Saw the Snowden bit on the Stoa and read his post. Disappointed.gif (Kevin Sorbo version obviously)- I think he's an interesting thinker, but that was definitely an over the top, emotional, mischaracterization of your work. I've seen him do that too many times on social media and heard first hand from people about negative interactions with him. I wish he would sit down with you, Gortz, Vervaeke, and/or McGilchrist and just have a dialogos. He said he'd talk to anyone. But as you noted, he had his conclusion and then hunted for a pretext. Curious how his Jim Rutt conversation went.
Postmodernism is "a breakdown of sensemaking" - meaning it is fundamentally bad theory and people should really stop using the term and just speak directly of those aspects of what it is purported to carry out: deconstruction is a clear theory and practice which does not need PM for instance, it is part of modern dialectic.
Metamodern "ignorance reduction" sounds like Modernism, because it is, so to with Nordic MM which is just more modernist Utopiansm - there is nothing new in this. Fundamentally Modernism is a dialectical process of theory/culture, critique/counter culture, and synthesis/integration of new modes and theories - which is the scientific method.
The problem is in Dogma and attempts to hijack theory as new grand narratives - a complaint of Mod and PM, parties of both have made this mistake. Making Modernism into a grand narrative and dogma (or religion) is fundamentally against the scientific method and dialectics. We do not need a new term (metamodern) for the scientific method or the critique and integration of dialectics to work, or for new (Modernism = "make it new") practices to come up and change the world.
And as far as "too linear", well if that was the case then it would fit in a limited perspective of modernization that some have had, making it simply a part of Modernism and its linear flow into the future. The reality is that Modernity has not been linear, there has been an ongoing iterative, and cyclical reformulation of the Modern since it has been said to have begun. Since the late Enlightenment period we have been seeing an ongoing Critique, an ongoing assertion of different epistemes, as well as parallel and adjacent claims.
Critique does not need the term Postmodern to be clear, meta-theory does not need Metamodern to be stated clearly, nor do utopian plans. What they need is to just be useful, clear, and non dogmatic. And they sure don't define any new art movements, not even remotely.
Saw the Snowden bit on the Stoa and read his post. Disappointed.gif (Kevin Sorbo version obviously)- I think he's an interesting thinker, but that was definitely an over the top, emotional, mischaracterization of your work. I've seen him do that too many times on social media and heard first hand from people about negative interactions with him. I wish he would sit down with you, Gortz, Vervaeke, and/or McGilchrist and just have a dialogos. He said he'd talk to anyone. But as you noted, he had his conclusion and then hunted for a pretext. Curious how his Jim Rutt conversation went.
Great defence of development there, Brendan. What Piaget works do you recommend for the audience?
Postmodernism is "a breakdown of sensemaking" - meaning it is fundamentally bad theory and people should really stop using the term and just speak directly of those aspects of what it is purported to carry out: deconstruction is a clear theory and practice which does not need PM for instance, it is part of modern dialectic.
Metamodern "ignorance reduction" sounds like Modernism, because it is, so to with Nordic MM which is just more modernist Utopiansm - there is nothing new in this. Fundamentally Modernism is a dialectical process of theory/culture, critique/counter culture, and synthesis/integration of new modes and theories - which is the scientific method.
The problem is in Dogma and attempts to hijack theory as new grand narratives - a complaint of Mod and PM, parties of both have made this mistake. Making Modernism into a grand narrative and dogma (or religion) is fundamentally against the scientific method and dialectics. We do not need a new term (metamodern) for the scientific method or the critique and integration of dialectics to work, or for new (Modernism = "make it new") practices to come up and change the world.
And as far as "too linear", well if that was the case then it would fit in a limited perspective of modernization that some have had, making it simply a part of Modernism and its linear flow into the future. The reality is that Modernity has not been linear, there has been an ongoing iterative, and cyclical reformulation of the Modern since it has been said to have begun. Since the late Enlightenment period we have been seeing an ongoing Critique, an ongoing assertion of different epistemes, as well as parallel and adjacent claims.
Critique does not need the term Postmodern to be clear, meta-theory does not need Metamodern to be stated clearly, nor do utopian plans. What they need is to just be useful, clear, and non dogmatic. And they sure don't define any new art movements, not even remotely.
Cheers