Here are a few:
I would suggest that even if you went through the Postmodern stage rather quickly, itās still a necessary stage to work through.
OK. My problem with agreeing to this is that what we are calling a āpostmodern stageā was for me only epistemological. It didnāt have time to filter through to my political beliefs (for example). I was too busy trying to figure out whether reality was actually realā¦
And in fact it is more complicated than that, because Iād spent the previous 15 years in a state that wasnāt really āmodernā, because Iād accepted the inevitability of collapse. So I still had a āmodernā attitude to truth and reality ā in fact I was more committed to those things than normal people ā but I had given up on humans in general and on any idea of āprogressā.
But times have now changed. I think we need people to be able to accept collapse, and the need for a new epistemic/ideological paradigm, all as part of the same thing. And I think that a rejection of postmodern anti-realism also has to be part of that thing. It all needs to be offered to people together ā as a coherent package. In fact, for me thatās the very essence of 2R. That is exactly what is needed to turn it into a societal-level paradigm shift.
To put this another wayā¦I think we can āsellā a version of 2R to a large enough chunk of western society to push this paradigm shift through, but I think that can only happen if we are very clear that postmodern anti-realism is NOT part of the deal. And I think the biggest obstacle to making 2R happen is that too many of the people who are trying to make it happen have not fully accepted that postmodernism has to die. Woke politics has been defeated on the political battlefield. Now there has to be a proper postmortem ā there has to be a facing up to the truth about the reasons, extent and consequences of its failure.
To be honest it is massive progress that weāre even able to have this discussion. Until very recently, at least across the bulk of social media, it would have been shut down by the woke authoritarian āfact checkersā. The level of distrust and anger is hard to put into words. A lot of people were silenced, one way or another. These people need to be brought into the coalition, and you arenāt going to achieve that by telling them they need to go through a postmodern stage for their own good.
Bobā¦how is posting those links helping? What is being said in them that is relevant?
By posting them you are implying that something is wrong with my definition(s), but you havenāt actually told me what is wrong. Youāve not rejected any of them, and youāve not offered any specific alternatives ā youāve just posted links which basically agree with everything Iāve said.
My definition is: " there is no such thing as truth, that everything is perspective or relative, and that the age of totalising āgrand narrativesā is over forever (which amounts to saying there will never be a holistic , coherent ātheory of everythingā)"
I will now ask ChatGPT to criticise this definition, and offer a better one.
A More Precise Definition of Postmodernism
āPostmodernism is a broad intellectual movement characterized by skepticism toward universalist claims of truth, objectivity, and progress. It critiques grand narratives, questions the stability of meaning, and emphasizes the role of language, power, and social context in shaping knowledge and reality. Rather than denying truth outright, it problematizes how truth is constructed and maintained within cultural and historical frameworks.ā
OK. Is that better? Because it serves just as well as the definition I provided ā all it does is expand on it a bit.
I think that the definition should be closer to - āthereās no universal truth and thereās scepticism towards grand narrativesā .
Majority of people struggle with entertaining different perspectives and reject relativity. The conditioning that goes into formation of worldviews is foundational. Embracing relativity can be hard because objective reality and absolute truths are the anchor.
In terms of stage development - itās only normal that people who are still in the Modernity cannot recognise the premises of the Postmodernism because they resemble the bits/remnants of previous stages, as the integral theory stipulates.
However, itās possible to āempathiseā with different schools of thinking and various perspectives. Thatās what I think metamodernism is trying to
Geoff: there is no such thing as truth
ChapGTP: skepticism toward universalist claims of truth, objectivity, and progress.
Geoff: the age of totalising āgrand narrativesā is over forever
ChatGTP: critiques grand narratives
Geoff: everything is perspective or relative
ChatGTP: emphasizes the role of language, power, and social context in shaping knowledge and reality. Rather than denying truth outright, it problematizes how truth is constructed and maintained within cultural and historical frameworks.
Your rhetorical choices of phrases like āno such thingā, āover foreverā, and āeverythingā exemplify the sort of totalizing perspectives that authors associated with postmoderism (and quite bit a philosophy before and after) would find doubtful. Itās not like postmodernism itself is beyond critique (I personally favor Habermasās views on postmodernism), but such categorical rejection of postmodern thinking and refusal to even engage with the underlying source material is not very persuasive.
1 Like
Embracing relativity can be hard because objective reality and absolute truths are the anchor.
I donāt understand what you are saying here. Objective reality and absolute truths are indeed an anchor. They were an anchor when I was a materialistic skeptic, and they still are. What has changed is my understanding of what objective reality is ā specifically, it is in a partially undefined state ā a āsuperpositionā ā and Iāve had to add some things to my conception of reality in order to account for both this noumenal superposition and my phenomenal experience of reality. In this way I can embrace a certain degree of relativity, but objective reality is still playing the role of anchoring ā it is still defining what is physically possible. What has also changed is my understanding of the role of probability within what is physically possible. In other words, I believe the quantum dice can be loaded.
In terms of stage development - itās only normal that people who are still in the Modernity cannot recognise the premises of the Postmodernism because they resemble the bits/remnants of previous stages, as the integral theory stipulates.
By ārecognisesā do you mean āacceptsā? In which case, how does this apply to me? Iām not āstill in modernityā, but I do not ārecogniseā the premises of postmodernism either. This is not because I donāt understand them. I understand them perfectly well, and I think they are wrong.
No, I meant ārecogniseā. How can you know what you donāt know - or how can you be aware of what youāre not aware. It is complicated through every subsequent stage being an aggregate of the previous ones. If you donāt understand the next stage, youāll be convinced itās the previous. Itās not a stab at you personally, just the nature of systemic blindness.
1 Like
Iām saying that having such a strong position against postmodernism (which is a reaction to the dogmatism of science and progress) might be an existential fear in your caseā¦ The vehemence of your objections is slightly anti-intellectual.
1 Like
but such categorical rejection of postmodern thinking and refusal to even engage with the underlying source material is not very persuasive.
Not very persuasive for who? Of course it isnāt persuasive for postmodernists and ex-postmodernists ā because it suggests they invested quite a lot in something which turned out to be a serious mistake. Those are not the people I am trying to persuade. As explained in the OP, I am interested in the much larger āmarketā of people who have never accepted postmodernismās premises but who nevertheless are ripe and ready for a fundamentally new paradigm. In fact I think those people are an absolutely necessary component part of the new movement, or it stands zero chance of gaining enough clout and momentum to succeed.
The problem is that what we need ā more than anything else ā in this new movement, is a fresh commitment to realism. And the people who have spent the last 30 years fiercely and consistently defending realism are to a very large extent the same people who have been manning the front lines in defending Western society from the insane excesses of postmodern anti-realism. People like Thomas Nagel and JK Rowling. And myself, not that I have even a thousandth of their reach. And we have done this at considerable personal cost. This group arenāt just some minor, fringe group. We need them front and centre, leading the charge into the new paradigm.
āWe must act now or it will be too lateā is no longer any use as a rallying cry. I think the new paradigm needs to replace it with āWe must deal with reality, or it will deal with us.ā
Iām saying that having such a strong position against postmodernism (which is a reaction to the dogmatism of science and progress) might be an existential fear in your caseā¦ The vehemence of your objections is slightly anti-intellectual.
There is a non-intellectual component to my objection, but I am not sure it is anti-intellectual.
And it really has nothing to do with existential fear, and this is another major problem I have with postmodernism ā or postmodernists. That is their tendency to interpret people who disagree with them as suffering from āfearā or āphobiasā. The clear implication is that you donāt get it because you havenāt done enough work on yourself. This needs to stop too. It turns people right off. It is another major reason why people donāt like postmodernism.
The strength of my stance against postmodernism is purely the result of my conviction that it is one of the major components of the problem we need to solve. It is a central plank of the metacrisis. I think Iāve already said what the other two are ā materialism and growth-based economics. I am also rejecting both of those wholesale ā Iām not claiming they are stages we have to go through, or perspectives we need to incorporate. Iām saying they are completely wrong, because they are based on false premises. I am saying we need to start again, without incorporating any assumptions based on them. And I am saying exactly the same thing about postmodern antirealism.
Can I suggest a starting point?
1: Ecocivilisation is our destiny and our goal.
2: Consciousness is real.
3: Structural realism is true (scientific realism is true).
4. Materialism and physicalism should both be rejected.
No postmodern assumptions are required. Do you object to this as a starting point? There are another 4 principles to build on this but letās start here.
I am not a fan of stage theories either, I was merely trying to accommodate youā¦
Iām really sorry, I stumbled over your first premise - my thinking is that our goal is self-actualisation and then transcendanceā¦ Probably no need to go further.
I honestly think that our disagreements are just because of the lack of coherence. It would take a few attempts to get to some common ground, but Iām sure itās thereā¦ somewhere
Regarding the problems that the world needs to solve and the solutions - can you please elaborate more concretely, outside the philosophical framework? Iād take that wokeness is one?
1 Like
Iām really sorry, I stumbled over your first premise - my thinking is that our goal is self-actualisation and then transcendanceā¦ Probably no need to go further.
That is a personal goal. I am talking about a societal goal. Your personal goal can certainly be transcendence and self-actualisation, or whatever you want to call it. Is there some reason why we canāt have both personal and societal goals?
Regarding the problems that the world needs to solve and the solutions - can you please elaborate more concretely, outside the philosophical framework? Iād take that wokeness is one?
Fundamentally we need to figure out how to make civilisation ecologically sustainable. Within that we need to work out how to maximise human potential, but unless we can fix civilisation itself then weāre always vulnerable to collapse (which minimises human potential).
How can the West build an ecocivilisation? China has adopted it as a national goal, but their version is built on authoritarian Marxism and on Taoism. The West has no equivalent ideologies to draw from. Along with the remains of Christianity, weāve got capitalism, materialism and postmodernism ā all of which are founded on false premises. So we need to understand what has gone wrong with the Westās capacity to create coherent ideologies ā what could a western version of ecocivilisation look like, and what is the least bad path from here to there?
I agree - we could have personal and societal goals, just not sure how to split them? What would be the basis for the division? Who exactly is the society to have goals? Where are we getting the specs from? Are we going back to the dynamics of power and classes of human expression?
OK, I finally get you - now that youāve mentioned authoritarianism and China. Youāre talking about the auto-immune disease of our civilisation? Thatās a systemic problem - itās a corruption. Now your realist approach starts to make sense 
I agree - we could have personal and societal goals, just not sure how to split them? What would be the basis for the division? Who exactly is the society to have goals? Where are we getting the specs from? Are we going back to the dynamics of power and classes of human expression?
The societal goals are about the functioning of society ā they are about how the whole system works ā economics, legal system and everything else. Personal goals are about intellectual and spiritual development (at least thatās what you were talking about). Beyond that everything is available for discussion. I donāt have a masterplan for civilisation ā I am working at the āmetaā level to that. I am trying to figure out the specs for the debate that has to take place in order to decide on all the details, including how power is distributed and how the monetary system works.
OK, I finally get you - now that youāve mentioned authoritarianism and China. Youāre talking about the auto-immune disease of our civilisation? Thatās a systemic problem - itās a corruption. Now your realist approach starts to make sense
I am not sure I am following you. China is important because it has a different set of cultural values to us, and a different set of ideologies to build on. Authoritarianism is certainly important ā without it they would not have been able to implement their one child policy. No democracy (as we understand them) would have been able to do that. Which leaves a profound question about whether democracy can survive in the West. I think it can, but it will have to be radically transformed.
Can we build a non-authoritarian ecocivilisation? I donāt know.
OK, I agree with you on questioning democracy and the restā¦ You see, it was just a miscommunication. I know what you meant by societal goals, I just donāt think you can present them as āsocietalā because there are only the goals of the dominant classes that have a say in the āmakingā of the world.
In China, goals are not left to the people, just like people donāt have a say in the running of the NHS or the regulation of financial markets. They stuff those goals down peopleās throats and call them societal goals. (I donāt mean to say itās right or wrong)
I also donāt necessarily believe that we can build a non-authoritarian ā¦
, I just donāt think you can present them as āsocietalā because there are only the goals of the dominant classes that have a say in the āmakingā of the world.
But thatās just a perfect example of postmodern nonsense! We are talking about a new movement ā a meta-movement that comes from the grass roots ā from people like us. So unless we are the dominant classes, then your criticism is false by definition. Weāre proving it wrong by finally having our say. The dominant classes do not want to establish this as a societal goal ā far from it. Itās just about the last thing they want.
So I donāt understand what the problem is.
In China, goals are not left to the people
Yes. And in some cases it turns out that is a very good thing. Sometimes the people make really bad decisions. Electing a demented idiot as their President, for example.
There are no true grass root movements - there are only elitist movements. Belonging to the dominant classes can be established through the accrual of different type of capital - not just wealth and fame. The process of oneās trajectory into the dominant class is accompanied by the acceptance of the views of those classes - because they become that class.
Also, youāre making a mistake thinking that just talking about something is actually doing it, is actually becoming the dominant force in the society capable of promoting our views as common sense views.
1 Like
There are no true grass root movements - there are only elitist movements.
You and I are currently discussing the genesis of a new movement. Does that make us āelitistā? I donāt understand.
Also, youāre making a mistake thinking that just talking about something is actually doing it,
I am not making any such mistake. I am talking about how we can make it happen ā I am absolutely not interested in talking about things which cannot happen ā on the contrary, I am insisting that this new movement must be based on realism. I have a book coming out later this year called The Real Paths to Ecocivilisation. That title was chosen precisely because I want to focus minds on the difference between just talking about something and actually doing it.
is actually becoming the dominant force in the society capable of promoting our views as common sense views.
Please believe me, I am very much aware of this. You are accusing me of the exact opposite of what Iām actually doing. What are the real paths? I am saying we need to stop talking about rival utopian visions ā impossible paths to impossible places are no use to us.
I am arguing that postmodernism needs to be removed from the solution precisely because I am interested in actually making this paradigm shift happen. Postmodernism is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The whole thing is based on trying to enforce the impossible. It has nothing to do with reality ā that is the whole problem with it.
Do you know who are the elites? People who have accumulated significant amounts of various forms of capital that grant them power, influence or esteem in the society. Itās not only the extra rich - there are intellectual elites, cultural elites, sports elitesā¦ Please see my summary of Bourdieu presentation.
1 Like