The Many Metamodernisms (the cathedral of metamodernity)

  1. Metamodernism as a culture
    Metamodern culture is the subject of several books, art, as well as postmodern literature has veered into this direction since 2015. This can be seen as two schools: the Dutch school and the Nordic school. But there is also a black school.

    2 a. Metamodernism as a religion
    Metamodernism is the attempt to define social and historical prescriptions for development, and can be seen in the work of Ken Wilber as he attempts to a bridge between interior epistemology and metaphysics.
    This had been attempted by Habermas (who Wilber calls the most brilliant social theorist alive), but this amazing undertaking took place later in the century, in the deep spiritual sciences and metaphysics of cognitive and social asset Ken Wilber.

    2 b. A sub-distinction an be made of followers of Ken Wilber such as Dr. Robert Kegan, Dr. Jenny Wade, Dr. Terri O’Fallon, who in and of themselves have continued the pioneering works of American developmentalists and followed right to the pinnacle of what might be considered humanism. They have expressed how human development doesn’t stop in adulthood (age 25), as considered the norm in our current mainstream culture, but both our wisdom and compassion begin increasing, usually when we hit that exact point.

    4. Metamodernism as a memetic program
    Jean Gebser is the first systematizer of metamodernism as poetic/cultural genealogy. But this is not dry abstraction, but rather, sensing, intuitive “synairesis” or or systematic bringing together of non-systems. It’s rather hard to grasp, because this form of metamodernism is really a form of seeing.

    5. Metamodernism as a philosophical/dialectical lodestone
    This represents the shift from Einstein to Niels Bohr and on into Whitehead (circa 1920). Other philosophical metamodernists are Henri Bergson (who is brilliant, yet creative darwinist), Aurobindo and many others of the early moving into the mid 20th century.
    A notable figure, of prominent intellect, and perhaps the most prominent today is Steve Mcintosh.

    b. Metamodernism as Sexual Adaptation

    These individuals who cluster this category are super rare but represent the amplification of philosophical metamodernism towards altruistic care, and metaphysical union….

    Representatives of this key facet: Tielhard de Chardin (jesuit theologican), Barbara Marx Hubbard, Zak Stein (Harvard), Marc Gafni (rabbi), Buckminster Fuller.
    These people are usually visionaries with an intimate background in complexity.

    8. Metamodernism as an international diaspora, a mindset, and sensibility
    Alexander Bard, Karen Barad, Quentin Meillassoux, Hanzi Freinacht (known for aesthetics), Alan Kazlev, etc.

Metamodern speculations on Transcendental Reason

Reason – ratio, measure – has the desire to criticize, but also to make critical. The truth doesn’t exist “out there”, philosophically, already for us to observe! Imagine if it did!

Perhaps yes. But not philosophically feasible…, yet while good and practical reason makes us aware of our commitment to REALISM, it also should seek a greater comittment to move beyond SIMPLE realism.

Simple reason – the reason of descartes – is the old paradigm. Even cognitive science is recognizes that simple reason does not explain the nature of immanent physical cognition.What I would love to suggest with that quote is that science contains a subjective element or anti-entropic REALITY, based on systems theory, and that this applies to a science of cultural application.

sr. Hegel understood the logic of immanence and self-transcendence logically. However, his science (the phenomenology of spirit) lacked any interobjective systems theory, or web-of-life application of the spiritual cognition of Universal REASON (integral cognition), which we have now, and was rather turned into a metaphysics of pure realism see: communism, and mythological welfare .

The Ideal of Progress

Many researchers in the world believe that our world is actually getting better.

Take for example, people like Dr. Steven Pinker, a Harvard Cognitive Scientist. 

According to Dr. Pinker, we have reason to believe that relative human suffering in the 21st century is less than it has ever been at any point in history. 

Dr. Pinker believes in The Enlightenment, Liberalism, and all the typical western values.

He is right that in a relative sense things are getting better… Certainly.

The expansion of western medicine has led to the massive decrease in infant mortality, and to other miracles, such as the extension of life. Education is better than ever, and more people are literate (they can read) than any point in history. Quality of life is much much better. War between democratic nations does not exist. The list goes on and on. There have been very many achievements by “the ideals of progress.” We seem to be getting better.

But there is another perspective in the secular west. This is the Postmodern perspective that things are getting worse.

The second perspective says that no matter how good things good, there is still more absolute suffering. Nowhere and no place anywhere in history have so many people been suffering at the same time. People are left out of our liberal order. And what about them? So many people are not actually included in our general “ideal of progress.” 

So many souls are indeed suffering global mental illness, global inequality (and starvation), and global unsustainability of the machine-like complexity of our world. But… At what cost to transparency?

It doesn’t seem to add up.

Here we locate the post-liberal (postmodern) perspective. The complexities don’t add up.

So the cost of a progressive, liberal social order is actually the burden of the largest majority of suffering souls (7.7 billion people in a global civilization). Indeed, people, animals, and our very souls and minds, and cultures are crushed.

Progress for who???


Chaotic and destructive impulse literally reigns supreme.
In this global situation we are born into, God is dead. Man is dead.
And so is our notion of beauty, goodness, truth, justice, and meaning. While domination by “progress” = elite, rich, white, male-only selection of society, those with privilege, power, and class, domination by Artificial intelligence = the subordination to
that power.

Our first perspective is highly optimistic, natural, and youthful, but sings the greatness of western advancement. The second perspective is more measured, well thought out, beginning to look at how to change power.



 

The demise of the ONTOLOGICAL Meta-Fascist Church in community trans-valuation

The horizon of time in nature is not trans-directional, since the trans-directional implies the omni-directionality of finance Capital.
God is not returning to us in a trans-directional sense of “rationality” and contemporary expressions of such (capitalism), but rather in formative meta- communities, and what I mean by that I will pursue later…
For now, in the hegelian Marxist, and yet determinist sense, one may just as easily posit that a meta- community will reach the endpoint of capitalism, historicism, or suchlike.
But due to postmodern indeterminacy (or the meta turn), an “endpoint” is not so much the end of possibilism, hierarchy, and unified cultural determinism, but rather such a transvaluation of ends, as such.
That is to say, the Soviet Union’s collapse, and suchlike we are now seeing with the transvaluation (or re- estimation) of news (fake news), sexual preference (queer theory), and a host of almost quasi-hegelian small culture wars are all symbols of meta- community.

Uknown Agape

Unknown Agape:

Lo Holonic circles of agapic love…
Emanate from Ein Soph.
Embrace their Kosmic refluxes in spheres of ennobling depth and growing complexity.
Thus portending their natural Lingua 1. Nature Cosmogenesis 2. Culture Cosmogenesis 3. Self Cosmogenesis
And thus the grooves of a Kosmic reality, ever ennobling, Sat-Chit-Ananda, descended from a profuse Golden Mind. The Golden Egg of Brahman in the heart of the Saptarishi (agni), the head of Adam, creating the 8, the 2, and the 9.

A Psychedilic Meditation on Psycho-cultural Grades (in body, mind, spirit)

Levels of human Psycho-culture

Tribal contribution to spiral:
Family and kinship loyalty; strong sense of the enchantment of the world; innocence; imagination; closeness to nature
Warrior contribution to spiral:
Individual empowerment; initiative; action orientation
Traditional contribution to spiral: sense of civic duty; law and order; respect for authority; strong moral regard for group members; preserves traditions; loyalty; hope, and a strong sense of faith
Modernist contribution to spiral: meritocracy; upward mobility; the middle class; excellence through competition; science; technology; confidence in progress
world

Postmodern contribution to spiral:
worldcentric morality; recognition of human potential; increased responsibility for people and the planet; compassion and inclusion; celebration of the feminine; renewed spiritual freedom and creativity
Integral contribution to spiral:
practical worldcentric morality; compassion for all worldviews; revival of philosophy; seeing spirituality in evolution; overcoming culture war; renewed insistence on achieving results

From book Integral Consciousness, thanks Dr. Steve Mcintosh for providing the angles

Notes from The Mcintosh

What is your proposed model vs. Spiral Dynamics / Ken Wilber. It seems like you offer just an only slightly tweeked fulsome version in Integral Consciousness…Might I be mistaken?What is your model on offer, and how have you gone beyond mere tweeking?1Edit or delete thisLike · Reply · 2dSteve McIntoshSteve McIntosh Hi Roshi Renlo, I appreciate your interest in my work. As I mentioned above, my new book, Developmental Politics, offers a somewhat different way to understand the evolutionary stages of consciousness and culture. Like I said, I still accept much of the Wilberian/SD model, but my thinking has evolved since I wrote Integral Consciousness in 2007. In Developmental Politics I emphasize the partial independence of intersubjective structures. My focus is more on cultural worldviews as large-scale systems of agreement than on the subjective psychological structures (stages of consciousness) that are the main focus of the Wilberian/SD model. While useful, I think developmental psychology can only take us so far, and I offer some critiques in chapter 2 in the section titled “the developmental logic of cultural evolution” (pp. 24-28), and then further in the book’s appendix (pp. 171-178). I can’t summarize those critiques here, but if you will read those sections of the book, I’d be happy to dialogue with you about them.