METAMODERNISM: AN INTRODUCTION

Abstract:  The author introduces Hegel. from the triad (Hegelian Dialect), he briefly gives an overview of the history of philosophy.  In true Hegelian form, it is now time to reform “Postmodernism” and replace it with “Metamodernism.” Postmodern had a short life from 1950 to now and has left few adherents. It is confusing and unstructured. On the other hand, it critiqued authority and  softened reason from the numbers driven modernism of recent years.

INTRODUCTION

Hegel

Although Hegel used it briefly, the grid thesis-antithesis- synthesis has been popularized by Marx and Engels and now used by many across the political spectrum. At the moment, it appears that pre-modern (to 1650) was contested by modernism(until 1950) and at the moment we live in a post-modern society and this last one is now becoming undone in 2015 or slightly before.

This ongoing Hegelian struggle reaches back in history to 6 major eras  of western and middle eastern  philosophical thought  up today. It encompasses 300-400 philosophers.

 DISCUSSION

Premodernism   (up to 1650)  starts at the beginning of written culture. Ways of knowing came from signs and revelations from God. The church was the instrument to give this message and this information to the clergy and then to the masses.

Modernism evolved around 1650 and information was gained by  empiricism (knowing through one’s natural senses) or what is later called science. Reason (organized logic) prevailed. Religion shared authority with science. By the 1950’s, reason had become raw and number counting was helpful, but often wrong. The computer results could vastly differ from reality.

Postmodernism From the 1950’s to say 2015, the postmodern drew from many sources, both natural to spiritual. Authority of any kind was deconstructed. As valuable as this may be, it was also an invitation for organized chaos. Truth of some sort up to a period of discovery was replaced by interpretations.

At this time, the author was published discussing how trimodernism, that is the three (pre/mod/and post mod) can come together to make some sense of postmodernism.

Metamodernism

Although there were early glimmerings in the 50’s to  the turn of the century, postmodernism appeared to become foolish.  From 2007 onward a new more stable modernism, metamodernism comes from the dialect of the previous two modernisms.

The source of information comes from deconstructed bundles of information that form and send trajectories along accepted parameters and oscillate from one side to another until a contemporary message is created. Authority is still questioned and deconstruction is still honored. However, there are boundaries. The boundaries may be  wrong in the future, but work for us at the moment. Empiricism is also used.

In other words, we are searching for validity not interpretations. One knows that outcomes can vary, but it reduces the dizzy interplay of verbiage. Postmodernism was the first paragraph to Metamodernism. We tried it and it didn’t work so well. So now comes a philosophy that is more organized and polished. We hope that it informs. We are grateful to postmodern for its ability to deconstruct.

We expected post modernism to teach us about reality, it did not get the job accomplished. Hopefully, we may learn more about the wider world inside and outside of us with metamodernism. If not the dialect will work it’s will and self destruct.

SUMMARY

Here is what appears to have happened.

PREMODERN emerged when the groups could communicate by written language. The first and original source was that God sent message either directly or through the church. These messages were titled revelation.

MODERNISM was given birth by 1650, individuals and groups hungered for direct contact with a problem. The source was at first counting and creating, later called Empiricism and the results were called  findings based on reason. It became organized logic. Unfortunately, modernism in its drive for number count began to have models and findings that were totally in error. Further, one could easily lie with numbers to the few that understood them.

POSTMODERNISM was supposedly the antidote to the number generated modernism. This was a brief period before it sank. Search was followed by interpretation and soon chaos emerge among scholars. We need another strategy.

METAMODERNISM is supposedly its replacement. Deconstruction, multiple sources, and boundaries appear to be the center of this approach. One hopes that this generally works. The pragmatist want to know what this means? How can one use it? Importantly, from philosophy, this approach bleeds and metalizes into all the humanities, arts, social sciences, education and numerous other areas. We need an approach is open and understandable and cannot be used to hide even more distortions. Best of all, metamodernism comes from many sources. Both premodern and modernism are not dead. Average talented folks use these strategies and they get by. What they don’t need is more fog that gives specific academics that assures them that the college education was not worth the money. That grants are wasted and anti-intellectualism prospers.

CONCLUSION

This has been a discussion of a new philosophical thought that would create a dialectical grid of pre-modern/ modern/ and met modern. Time will tell if this grid survives.

SELECTED REFERENCES.