What is meta-meta-modern? Is it necessarily "woo"?

Research and Sense-Making
1

I haven’t read up on the distinctions between Meta-modernism, Integral Theory (which I’m more familiar with), and whatever else is out there.

My impression from reading certain posts here is that Integral Theory makes room for ‘woo’, while Metamodernism does not. This is made very clear in discussions of levels in IT (see descriptions of Indigo and above Integral theory - Integral European Conference).

This forum is more partial to meta-modernism, it seems, and this makes me curious: how do you interpret the “woo”, claims of telepathy, light beings, and so on (mentioned in the link)?

Are there stages above meta-modern? If there are, what sort of phenomena would indicate to us that there are such things? In my opinion, such levels would be “woo” by definition, because that’s what we call anything that breaks current models of reality fundamentally.

2

There was an over 100-post debate about all this in the FB group “Metamodern Spirituality” over a year ago. If you want every conceivable POV on this question, I’d recommend digging into the archives of that group. The most pivotal book for this discussion is Hanzi Freinacht, The Listening Society (2017). In that book, the pseudonymous Freinacht team references Wilber quite a bit, borrows some of it, and rejects other parts of it. Some Wilberians want to claim that everything MM is really Integral. But many MM authors what to keep their distance from Wilberian Integral.

A really central point in this is Wilber’s “spiritual line of development”. Wilber takes Sri Aurobindo’s Integral Yoga stage theory of spiritual development and stacks it on top of personal development models like that of Robert Kegan. That’s how Wilber gets up to very high development levels like Third Tier. Many MM authors are not buying that approach.

1 Like
3

The “woo” question is interesting (and it’s something I deal with in everyday life). I’d say it helps greatly to distinguish different categories that you (or others) class as “woo”. The conspiracy part is ably dealt with by that elegant YouTube philosophy channel, “Contrapoints”. (A work of art!) Other aspects: how would you name and categorise them?

More later.

1 Like
4

What do you do in everyday life what involves “woo”?

5

I agree with Simon. We need to closely re-examine the terminology

The term “woo” needs to be retired along with “supernatural”, “paranormal” and “parapsychological”.

We should then start by distinguishing between hypernatural and praeternatural and rule out the former because it is physically impossible. Conspiracy theories have nothing to do with causality so should be dealt with separately. But this leaves a very large category of alleged phenomena which fall in to the category of praeternatural (probabilistic supernatural).

That category must be left radically open. Psychegenesis and free will are special cases, but synchronicity and everything else all fall into the same broad category. It includes some sorts of beliefs which are inherently damaging. An example is believing in a God which forbids contraception – here the problem isn’t belief a non-physical being per se, but the content of the allegedly revealed law. This area is important because it includes all of the most harmful forms of existing religions, especially the fundamentalist Abrahamic varieties. What I am saying is this shouldn’t just be rejected wholesale because it is woo. Instead we need to say that people can believe whatever they like, provided they aren’t expecting anybody else to believe it, and provided it is not harmful to anybody else.

As far as any sort of ideological system goes – any sort of structure or foundation for shared worldviews – then the position has to be that we simply don’t know, that science can’t go there, and that there are never going to be objective answers to these questions. We need to learn to just accept that some people claim to experience these things, others have faith they are real even though they’ve not experienced them themselves, and others are skeptical. There’s no point in the skeptics trying to enforce their skepticism on society in general and no point in the believers trying to get everybody to believe.

Praeternatural phenomena aren’t always what they appear to be. It is entirely possible for somebody to know with absolute certainty they’ve experienced something of this sort, but not know what the real cause was, although they may insist that they do know the cause.

For example, they may experience being in contact with some sort of conscious intelligence. This will involve their mind being read (including direct questions) and very clear answers being provided (and I mean answers written in English). Let’s say these answers seem to be messages from God. That person can now know that praeternatural phenomena are real, but how can they know what caused them? Was it really God? Or was it another human? Or maybe a spiritually advanced alien? Or the result of some sort of praeternatural law we currently have no means of understanding?

There is no point in trying to reach a left hemisphere conclusion about these things. The left hemisphere cannot process it. It will never be able to reach any sort of conclusion that is worth anything. The existence of most kinds of phenomena that fall into this category must therefore remain an open question, so that each person can explore this territory on their own terms. This is the only way genuine spirituality can work. If you try to do it collectively then the result is a new religion, and I don’t think that is where this should be going.

It must not be ruled out by bad (materialistic) metaphysics, or bad (scientistic) epistemology, but neither can it be ruled in at the level of society in general or in terms of any ideological system we are expecting people to accept.

6

By ‘objective answers’, do you mean consensus? I don’t see why not - society does evolve, after all. Heliocentrism was once the fringe theory, and making it such an exact an undeniable theory led to the Scientific Revolution.

In my view, Sagan’s statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is incomplete. Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary methodology and openness! What good does evidence do if it is immediately dismissed/filtered? For the majority of Westerners, what you call the preternatural represents something that doesn’t compute within currently understood boundaries. Like Columbus’s ships to the native islanders the Europeans first came across. We are at a similarly novel point in history, a sort of contact between ourselves and phenomena that contradict our current framework. But how could it be otherwise?

7

Not just consensus, no. I mean consensus derived from irrefutable empirical evidence and/or pure reason.

I don’t see why not - society does evolve, after all. Heliocentrism was once the fringe theory, and making it such an exact an undeniable theory led to the Scientific Revolution.

The problem is that the available evidence is all borderline. It is convincing enough for the believers, but not convincing enough for the skeptics. And I think this isn’t purely because materialists start out by assuming it isn’t true (though that is part of what is happening). I actually think this is part of the way these things work – there are literally competing claims on what is possible in reality, which is why the evidence is always borderline.

Another way of saying this is that while individuals can experience extreme praeternatural phenomena of a sort which are utterly undeniable, the moment you try to scale it up and include skeptics in the process then the “signal” is necessarily reduced to a level where it does not seriously impinge on the reality-tunnel of the skeptics.

Each of us is sovereign over our own interface with reality. So long as there are skeptics, the praeternatural will remain inaccessible to science…and science requires us to be skeptical by its very nature. My conclusion is that science can never go there.

There is only one exception to this, and that is teleology in the evolution of conscious organisms. Which is why that example is of such critical importance. It’s the one example we need to focus on – once that has been analysed then the whole debate starts to shift in the direction you want it shifted in.

Columbus’s

The real Columbus in this situation is Thomas Nagel, not Dean Radin. Radin can’t take the scientific community with him. Nagel can. We need Nagel to show people the door before Radin can beckon people through it.

8

It seems like you’re saying that a rational, rather than empirical, argument is the best one. Maybe for you and some others, but not everyone will have the same onramp. For some (I’m guessing a minority) a long, complicated, logical argument may do the trick. Others will simply ask for peer-reviewed studies (usually assuming there are none).

9

Yes. I have started a thread about Nagel’s arguments.

but not everyone will have the same onramp.

I think Nagel’s onramp is the only one that can actually work for the scientific community.

For some (I’m guessing a minority) a long, complicated, logical argument may do the trick. Others will simply ask for peer-reviewed studies (usually assuming there are none).

The peer-reviewed studies have been around for donkey’s years. They have not broken the stalemate.

10

Peer reviewed studies haven’t existed for long. Rational arguments for the supernatural have for millenia. By your logic, this would indicate an ineffective strategy, since they have “not broken the stalemate”.

All I’m saying is that what you find convincing isn’t necessarily what others find convincing. I think we should continue to improve our rational and empirical arguments, and not cede any territory to the priests of the old order.

11

Not like Nagel’s argument in Mind and Cosmos. This time is very different. See the other thread.

There is an order this must come. First you must understand not only that materialism is false, but exactly why it is incoherent. Then you must ask what the consequences are for science and naturalism as they are currently understood. Nobody has ever done this before. At least nobody has done it who remains a scientific naturalist after they’ve finished.

All I’m saying is that what you find convincing isn’t necessarily what others find convincing.

I am pretty sure that I speak for most of the scientific community on this one. For people outside that community things might look very different.

Dean Radin’s position isn’t new. You may find it convincing, but it can’t be part of what makes 2R revolutionary, because there’s nothing revolutionary about it. The praeternaturalists have manifestly failed to make a convincing enough case. I believe the same does not apply to Nagel. Until the materialists understand that materialism is false, they will not accept Radin’s position as legitimate. But the moment they do understand it is false, then they are faced with the issues Nagel is dealing with in Mind and Cosmos. This is where my own argument come in – I am providing the bridge to allow people to move beyond Nagel’s position in the direction of yours.

12

Can you tell me what is fundamentally new about Nagel’s position?

13

Research like Radin’s isn’t what convinced me. It was first person experience. Not a rational argument.

Seems like a pretty extreme position to take. You’re saying most of the scientific community will be more convinced by rational arguments for what goes beyond their current frameworks than empirical arguments? My experience with those who are scientifically inclined has been the opposite. No one has time for a rational argument, and very few people give a fuck. The whole point of empirical evidence is to save time so that arguments like these won’t be necessary.

14

Mind and Cosmos. A summary courtesy of ChatGPT - General - Second Renaissance Forum

Research like Radin’s isn’t what convinced me. It was first person experience. Not a rational argument.

Me too. But the rational argument was required before I was able to believe such things were even possible, and without that belief then they actually aren’t possible. You have to believe they are possible or they won’t happen. They do not happen to skeptics.

Seems like a pretty extreme position to take. You’re saying most of the scientific community will be more convinced by rational arguments for what goes beyond their current frameworks than empirical arguments? My experience with those who are scientifically inclined has been the opposite. No one has time for a rational argument, and very few people give a fuck.

Seriously: Mind and Cosmos. A summary courtesy of ChatGPT - General - Second Renaissance Forum

15

I did read through your thread on Nagel, and I don’t see what you see in it. His radically expanded form of naturalism is basically the standard position of intellectuals before Descartes (except for the nominalists). Yes, I know he brings scientific argumentation into it - but the early quantum theorists made similar observations a century before Nagel. What’s so special about Nagel? I think it’s more likely that this is availability bias at work.

16

Did you read all three posts?

17

I did, but like I said, I don’t see what you see there. If you feel there is something fundamentally new in Nagel’s position, and the arguments represent some new height of rational argumentation for an expanded worldview manifestly better than any other lines of argument, then you should be able to state what this is. By simply linking to your post, you’re imagining that I will draw the same conclusions as you when reading it. As far as I’m concerned, Nagels’ position isn’t the only plausible one and also isn’t new.

18

I am unsure as to why you keep saying that when the whole point I am making is that you need to put Nagel’s position together with Stapp’s before something radically new appears. Nagel’s position is new in terms of modern science, but on its own it isn’t world-changing, because it is only one part of a bigger picture.

By simply linking to your post, you’re imagining that I will draw the same conclusions as you when reading it. As far as I’m concerned, Nagels’ position isn’t the only plausible one and also isn’t new.

OK. But you haven’t even mentioned anything about how Nagel’s arguments fit together with Stapp’s, which is the whole point I am trying to make. You keep saying “I just don’t see it”, and then explain that you are only looking at half of what I am showing you.

You have not explained why you aren’t arriving at the same conclusions, and you are evidently only registering half of what I’m saying.

Are you a theist? Because “seeing” this might involve a challenge to your existing ideas about the process of creation. This doesn’t just challenge materialists/naturalists. It also challenges theists, for it completely removes any justification for claiming that God was required at any point in the process. That’s what makes it so interesting. It is genuinely new because it cuts a path between naturalism and theism which I do not believe has been cut before (it cannot have been, because it is critically dependent on quantum theory.) And isn’t that exactly the sort of thing we should be looking for?

19

There are a couple of possible reasons as to why I am not arriving at the same conclusions as you.

One possible reason is what you seem to be implying: there is something special about combining Nagel’s insights with Stapp’s (‘something radically new appears’, as you put it). This combined viewpoint represents some pinnacle of understanding that I’m not getting.

Another possible reason may be that you are falling victim to availability bias - i.e. you are convinced that the books you’ve read/viewpoints you’ve been exposed to represent the definitive opinions on this topic.

I’m not sure. Berkeley’s God makes sense to me, as do many other gods I’m familiar with. I’m also okay with the idea of an emergent, naturalistic deity.

20

I wouldn’t describe it as a “pinnacle”. It is more like a gateway – a path from one paradigm to another. And yes, this is new. Most of the parts of it have existed in one form or another for decades, but nobody has ever put the whole picture together before. They cannot possibly have done so, because both Nagel and Stapp are saying genuinely new things and nobody has combined them before. How can that be an old idea? Who else has ever described it?

Another possible reason may be that you are falling victim to availability bias - i.e. you are convinced that the books you’ve read/viewpoints you’ve been exposed to represent the definitive opinions on this topic.

I don’t think you’re seeing the whole picture. I also think we should take this discussion into the other thread. Would that be OK?

Perhap you could summarise your response to me in one post in that thread, for the benefit of other people who end up reading that discussion? The more people involved, the more likely we are to find a common understanding.

1 Like