will help to clarify: a child molesting priest gets to act on his perversions AND be forgiven and holy at the same time. The fat person injects Ozempic to shed pounds AND eats a gallon of ice-cream every day. We want restriction for 'the other guy' while demanding we be free to do whatever we want ---all the while saying things like, people need meaning in their lives that "can and SHOULD lead us away from consumerism dependence to replace meaning." (Capitalization only for emphasis.) Really? In America, we have the right to pursue happiness, so if consumerism makes some, or a lot of people, happy, is it your business to tell them they should be more interested in philosophy than ---say -- tattooing? It sounds like you're torn between individualism and communalism and frustrated because you can't find a way to MAKE people care about their inner turmoil as much as you care about yours and nose into theirs.
I realize your article, and the responses to it, were intellectual exercises, and they were interesting to be sure. But, categorizing social changes into eras, and inventing descriptive terms for what intellectuals observe, is like comparing apples to oranges. It ignores differences in cultures, circumstances, economics, and the taboos of DNA, IQ, race, biological facts, the devastation of social invasion, the persistence of ideology over logic, and the reality that people will never universally agree on values.
Example: Why do Gaza Muslims despise Israeli Jews so much? Why kill over ocean-front property that has development possibilities (Trumps argument/solution for peace)? Because Judaism, as a religion, has those pesky 10 Commandments that include prohibitions against murder and adultery. For Islam, as a religion, to kill for Allah means 72 virgins and polygyny means screwing more than one woman (or boy or goat). Co-existence is impossible ---so, Uncle Sam, choose a side and decide who wins. There goes all the universal brotherhood, self-determination B.S.
I know you've read Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations ---so your article on meta-modernism is discussing issues relevant to (mostly) white, upper-class, college-educated, Marxist, social justice/environmentalist warriors having a 'dark night of the soul' crisis. That's fine. Everybody needs a hobby. :)
I found it provocative.
I'll suggest that you'd be better able to understand both sides of an issue, and the people impacted, if you took the time to understand what's being said instead of first filtering everything through conservatism. My comments on consumerism have nothing to do with taking away the joy of shopping or with your fear of Marxism. The concern I state was with consumer identity, which I explain is our need to define ourselves by what we purchase, a condition that's made worse if we aren't sure how else to give our lives meaning. For example, you give your life meaning through your adherence to conservatism.
Postmodernism would have said that your strict allegiance to that grand narrative robs you have human compassion, allowing you to use the "hate" of Gaza Muslims as an example even while they're being slaughtered and starved out of existence. It would use that as an example of the failure of grand narratives and the need for them to be rejected. Metamodernism would say that you can oscillate between your chosen truth and a compassion for those hurt by it. It would say that you can be conservative and still have compassion for people, including the people of Gaza.
Please note that I said my “initial” reactions and thoughts, and I never said I hated the people of Gaza. Moreover, I made it explicit that I was referring to the ‘general you’ and not you personally.
I used the MuslimGaza/JewishIsraeli divide as an example of a religious divide of unbridgeable values, thus making universal brotherhood/meta-modernism impossible. Even if you spoke Arabic, and I do not assume you cannot, you would not be allowed inside Mecca because you’re not a Muslim. It’s situations like that reality I thought about as I read your article. Theory is great mental masturbation, but I like to see if any theory is applicable to real-life.
It is sad that people, like you, who do feel genuine compassion for the suffering of this world, do not consider that their own pain may be a result of facing what they’re up against: a tsunami of resistance because of the realities I mentioned, including the taboo ones we can’t talk about, as your response clearly demonstrates.
As you, personally, said, to paraphrase, you’re asking questions as well as explaining. Your article sparked my interest. I think you’d be pleased you accomplished your goal, and got me thinking. Sorry if you’re offended.
Statements like "universal brotherhood" have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Metamodernism isn't a utopia but a description of how thought (and therefore art) has shifted out of postmodernism and into where we are now. If the question is how this applies to non-western thought, that's a good area of inquiry, but not one I'm equipped to answer.
Metamodernism cannot be defined existentially i.e. by sincerity. Modernism was sincere, from an existentialist pov, but so could be pomo, romanticism, enlightenment, mannerism, renaissance, baroque, they inherently buy their stuff. In terms of taking sincerity to simply mean "doesn't use irony", then you're probably not going to find any age that is "sincere." Modernism, as I pointed out earlier, has Kafka who clearly creates narratives he lampoons himself. Enlightenment had parody, romanticism had irony, mannerism was early modern postmodernism in a lot of ways (and queen Elizabeth still made herself a living icon). There's a reason we don't use existentialism for historiographical purposes. It's too ambiguous for that and existentialism will tell you that itself.
Point and Counterpoint. Simultaneously! Now that is the kind of position paper I like to see. Like discovery for the prosecution and the defense all sorted and argued by the same attorney. You can't lose! +1