LMAO Metamodrenism is a process of indoctrination in which subjects are expected to simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth, often at odds with their own memory or sense of reality

you lost me with the Trump BS

the fact theres a "McBuddhism" under the post-modern column thrills me to no end

Normal... ill pay my tribute and leave :)))))))

Thanks for the great content ! U two got got good dynamic please keep it up!

It should be split into how they're enchanted. There is no “pre-modern” and modernism started in the early 20th century, maybe earlier idk but definitely by the decadent stuff. Before that was romanticism. Modernism takes romanticism as man within nature but Modernism has the man not connecting to nature but instead cultural narratives. This means the universals that the romantics felt they had epistemic access to (and they did to some degree) weren't available to modernists outside their cultural narratives making the universals not universals right? From romanticism you have things like traits of a people are from the land they're from. This is sincere and ties into political destinies and even anti germ theory like terrain theory. This is a whole worldview. Modernism takes that same approach in nature but then doesn't have access to anything but that cultural narrative. Postmodern reapplies modernism to modernism to the point where you don't even technically have access to the cultural narratives. Keep in mind this is necessary to seek these cultural narratives from modernism who takes from romanticism. It follows the same path. This makes Baudrillard’s matrix seem all the more encompassing. As was said for romanticism there is explanatory power for pomo as well. It can't be dismissed entirely. Metamodernism does come next but something else important to note here is this a hegelian unfolding or dialectic or historicism. The negation is already within it. You don't see this from enlightenment reasoning which gives us access to nature to romantic aesthetics which gives us access to nature. To clear out the premodern a bit, there was access to the previous enchantment or whichever. Before the enlightenment was what the enlightenment continued off of which was the Renaissance. The distinction is in sanctification for rcc Renaissance which saw people grow upwards into other fields where the enlightenment was more about equal salvation and equal access to everything by reason. For the enlightenment if you could put something into reasonable terms then there was instant access to it which was anything in nature. Today we still do follow that in that we think a reasonable debate will connect us with each other but even the strident enlightenment advocates will still talk about controlling a narrative which is obviously a postmodern concept. So the Renaissance I'm not super educated on but they were very conscious of a want to supersede scholastic enchantment. This brought in neoplatonism and neoplatonist alchemy which was a big thing in England with some people as a means to counter the scholasticism. Scholastics were still big in unis in England after the church split but you have Francis bacon, Newton, Galileo etc all very invested in alchemy. So that was the English response. It wasn't an empirical one fundamentally but that was eventually how it was considered. They made a science like that. Before that, enchantment was scholastic. There were no doubt subenchantments or even extra enchantments but I'm not sure how much of that bubbled up. You can look at the other mendicant orders or whatever kept bringing up protestantism but Renaissance was consciously reacting to scholasticism. Scholastic is an enchantment of God through nature in simple apprehension into syllogistic reasoning about actualization. Metamodernism then follows the hegelian dialectics. It's simply taking narratives in sort of an abstract sense and dealing with modernist narratives as narratives that can be used in a postmodern sense so not genuinely. You have on the “left” people arguing against the cisheteromale western pro life whatever appendations because they see them all as one and they'll say that so they're dealing with the same postmodern conceptions of narratives in that they're just power imbalances. They have postmodern political or ethical narratives or units like neogenders or whichever and they give it a modernist narrative in a consciously postmodern sense. They had animalkin when it was starting. These aren't sincere things but they do tie in as narrative additions against a power imbalance. Maybe they're even consciously aware of derrida's binary aspect. I'm not really sure how they end up forming them into this big tangle but they do that for both sides where pro abortion is pro Palestine etc and all that. The “right” does the same as well. I can't think of any postmodern units created but meninist, incels, it can be religious etc these get tied into some same narrative tangle which operates in the same sense by “metanarratives” I suppose. Some maybe interesting points, early 20th century governments were very modernist and you see that in things like Soviet science, Aryan science, a criticism of “Jewish” science. You have new Soviet man, new Aryan man, fascist man, Jewish masculinity, Christian masculinity etc. These are reducing universals into narratives. You see in the literature etc like Joyce, they are tied necessarily to these cultural narratives even if they put effort into undermining that narrative more so out of frustration with seeking universals or meaning within cultural narratives and never finding it. You can see it with Kafka or any modernist. This differs from the “this is what a feminist male looks like” or whatever that was. Another important point is these are natural developments and I mean while academia was sorta just cleaned out romanticism entirely and were engaged with existentialism, keep in mind modernism still underlies from ww1 to ww2, pynchon and maybe even Borges from before ww1 were writing extremely postmodern books. So this is before foucault and before derrida, lyotard and everyone. It's not before lacan but I highly doubt pynchon was reading lacan and Borges certainly didn't.

This was a great discussion! Thanks to both guest and host for an awesome topic.

This makes out to be a great Unitarian Universalist sermon Brendan! If I could get them interested, would you be willing to speak to my church sometime? They pay a little speakers fee. 😊💓

"I thoroughly enjoyed Lene Rachel Andersen's 'Polymodern Economics'. It brilliantly synthesizes polymodernity into actionable frameworks and principles. Two standout contributions: 🔸How the layered economic model integrates Indigenous, traditional, modern, and postmodern frameworks, offering a holistic and adaptive approach to address global sustainability and economic equity challenges. 🔸The emphasis on co-evolutionary diversity and structural deepening provides a fresh paradigm for balancing localized resilience with global interconnectedness. An insightful roadmap for turning metamodern theory into transformative action🙏

Thank for all the hard work and for making it available for everyone!

I knew the comment section of this video would be intense…lol

Very excited for this!!

Congratulations! Long awaited and much appreciated...

'Emancipation' is far from a universal good and as a marker of progress is rather dubious.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, Brendan and Dr Hicks! This was like an eight-hour intravenous bag of hope into my bloodstream.

A lot of very interesting sounding papers! Can't wait to get into it. Thank you so much for your work, I appreciate the both of you and everyone else involved in making this happen.

what a Doozy

❤❤

Why the necessary conclusion that there is no original form of this story? Logic would conclude that the similarities in the myths strongly suggest a common origin.

The left's campaign was run on abortion. If anything is loathsome, it's that. If you can be honest, the left at the deepest level is okay with sacrificing the future for the self. It's sick. And they use fear tactics. I think conservatives feel that they see through the facade of climate change, abortion, identity politics, etc. and it's irrational. It's kind of condescending to believe that people just aren't informed enough. They know enough to know how unhealthy and destructive progressivism is. You don't have to be a metamodernist to know what doesn't work. There's no stability when morality is constantly shifting.

Censorship industrial complex Military Industrial Complex Neoliberal Gutting of the US all sided with Kamala. Corporate Lobbying Industrial Complex sided with Kamala who outspent Trump 4 to 1. The higher altitude won. How useless has Integral and Metamodernism become that the two of you can't tell? Worse, you have no idea that we just dodged a bullet. All the fancy intellectual models are useless if you don't have quality sensemaking. In the case of you two, you haven't yet figured out the incentive structures in the media sphere that misinform you. After you reread "Manufacturing consent" , which is still relevant today, read "Hate, Inc" by Matt Tiabbi as it is the sequel with updates to the media landscape. Then ask yourself what is missing in your own models that caused you to get this backwards while rednecks and truck drivers (that you look down upon as lower altitude) got it right.

There is a Trump sign down the street from me and a man is holding an assault weapon in his hands displaying it proudly. I have a real problem with that.

Step 1 : Deprogram your mind from all the nonsense that the Mainstream Media implanted into it.

Thank you. I appreciated so much of this conversation. And - Trump is so much more than a “clown”. He is a rapist and adulterer who sanctions violence and children being ripped out of their mother’s arms. I just find the trite framing of Trump’s character and the suggestion that his tactics be modeled rather short sighted.

Thank you both for this.

From listening to what Trump has been saying since his win it seems like he’s going to be a snub to the excesses of an unhealthy form of postmodernism and will be bringing back some aspects of healthy modernism and traditionalism

I imagine some of the left leaning metamodernists have been taking it hard?

After all this brilliant commentary, you think RFK jr might be good for health?? I’m dumbfounded. Dude doesn’t think hiv causes aids, vax=autism, chemtrails… he’d be absolutely disastrous in charge of health anything. His take on soil health seems good on the surface but he’s proposed no policy and I can’t imagine it would be scientifically sound. I.e. synthetic pesticides are designed for more specific targeting and organic ones are just broad and kill more. Soil health is about diversity. There’s no bill he could pass that would get modern ag anywhere near a permaculture type situation. RFK is the reason I finally decided to vote, against him, more than Trump.

Kamala went on the Podcast "Call Her Daddy" and we are expected to take her seriously? Way to lower the bar. This is a podcast with blowjob advice mind you; that advocates manipulating men via sex to gain power in the relationship so you can be the "Daddy" hence the name. Nuff' said.

Dempsey seems want to go meta and above and beyond from the get go instead of really sharing how the result lands for him. "Go in and down before you go up and out" is instructive if you want to muster some capacity to have a multiperspectival exploration. You're not doing anyone a service by not being transparent and direct in putting your interiors on the table.

Would this conversation have taken place if Kamala had won? If so, what would the talking points have been? And if not, how come?

Heres a metamodern insight-response: I see the dark shaman archetype occuring in the counter-enlightenment lineage borne of the early german romantic philosophers that give you figures like Rousseau and Lord Byron (the latter endorsed Napoleon). Aesthetically, they were the proto-lulz see-the-world-burn trolls of young disaffected men -- you can hear the romantic narcissistic punk in Listz and Beethoven carrying through to hyperpop and Floridian soft power

Basically we need Jack Black to read more integral books and step up.

You guys are pissing away compassion when trying to understand Trump voters. There's nothing to understand. You are talking about pure tribalistic values, often fed by misinformation and lies. Trump's supporters are going to have to learn through experience what they could have learned from wisdom.

Brendan & Layman... I follow you both and have great appreciation and respect. This was an interesting and meaningful conversation and I agree with much of what you offered. But I do wish you could sit down at the dinner table with some working class and working poor families (i.e., Trump supporters) and talk with them. I think this would further nuance and nourish your views. I am from that background and I know these people well and while I am not a Trump supporter, I understand how working people feel and why they vote the way they do. They have value and need to be heard. They are not just beasts of burden for the privileged elites to ride on. Thank you for all you do... keep up the good work.

So many unnecessary and biased insults against hundreds of millions of people in what is an otherwise very productive conversation. Do Layman and Brendan really think the American Right is so ignorant? I am here for opinions but not reductionism and insult. People are people.

Sadly, Jordan is no longer holding the line on this one. Maybe see about editing that out. 🤔 @ 24.09

Consider that the current political termoil is a consequence of the breakdown of the post-war mythos as a unifying, or binding, force. All societies are bound by meta-archetypes involving eschatological prophecies, that which will bring about the end of a society, or the world even in a globalist paradigm. Christian cultures have a millennium long inheritance, which has eugenically shaped said cultures, binding them in opposition to the Devil and in worship of God, the interaction with whom manifests through the individual and collective unconscious, made conscious through action and reflection. There is literature on "WEIRD" - western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic, which Europeans express and other cultures do not which essentially produces our shared moral foundations and binds us to feel guilt when 'sins' are committed - as a consequence of the eugenic effects of Christianity. Confucianism in Asia also had lasting effects but manifests around the axis of shame rather than guilt, leading to the manifestation of "saving face" for both oneself and ones family, up to and including the social credit score phenomena. I am currently considering deep diving into the anthropological literature - which is both scarce and bias - to garner insight into the eugenic impacts of Islam and Hinduism, if I was to guess the later would be related to its namesake, submission, which supports their retention of absolute monarchies or clerical autocracies, while Hinduism leans towards a chaotic form of multiplurism which functions to manifest a sort of balance by taking advantage of said chaos to decentralise authority. It's also interesting to observe the rapid growth of Christianity in Africa, the dalit caste of Indians and in rural areas of Asia, where practices such as ancestor veneration, panpsychist doctrines and demonology are retained while centering a personal and communal relation with Christ and His word as the living logos in order to untangle and bring light to their collective unconscious. In the post-[WW2]-mythos there was a materialist dialectical competition to replace the Devil with the worldly figures of Hitler and Stalin. During the cold war these perspectives roughly cancelled each other out and justified the creation of an American Empire to remove national leaders whom displayed qualities of said figures in a way that resonated with the administrative state and American public. The end of the cold-war shifted this informal balance such that Hitler became the undisputed Devil of the post-war mythos thereby binding the collective unconscious around the belief that he would return, much like the anti-Christ. This mythic structure, absent a unifying commitment to the logos, Christ, within academia, the administrative state and collective unconscious more broadly became the default force which bound them. Thus the presence of sin - racism, intesex solidarity, bigotry etc - were presupposed to exist, for example within the framework of critical theory, replacing the concept of original sin and turning these institutions by default into a kind of self-perpetuating global managerial clergy. Trump's role serves to challenge this clergy as he comes from a place of "classical Americana" - he doesn't directly reject the post-war mythos, rather he represents a return to nationhood instead of empire, receiving large support from those who do not or no longer resonate with the post-war myths proscriptions for society, namely an endless crusade against the ghost of Hitler, instead returning to a pre-war Christian framework of sin which is to be confronted by every individual located in their own heart, including those from "marginalised" groups whose abject anti-whitism and misandry are given a pass by dogmatic forms of liberation theology and critical theory.

Enlightenment gap as products for privileged people perhaps is coal miner company store dance. The not-strange as elonGates hyperobject, Jef/Xi version 2.718 as new store? With the strange as the fitting to that.

Biden's handing over the baton impressed me. Thanks for the show.

An almost 1 1/2-hour chat was brilliant from start to finish. Layman's Sharman perspective on reality is one of the most profound insights I have heard this year !

Yall are on fire

The adaptive sensibility to multipolar traps/Molochean situations selects for dark triad traits. But it is ultimately maladaptive to adapt to Moloch as a ground.

So far a good analysis that main stream media doesnt get.

The JLO endorsement was so tone def by Kamala's clan that even my mother was like "WTF". "JLO has Diddy stink on her" as one reddit wrote.

Green Trump. That's one hell of a mythic summoning.

This is great. Thanks. I was thinking… maybe voters have grown weary of all the abstract fears the liberal media throws at them. Like ‘the end of democracy’, fascism, climate change, and imminent civilizational collapse- none of which seem to materialize. And all this on the heels of 4 yrs of fighting the enemy that was Covid-which turned out to be ‘no big deal’ (for those who didn't die). The democrats are constantly warning of conceptual enemies lurking in the shadows. Hundreds of ‘em.! Trump concretizes the enemy. Cat-consuming immigrants. And there’s a ready solution to that problem. Apprehend and deport.

This is the calming metamodern influence I needed.

If Trump succeeds in decentralizing power so that our overbearing government bureaucrats leave us alone, then it will either not affect you at all or affect you positively. So, cheer up.

Rarely have we had as accurate a sanity check as this election provided. Did you have a horse in this race, were you deeply invested in which horse would win? If so, no matter the horse, you've lost your mind, your contact with reality. Neither horse was even remotely worthy of your time and attention, much less your allegiance. Shall we call this new clarity, this restoration of sanity, metamodern politics?