Is Metamodernism Post-Integral? - Ken Wilber

[@emilejnerfriis3263]

Hanzi Freinacht wrote a reply on facebook: "The question asked should not be taken at face value. I, for one, have never made any claim that "metamodernism is post-integral". To my knowledge, only the political sociologist Brent Cooper has made that claim, and, if I read him correctly, he doesn't mean post-integral as in "the next stage after integral" but rather post-integral as in shifting phases; i.e. it arrives as a cultural current in the wake of integralism, for intelligible reasons. It's "post" not in a developmental sense, but in a phase-shift sense. Nobody has thus claimed that there is a developmental sequence from traditional, to modern, to postmodern, to integral, to metamodern. Rather, integralists and metamodernists agree that after pomo comes something that may be termed integral and/or metamodern. Then we argue about which term is best and why. In this debate, there are many appeasers; folks who will say that the perspectives are merely complementary. I'm not one of them. I do think metamodernism has clear advantages and avoids real problems and pathologies inherent to integralism. I also think it's more useful for social and political change. So I make no secret of my preference; which is, of course, why I started using the term in the first place. Sure, there is *some* complementarity, but metamodernism, which builds on integral rather than vice versa still tries to change the philosophy, the models, the movements and their cultural expression. Sometimes I've heard people say -- and this is admittedly a pretentious comparison -- that if Wilber is more like Hegel, then I'm more like Marx. And, in a way, I agree. Even with a smirk. Compared to integralism, my version of metamodernism is secularized and politicized, reconnected to an analysis perhaps less of the material, but more -- in tune with our day and age -- the informational and memetic aspects of economy and society."

[@GrantLenaarts]

Emil Ejner Friis thanks for posting this as this is my first exposure to MetaModernism

[@interwoven222]

If it's not "post" in a developmental sense, but in a phase shift sense, then this implies there are phases that are being shifted *from* and *to.* Integral has explicitly made the landscape known as well as its emergence, so why not define what those phases are and metamodernism's proximity? Also, any base of thought that occurred *after* or in the wake of integral could be called "post-integral". In this definition Black Lives Matter and the Tea Party would technically be "post-integral", but surely this is not what's implied, so why not clarify terms? And it doesn't seem to "build" on integral, it seems to ignore large parts of it to make it more palpable to postmodernists, and appease their specific gripes. It sounds like what some postmodernists would *want* Integral to be, so is its subservience to politically correct gripes of pomo for expediancy of other integral ideals or an underlying expression of pomo itself? Integral proves it's place through empirical models from variois bodies of knowledge and epistemics, whereas metamodernism seems to rely on conceptual agreements and self-implied placements, ie "phase-shift" (a term utilized by Clare Graves of Spiral Dynamics talking about the jump into 2nd-tier, or integral, thinking.) This is not to diminish its worth or the effect it may have in the world, just to bring clarity to its cryptics.

[@peteburkeet]

Wild that Terence McKenna was talking about all this shit in the 80's.

[@abcabc9893]

Much more important that Leary did it in 60s and 70s....and with greater elegance.

[@henrikdutz9201]

I was disappointed by the irrelevants of the question. But if Wilber really did read Hanzi's books, he could have steered his remarks into more fruitful waters himself. Instead he seems to use every opportunity during public appearance for general education around integral theory... Surely for good reason, but going into some nitty gritty of current cultural affairs / actual discourse would also be nice at some times ...

[@jeff-onedayatatime.2870]

at 6:40...if you are wondering why Wilber is considered a genius, it's because of his synthesis. He puts things together you never thought of, and then you wonder why you never thought of it. For instance, at the quantum level, there's only probabilities (Feynman et al). So this ensures a degree of novelty in everything, from the quark level up to humans and beyond. Therefore, the forward momentum of evolution is unstoppable. Thanks Ken! You still be the man!! :)

[@jamesbarlow6423]

The perpetual novelty in things doesn't validly imply anything about the unstoppability of evolution. I smell quackism.

[@fightington]

it blows my fucking mind that in an age defined by culture wars, the very antidote, which could be Spiral dynamics, isn't in the mainstream awareness. I saw you guys had Duncan Trussel on. If one of Wilber's books could make it into the hands of that circle, which speaks to millions, we would be in vastly better shape

[@RickardHallerback]

I think Hanzi is great and I also think Ken Wilber is a pioneer.

[@jeff-onedayatatime.2870]

It's possible I left off with KW at Wilber 3.0 or Wilber 4.0, so when "Hanzi Freinacht" came along, I was blown off my feet. But I might have been blown off my feet by Wilber 5 if I'd encountered it first. Nevertheless, as a working hypothesis, I'm considering "Hanzi" to be Wilber 6.0. :)

[@jascharohr]

I don't know, I am left a bit sad by this response. First of all: I don´t see any actual discussion of Hanzis books and the arguments within. Did any of the three actually read them? Its more like gossiping, devaluating and a bit of ranting. From a "giant" and a "Wilber 5.0" and an integral mind my expectations would be a thorough discussion of what is actually said in Hanzis book and an open-minded response to that. However, what I see here, is an aged alpha male biting down young aspiring theorists (not only Hanzi) rather than giving them a helping hand to sharpen their theory. To see Wilber in this not very giantlike attitude is sobering.

[@abcabc9893]

Clearly not an integral view you have then....Mr Green.

[@jeff-onedayatatime.2870]

at 5:30...but the Effective Value Meme is to Spiral Dynamics as Einstein is to Newton.

[@lawrensoz]

The problem with this theory is that the quadrant philosophy presents an equality drawing, four ajoining squares, whereas the chain of being model implies hierarchies, enveloping, from lower to higher. It is all too human to dismiss so-called lower levels, which brings us to ethics and human and trans-human values. Spirituality is an action model, you have to do it to get somewhere and beyond the gazing and meditation is the other, with lower cast o -not as in God which is often seen as a tolerant mother or a benign intellect, if you are a reasonable scientist. What is characterbuilding: metaphysics or engaging in life with all its struggles? Samsara, enlightenment, enlightenment samsara. The distance between them is Christ/Buddha.

[@handyalley2350]

Korzybski called transcending and including 'time-bidning' i think. Not the act, but the congealed residue of knowledge. The act itself didnt have a method or a name besides reference to the non-verbal level of existence. And assimilation of that with an advanced non-aristotelian way of thinking.

[@JohnDupuyintegralrecovery]

You're A giant Ken. No doubt.

[@jeff-onedayatatime.2870]

From a few of Wilber's followers, e.g. RS, I sensed a vibe of hostility towards "Hanzi Freinacht". I don't feel that same hostility from Ken. He seems to just want the truth. KW has been outside of my radar for a few years, but I might dust off SES just for the heck of it. :)

[@AA-dv3ie]

live is not like virtual....