Metamodern metastasizing

Balder started a FB IPS post on this here. John said:

"I am less interested in the classifications as I am in who is doing the classifying? And where is the evidence? Or is this just someones's wish list for the good life? Seems the standards are so vague as to fit just about anyone I know. Only the lonely it would seem to me or those who have a lot of time on her hands would be that interested in joining this meta club. I have seen this self infatuation thing many times before. I guess I am triggered by going meta. The meta trap." 

Balder replied jokingly: "You're saying you have an allergy, John?"

I replied:


"I relate John. There's such an air of superiority to it, much like Wilber's superhumanity. And while Bruce makes light of this apparent 'allergy,' that same rationalization has been used by the kennilinguists to say "see, he doesn't like it so therefore he can't be meta (or integral)" or whatever.

I also noted on their website that they're a big fan of the model of hierarchical complexity, as if that determines what is meta. As I noted in this thread, the MHC is still just more complex but deficient formal rationality. Sure hierarchical complexity as in the likes of the OOOers like DeLanda, Bryant, Cilliars, Morin etc. But that sort of complexity is entirely absent from these meta-stasizers.

Hmm, yes, metastasize is a good metaphor here for deficient (meta)rationality.