Metamodernism

[Anonymous No.14578237]

Just listened to Hanzi Freinacht's podcast in The Jim Rutt Show. It was interesting discussion about the clash between modernism and postmodernism, and how metamodernism is the answer.

For example, Freinacht said this:
>For us to have any idea about where the world is going or should be going, we have to logically see what would make sense for it to go. To do that we have to see the world more hierarchically, and that is forbidden within the postmodern sensibility. For this reason, we have to revolt against modernity, yes. Because modern life isn’t good enough as the postmoderns perpetually point out and it’s not sustainable either way. But we also have to revolt against the revolt. We have to revolt against post-modernity. This creates a horrible, horrible lapse in I mean the jump to metamodernist. If you don’t make the whole analytical jump to metamodernist, you can land into a neoreactionary conclusion. Meaning you read up on Julius Evola, and you put your hopes to Steven Bannon.You will start conspiring against the modern world because you want the world basically to become some version of a Nazi horror show. That’s not a good solution.

This kind of reaction clearly can be observed on several 4chan boards.

Has anyone read Freinacht's books. Is he real deal or pseud?

Podcast link: https://www.jimruttshow.com/hanzi-freinacht/

[Anonymous No.14578329]

>The Listening Society: A Metamodern Guide to Politics, Book One
>As we move from the industrial age and its nation state to an internet age with a globalized postindustrial market a question presents itself: What is the next major developmental stage of society after the liberal democracy with a balance between capitalism and welfare state?
>In this book Hanzi Freinacht offers a compelling answer to this question. We are reaching the limits of modern society and we must work to achieve a metamodern society, that is, a society which goes beyond modern life and its institutions. The metamodern society of the future is a listening society; a society more sensitive to the inner dimensions of human beings.
>Drawing upon an elaborate weaving of psychology, sociology, political science and philosophy this book lands in a positive vision for the future. It shows how a clear description of human psychological growth – how we grow as human beings – can also offer us key insights into how global society can and should evolve in the internet age. A politics that can help humans grow to the later stages of psychological development is also one that can be capable of meeting the staggering challenges of our time.
>In the first part of the book Hanzi examines the politics and culture of the Nordic countries and shows how these progressive societies offer a fertile ground for metamodern politics. The basis of such metamodern politics is also described. In the second part of the book he turns to developmental psychology, describing how humans evolve through a series of stages – and how this matters immensely for the happiness and survival of us all.
>As this story unfolds – in a uniquely provocative genre breaking manner – you will also glean insight into your own developmental stage and those of people around you.
>Read with caution.

[Anonymous No.14578408]

Here's the transcript:
https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-36-hanzi-freinacht-on-metamodernism/

Jim: I never found anything in postmodernism that would actually let us build a better world reasonably expeditiously. It just seemed to be a swamp in which there was no getting out. Well, metamodernism does not have that smell and nor does Game B deep code. I guess I would say, at least it seems to be possible that one can get to how to build a much better world. That got much more justice, operates and avoids the self terminating loop that our current Game A is caught in, et cetera, without having to go through postmodernism. I suspect we’ll just have to agree to disagree about that one.

Hanzi: I suppose. I mean, just saying a few things that are useful about postmodernism. If you worked at a sociology department like I did, you see the research. For instance, the UN today has all of these development programs and they are all based on analysis of structural injustice of different kinds. Which is the essence of postmodern thinking. If you take the modern person and his or her sensibilities, he or she does not in their core believe that everyday life is fucked up. He or she does not in their core feel that life is not sustainable, it is alienating and harmful to the human soul everyday life. That people are being, let’s say, mutilated on a subtle level. They do not believe that society is fundamentally unjust. That impetus and the methods for working with that impetus and doing so intelligently and in a structured manner, is the essence of postmodernism. If the modern mind says, is it useful? The postmodern mind will reply, useful according to what axioms? Useful according to whom? You will see that within the question what is useful, is hidden some kind of interest.

Hanzi: The postmodern mind will deconstruct that interest or it will expose it. It will be able then to compare it to other forms of interest. Then it will show you that what you thought was useful was perhaps not as useful as you thought. Or it was perhaps useful to some but not to others. But the postmodern mind then forbids you to actually rank these different forms of usefulness and then choose one and then synthesize all of them.

[Anonymous No.14578421]

Hanzi: Then next one is a more agency oriented one. But metamodernism doesn’t really add new morality to the postmodern one. I mean, sure we can rewrite as some ethical theories and so on. But our morality is actually the same one. Stop climate change, make sure the world isn’t crazily unequal in terms of resource distribution. Make sure it’s sustainable, make sure people have meaning in their lives. Make sure people are seen and heard on the inside more, and that the things are a lot more authentic. That they can bloom or that we can bloom. Stop torturing the animals. I mean, all of these things are already there at the postmodern value meme. The difference is, we can do it. Much like modernity, modern society … In the 1800s the British empire stopped slavery. From there on was just a waterfall and slavery ceased around the world within 100 years. Christianity had been against slavery for 2000 years for crying out loud. Within the British empire it wasn’t the modernist, it wasn’t all the scientists or the businessmen who ended slavery. It was the Christians.

Jim: Yeah, it was Wilberforce. He was definitely a Christian public intellectual.

Hanzi: Yes. Which is interesting. The same rule is there for the postmodernist today. We will use the postmodernist populations for a kind of moral mobilization, but it is only possible within the institutions and economies created by metamodernism.

Jim: I like that. Actually, I like that. Because then you get away from this swamp of inability to make any decisions.

Hanzi: Yeah. I mean to the Christians just had you pray again and again and again and nothing happened. Or go to another convent or whatever. The postmodernist just have you go to the university and writing the critique of the critique of the critique, and that’s it.
Jim: Exactly. If we think about it that way, because in general, I am and I would say the Game B deep code is strongly in favor of egalitarianism, the elimination of bigotry, and prejudice, equal opportunity, et cetera, et cetera. I think at the values level, fairly similar, but the methodology just seems so fucking goofy. I have no interest in going down there. But I like you’re presenting it. Let them say that they’ve developed a useful set of morals, but let’s ignore their methods. Let them play with their methods and let them write their morals, and then we’ll take the morals and we’ll go put them to work, God damn it.

Hanzi: I wouldn’t go as far as ignore. I would say use them and put them in their proper place and don’t let them stop you from doing your stuff.

Jim: Okay, that’s good. I actually learned something there. Good. That actually improved my mental working kit a little bit. I still don’t like postmodernism, but I’m going to think about it a little bit differently now. [...]

[Anonymous No.14578432]

>>14578329
>We need to model ourselves after Nordic countries

well i can't possibly see anything going wrong here

[Anonymous No.14578436]

It’s actually about structural critiques which requires systematic stage thinking to be done properly. You have to actually see systems, you have to see cultures as objects, and you have to look at them dispassionate and so on. Which is difficult to do and not a lot of adult people can do it. Well, a lot of people can do it, but just about 20% of the population. Then following the research by Commons, if you look at how many people that reason at the metasystematic stage, it’s about 1.8%. Then if you go down to paradigmatic, we don’t know.

Hanzi: But if it follows the same normal distribution, it’s going to be one in a thousand or thereabout, or a couple in a thousand. If you then look at this, metamodernism, what are we doing here? We’re looking at inner development and the different subsystems of inner development, and then we’re putting together different subsystems of inner development. Some of them are sociologically built or constructed. Meaning that the inner development depends on outer development. Then we have to create institutions for that. Then we have to coordinate that with the people who create those institutions and so on. We’re in the space of metasystematic thought processes. We’re in complex thought processes. If you try to use a kind of code, you try to run a complex code in a simpler form … This has happened many, many, many times in history. From religion to political ideologies to scientific theories and so on. They get simplified when they’re popularized. What happens if you run a metamodern code on a lower stage of cognitive complexity?

Hanzi: Well, what happens is, you get flattened versions of it. You get versions are going to look at surface level, a lot like metamodern politics, or have the same goals or ideals or norms. But they’re not actually going to work. They’re going to produce lots of pathologies. For instance, people will say, “Okay, The Listening Society. So it’s good to take in the perspectives of others.” Then they’ll spend a lifetime just taking in the perspectives of crazy people and not being able to coordinate them, for instance. Or they will think, “There are growth hierarchies between human beings and I’m of course of the higher stage.” So those of us who are at higher stages have moral privileges and we can decide for the others because we’re better than them. You can think of any number of perversions of this code. Or you could say, “Wait a minute, so this is a holistic vision of society in which things are brought together to resonate as one whole and small groups of people have to get together and conspire against society to do this.”

Hanzi: These small groups of people have to do a military coup, for instance. And boom, you have fascism. Then they’re going to start killing people who are deemed to be lower stage. I mean, hey, you can go a long way with this into crazy land and into frankly war crime land.

[Anonymous No.14578443]

>>14578432
Hanzi: Yeah. I mean, so it is what it is. But on the other hand, what else to do? I mean, should we stop thinking about theories about where we want to go as a society or what the state should look like, or what the markets should look like and the welfare systems and so on? I mean, because it’s too dangerous and only megalomaniacs would do that. So then nobody’s allowed to ever have an opinion on it. That’s crazy. But nevertheless, that’s what the liberal mainstream will tell us. They’ll say, “No, we don’t want your theory because it’s totalitarian and you’re a megalomaniac for even daring to take it upon yourself to answer such questions.” So your plan is nobody answers the questions and we all die?

[Anonymous No.14578461]

>>14578443
Everything this guy is saying reads as megalomaniacal intellectual wankery.

[Anonymous No.14579270]

>>14578237
>nooo you cant have your own ideas and natural inclinations, you need to submit to mine!! the correct path!!

[Anonymous No.14579526]

Guenon (pbuh) probably retroactively refuted this kid, don't bother with him.

[Anonymous No.14579541]

>>14579526
Parmenides retroactively refuted Guenon

[Anonymous No.14580091]

>>14578461
At the very least I give him credit for taking into account lower resolution processing of ideas. That's the undoing of every utopian ideal.

From what I understood, he admires postmodernism for the virtuous oppositions to the status quo it raises. He draws the comparison to Christianity opposing and eventually ending slavery. He credits postmodernism as a wonky process of awakening to or resonating with current ideals like climate preservation, resource distribution, and animal torture. Essentially, he has identified that postmodernists are the group that resonate the most with his own ideals so he's trying to solve the problem of mobilizing them into tangible action.

Postmodernism is a flawed process lost up its own ass that is maybe useful for generating good moral values. The biggest problem with postmodernism is comparison. If progress on the climate change front is made then voices of critique spring up from other groups in response. For every inch of progress there is a mile's breadth tantrum that another different cause is not progressing and that the inch of progress gained on climate change directly contributed to the harming of or stagnation of all the other causes.

I don't believe it is possible to mobilize a population of people who put inordinate value upon hyperconnection. The lower resolution issue destabilizing the process is selfishness. Every postmodernist has a pet issue and the mechanism of the ideology turns selfishly interested input into faux egalitarian virtue under the correct conditions. The required conditions are in opposition to the goal. The only time a postmodernist 's voice is "relevant" or "respected" is when they can ring the alarm bells that their selfish pet cause is falling behind the other causes. Their system rewards and incentivizes stagnation and failure by design. If their pet cause was progressing then they would have nothing to write about. They lose their voice and purpose developed by their educational training. Postmodernism has created a flock of masochistic canarys who have a perverse selfish incentive to keep the coal mines open because otherwise they threaten their own livelihood.

You can't sublimate the good intentions out of these creatures. Something must be done to destroy their cottage industry of paralytic critique. Passion towards pet causes is being expended in a useless academic ritual which transmutes that energy into a pittance of monetary value and peer respect. The awareness has been raised, but the machine only knows how to monetize raising awareness. It has transitioned into doing more collective harm than good.