You’re damn right I take it personally when someone calls me a liar, falsely accuses me multiple times (re. Using AI) after making that situation clear to them, and also branding what I say crap or bullshit.
If others are happy to get that, they have no sense of self-respect. You were never taught how to be civil apparently and whilst I’m happy to educate you face to face I can’t do that here.
I stopped taking @GeoffDann seriously when the best insult he could find for me was “postmodern”. I spent most of my adult life avoiding anything that smacked of POMO, so that’s just ridiculous. Lately, I’ve been retroactively studying POMO authors to get up to speed and to be better informed about such matters, but it’s really not me at all. Anyway, I just assume that whatever @GeoffDann is saying is entirely about @GeoffDann . Look up “projection” online. It’s that.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a three-year old called you a “liar”, accused you of absurd things, called you all sorts of nasty names, etc. How would you react to that? That three-year old lives on in all of us! Some of us are just better at hiding it a bit.
It wasn’t an insult, Robert. You are a postmodernist. It was a factual statement.
Define “factual statement”.
It was a functional description of your belief system and modus operandii, not a statement designed to be abusive or belittling. You took it as an insult, but I was simply describing what you actually are. If you took offense at it, that’s not my fault.
It’s not even equivalent to calling Donald Trump a narcissist – again this is a factual statement, but it is also generally considered to be an insult. “Postmodern” is not generally considered an insult by postmodernists.
Please describe my belief system at greater length. Based on my own introspective analysis, I believe “postmodern” is not an accurate description of my belief system. You have a different view on the matter. Please offer evidence in support of your position.
You are a pragmatist, an anti-realist and a relativist. You don’t believe in objective truth. And you continually quote postmodern philosophers!
Tell me what you think postmodernism is, and why you aren’t one.
One out of three ain’t bad!
When it comes to definitions, I like to take those from neutral third parties to avoid any potential for special pleading. So this from Google:
Postmodernism is characterized by irony, deconstruction, and skepticism toward all absolute truths. In contrast, metamodernism acknowledges these postmodern critiques but seeks to move past them, consciously oscillating between modernist sincerity/hope and postmodern irony/skepticism to reconstruct meaning in a highly complex world. [1, 2, 3]
Core Attribute Comparison
The two paradigms contrast directly across key cultural and philosophical dimensions: [1, 4]
| Attribute [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] | Postmodernism | Metamodernism |
|---|---|---|
| Core Method | Deconstruction: Dismantles narratives, absolute truths, and societal constructs. | Reconstruction: Uses postmodern critique to rebuild and search for new truths and meaning. |
| Tone & Attitude | Irony & Apathy: Detachment and cynicism; a belief that nothing can be taken completely seriously. | Informed Naivety / Pragmatic Idealism: Being deeply sincere and hopeful while fully acknowledging the absurdity of the world. |
| Grand Narratives | Rejection: Denounces all grand narratives (like destiny, universal progress, or religion) as oppressive illusions. | Acceptance: Acknowledges grand narratives are flawed, yet accepts and uses them provisionally to guide action. |
| Truth & Reality | Relativism: All reality is merely a subjective social construct; truth is fundamentally unknowable. | Metaxis: An “in-between” state; pursues universal truths or depth, knowing they may be unreachable but striving for them anyway. |
Navigating the Cultural Shift
Postmodernism’s “How”: Focuses on parody, pastiche, and breaking the fourth wall to point out that art/media is fake.
Metamodernism’s “How”: Engages in authentic emotional storytelling while winking at the medium’s artificiality (often described as “being ironic and sincere at the same time”). [2, 7, 8, 9]
For a deeper dive into how this plays out in modern media, visual culture, and literature, review Notes on Metamodernism, which serves as a foundational text for the movement.
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-0zSy6nkoQ
[2] https://www.facebook.com/groups/partiallyexaminedlife/posts/10155648134039660/
[4] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10841806.2025.2565095
[5] https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/From_Postmodernism_to_Metamodernism
Nothing nobler than being called a postmodernist. You’re lucky!
As already discussed at length, the definition of metamodernism is crucial. As defined here, metamodernism is indistinguishable from postmodernism, because any amount of anti-realism mixed with something else just results in anti-realism. Any mixture of construction and deconstruction just results in deconstruction.
Jason Storm’s definition is fundamentally different - nothing about oscillating between modernism and postmodernism, and everything about reclaiming truth and building new systems instead of just deconstructing everything.
How about an AI analysis comparing the “oscillation” version of metamodernism with Storm’s version?
Postmodernists themselves have not traditionally taken it as an insult. Scientists tend to equate it with everything which is bad about philosophy, and sometimes use that as an excuse to dismiss analytical philosophy too.
It’s very clear to me that I am throughly metamodern. Also please note, to earn a black belt in metamodernism requires mastery of all the postmodern forms. So in the past few years, I’ve been mastering a lot of postmodern technique so I can hold my own in metamodern circles.
Here is a recent essay of mine, developed for very authentic emotional reasons. Notice how dripping in irony it is and very “winking” and fourth wall breaking, while at the same time being truly sincere and struggling for authentic meaning in difficult circumstances. This is all quintessentially metamodern.
As defined by who? We need to clear up the meaning of that word. By Storm’s definition, I am the most metamodern person posting here. You certainly aren’t.
Here’s a Google definition. I’m fine that. If you have a better definition of “metamodernism”, please supply it.
Metamodernism is a cultural and philosophical framework that emerged to describe the era after postmodernism. It acts as a bridge between modernism’s earnest pursuit of meaning and postmodernism’s cynical, playful use of irony, oscillating between the two to create a “new sincerity”. [1, 2, 3]
Key Characteristics
Metamodernism can be broken down into a few core mechanisms:
Oscillation: It moves constantly between opposite poles—enthusiasm and apathy, naiveté and knowingness, hope and melancholy. Instead of settling in the middle, it embraces both ends of the spectrum simultaneously.
The “New Sincerity”: While acknowledging that we live in an ironic world, metamodernists deliberately choose to care, feel, and strive for genuine human connection despite the absurdity of existence.
Pragmatic Idealism: It seeks to build and create meaning in a complex, multi-perspective world, actively learning from past failures while retaining a hopeful drive toward the future. [6, 7, 8]
Modern vs. Postmodern vs. Metamodern
To understand the philosophy, it helps to see how the three eras treat a single concept like truth:
Modernism: Believes in absolute, universal truths (e.g., “This is the right way to build a society.”).
Postmodernism: Deconstructs, mocks, and doubts all truths (e.g., “There are no right ways to build a society, and all structures are flawed.”).
Metamodernism: Recognizes that truths are socially constructed but still embraces them earnestly, knowing they matter (e.g., “We know society is a construct, but we sincerely choose to build and improve it together anyway.”). [14, 15, 16]
Examples in Culture
Metamodernism is heavily prevalent in modern media, literature, and art. It is characterized by works that can be intensely heartfelt while also being hyper-aware of their own construction.
Television & Film: Shows like The Lego Movie or Spider-Verse are textbook examples. They offer high-octane, meta-aware humor, yet are deeply rooted in sincere emotional themes about family and belonging.
Internet Culture: Memes and platforms often employ heavy irony as a defense mechanism, yet concurrently foster deeply earnest, vulnerable communities.
The Arts: The works of performers like Bo Burnham (Inside) or Phoebe Bridgers capture this dynamic perfectly—pairing self-referential, cynical comedy with profound, unvarnished emotional vulnerability. [17]
For a deeper dive into the specific philosophical texts that coined the movement, you can explore the introductory writings on the Metamodernism Website or track ongoing cultural exemplars at What is Metamodern?. [5, 19]
AI responses may include mistakes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamodernism
[2] https://mesciugigi.com/blogs/journal/a-new-sincerity
[3] https://maximilian-rehn.medium.com/what-is-metamodernism-4bf4f7be643d
[4] https://nesslabs.com/metamodernism
[5] https://whatismetamodern.com/
[6] https://www.reddit.com/r/metamodernism/comments/ktdd86/can_someone_explain_metamodernism_like_im_5/
[7] https://www.reddit.com/r/metamodernism/comments/ktdd86/can_someone_explain_metamodernism_like_im_5/
[8] https://www.reddit.com/r/Jung/comments/1iz6mdw/is_metamodern_meme_cultural_making_us_speak/
[11] https://www.reddit.com/r/ThomasPynchon/comments/1gufrrr/help_explain_postmodernism/
[14] https://brendangrahamdempsey.substack.com/p/origins-of-metamodernism-part-i
[15] https://brendangrahamdempsey.substack.com/p/chapter-6-worldview-from-metamodernism
[16] https://www.massline.org/Dictionary/LI.htm
[17] https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/comments/siqf0r/metamodernism_a_novel_movement/
[18] https://www.reddit.com/r/metamodernism/comments/ktdd86/can_someone_explain_metamodernism_like_im_5/
[19] https://www.metamodernism.com/2015/01/12/metamodernism-a-brief-introduction/
Storm’s book is on my shelf. I’m very willing to play by Storm’s rules. Is there something in particular you would like to apply Storm’s methodology to?
Rebooting the original question, here is a video I just watched that was rather interesting. Pollan identifies 22 theories of consciousness. My impression is that list may be rather abbreviated!
Good overview. Integrated information theory is well presented. His reflection on the the topic and mention of the Templeton Foundation competition serves as a reminder that it’s a very much openly contested subject.
He touched on psychedelics a little but that warrants its own full analysis. One insight psychedelics seems to almost universally bestow on people is a sense of pervading consciousness, spanning all things. Now, I say this not in the context of some drugs people have taken over a few decades. I’m talking on the level of multiple diverse cultures around the world, utilising a diverse range of substances, going back thousands of years.
If it’s just a hallucination then it has to be one of the most persistent, all-pervasive ones known to humanity. Aside from being an astronomically weird level of ‘coincidence’. And that level of shared perspective throws us into the territory of questioning what is actually the hallucination and what may in fact be closer to reality.
To clear up what I consider the single largest (far from the only!) source of confusion, I just now ran a Gemini session to summarize what I have already gathered from other sources over the years.
Prompt: Why is the Sanskrit word “chit” translated as “consciousness”?
The translation of the Sanskrit word “chit” (चित्) as “consciousness” stems from both its literal linguistic roots and its profound technical usage in ancient Indian philosophy, particularly within Vedanta and Yoga traditions.
However, translating chit simply as “consciousness” in the Western, psychological sense often misses its deeper metaphysical meaning.
Here is a breakdown of why it is translated this way and what it actually means.
In Sanskrit, words are derived from foundational verbal roots (dhatu).
The Root Cit: The word chit comes from the verbal root cit (pronounced “chit”), which translates to “to perceive,” “to observe,” “to comprehend,” “to be aware,” or “to know.”
Because it is the fundamental verb for the act of perceiving or being aware, the noun form naturally translates to the abstract concept of awareness or consciousness.
In Western psychology, “consciousness” is usually understood as the mind’s stream of thoughts, emotions, memories, and sensory perceptions. In Hindu philosophy, this is a crucial distinction: chit** is not the mind.**
The Witnessing Light: Chit refers to pure, objectless awareness. It is the silent, unchanging “witness” (sakshi) that observes the mind.
The Metaphor of the Screen: Think of your thoughts, emotions, and identity as a movie playing on a screen. The movie is constantly changing, but the light from the projector that makes the movie visible never changes. Chit is the light of awareness; the mind is just the movie it illuminates.
To understand why chit means pure consciousness, it helps to look at a related word: chitta.
Chitta** (Mind-stuff):** This is your working memory, your subconscious, your intellect, and your ego. In texts like the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, chitta is actually considered a subtle form of matter. It is “unconscious” until it is illuminated by chit.
Chit** (Pure Consciousness):** This is the soul, the true Self (Atman), or the animating principle of the universe. It is completely independent of thoughts. When the mind goes completely silent (such as in deep meditation or deep sleep), chit remains awake and aware.
In Advaita Vedanta (non-dual philosophy), the ultimate reality of the universe (Brahman) cannot be described by physical traits. Instead, it is described by three interconnected terms:
Sat: Absolute Existence (Truth / Being)
Chit: Absolute Consciousness (Awareness / Knowing)
Ananda: Absolute Bliss (Fulfillment / Joy)
Therefore, when scholars translate chit as “consciousness,” they are not referring to the localized brain activity of a human being. They are translating it as the fundamental, foundational consciousness that permeates and perceives all of existence.
So the most essential problem here, is that that Western empirical and evolutionary psychology is focusing entirely on “chitta” and cares little, if at all, about “chit”. Although I am no expert on psychedelics, the phenomenal descriptions of the trans-cultural experiences align with “chit” beyond “chitta”.
Lately in reading about Hume (which I had never done much), it fascinated me that Hume dissolves the Cartesian “self”, not to mention “matter”. Rather than becoming the 18th centuries version of Alan Watts, however, he stopped right there and took that metacognitive observer status as a “view for nowhere” viewing platform for what he hoped would become a Newtonian physics of the inner life. Never asked the question - “who/what is asking all the questions?” Or “where is the nowhere?” Or “how can there even be a view?” To sum up, it seems to me Hume established the foundations for what might be an analogue to Eastern philosophy in the West, and then diverted his attention in other directions.
Anyway, a lot of the in-the-weeds scientific discussion about “consciousness” focuses entirely on the contents of movie, so to speak, and does not attend much to the screen, let alone the projector! No wonder there are so many theories of consciousness!