Comments on metamodernism

I'm not crazy about the postmodern (pomo) characterization in #2 of the first 10. On the one hand is the critique of pomo not being able to take a metanarractive stand due to situational considerations, yet taking a metanarrative stand that the pomo stand is right. Wilber might call that its performative contradiction. But in another sense, at least in regard to #2, pomo is rightly taking a better, metamodern stand against the usual dichotomy more often found in modernism.

At the end of the 2nd article he asks a lot of questions about metamodernism that need to be answered. One in particular I highlight is indicative that the field is not set in stone based on any particular interpretation. And that it is pointless to argue that if one doesn't agree with any particular interpretation then of course they just can really be metamodern. The broader integral community is learning this, even if there are still some dogmatic islanders.

"Disagreements between metamodernists still abound and will continue to be a topic of conversation online and in academic journals."

Note that online conversation is a valid means of exploration, not just academic journals. Yes, the former doesn't have the strict sort of peer review of the latter. But the former does indeed have peer validation of the peer to peer sort, just as useful and worthy. Which is in fact one of the principles Abramson details.

Another interesting point is that many in the art world are already displaying some of these metamodern principles, even being ignorant of them or identifying as modern or postmodern. One doesn't have to intellectually elucidate or accept these principles to be examples of them. And one certainly does not have to speak metalingus to be part of the phenomenon. And one certainly does not exemplify the phenomenon just by rote learning the principles and espousing them.