My gripe is that while I know we need names and labels for things, the word "modern" actually means something, and "postmodernism" has always irked me for that reason alone.
As far as "meta," etymonline has some interesting info:
*"The third, modern, sense, "higher than, transcending, overarching, dealing with the most fundamental matters of," is due to misinterpretation of metaphysics (q.v.) as "science of that which transcends the physical." This has led to a prodigious erroneous extension in modern usage, with meta- affixed to the names of other sciences and disciplines, especially in the academic jargon of literary criticism: Metalanguage (1936) "a language which supplies terms for the analysis of an 'object' language;" metalinguistics (by 1949); metahistory (1957)"
That bit is exactly how meta is employed here—though, I confess that that’s how I’ve understood the prefix meta as well lol
It’s super interesting to me because the culture theories w/ most traction right now have a hard time shaking the “modernism” thing… which seems to me to be an admittance that we haven’t quite liberated ourselves
True they do, but to be fair, when someone speaks about Modern or modernism or modernity, they’re usually clearly distinct from “modern times” and such.
This was great! To many things to talk to in a comment.
I loved the points connected to the prison systems and witch trials.
This hits a lot of the personal struggle when teaching/ talking about Pre-mod, mod, post-mod into meta (or whatever fill in the blank name) is. In order to communicate things in a way the average person would understand(and not take the time to read or study people) you have to summarize or 'dumb down' views or people. It's why the book I am writing, where I summarize portions of history in single chapters from Christendom to what I say is Meta-modernism, makes me feel bleh. I know I am not 'accurately' portraying things exactly, but it is not possible to summarize 'post-modernism' in 100 chapters let alone 1. Or to be honest even to fully summarize just the main four or five voices of the movement.
Everything is more complex than duality. Is it free will or election?... Yes and—is the answer like with most things.
I do think what makes our current moment so complex to name and idenitfy is that we have no central voices to focus on? When we look back at this moment in 50 years there are literally 100,000s of people speaking into the topics and large levels of 'notaritiy' or 'fame' due to technology connected to those people both with good and poor educations on the subjects. When we talk about post, mod or pre-mod we have specfici voices that have lasted the test of time and spoken to the heart of things and survived.
I do not know if we will have something similar in our time again. Sure we have the Jordan Petersons and such, but its still different than the figures we had and that you are talking about in this article. It is an interesting waters to navigate. Add in the media's ability to similate our experinece that you reference and gaining a larger cohesive view of what to call movements of thought groups is escalated.
Yes, with the summaries it's sort of an inevitable thing, and I appreciate them in most contexts--teaching and so on. It's really only in theory formation that's wholly relying on the definitions as a major part that it seems to become problematic.
I love and agree with the "yes, and" approach for sure.
You also raise a point that I've been thinking about for a while. I remember hearing a story about a professor who asked about a Kpop band. About 75% of the students had 0 knowledge whatsoever of the band. The 25% that did were either die-hard fans or knew die-hard fans. The professor then notified the class of their overall sales and stuff, and it turns out they were bigger than N'Sync, and not just in Eastern markets!
The point was: how could millions on millions find this band, invest time and money into them, have them become a global, identity-defining phenomenon bigger than N'Sync... and others have 0 awareness of them at all. We've got a system where the public square is so good at maintaining niches that you have to transcend millions and enter into tens of millions or more to escape niches.
Which, as you say, makes me wonder about the future. Will Jordan Peterson be remembered as one of the most influential intellectuals of the 21st century, or will he only exist as such in a very particular niche... maybe the beginnings of some "new traditionalist" movement.
so true. It fits the same pattern as the LitRPG books we talked about the other day. It is currently my favorite genre to read and I have been reading them for close to a decade and yet I know of exactly one other in person relationship friend who reads or listens to them. Yet I know hundreds who play videos games/ D&D and it is a direct link to them.
So even in genres, there are niche genres within them that that genre isn't even aware of, which only adds to the layers.
Great read Michael! And the memes were very much appreciated 👍
Thanks Dave! Always a pleasure interacting with your work too. I love memes lol
Gonna have to read this one on my kindle.
My gripe is that while I know we need names and labels for things, the word "modern" actually means something, and "postmodernism" has always irked me for that reason alone.
As far as "meta," etymonline has some interesting info:
*"The third, modern, sense, "higher than, transcending, overarching, dealing with the most fundamental matters of," is due to misinterpretation of metaphysics (q.v.) as "science of that which transcends the physical." This has led to a prodigious erroneous extension in modern usage, with meta- affixed to the names of other sciences and disciplines, especially in the academic jargon of literary criticism: Metalanguage (1936) "a language which supplies terms for the analysis of an 'object' language;" metalinguistics (by 1949); metahistory (1957)"
That bit is exactly how meta is employed here—though, I confess that that’s how I’ve understood the prefix meta as well lol
It’s super interesting to me because the culture theories w/ most traction right now have a hard time shaking the “modernism” thing… which seems to me to be an admittance that we haven’t quite liberated ourselves
We're always going to be living in the modern era, and any past era can no longer be called modern, is my point.
Also; what could possibly be more "metamodern" than naming your company Meta or Alphabet? These guys really know how to swing big, don't they?
Oh I see, so you’re opposed to the whole Modern vs. modern (as in what’s happening now) idea?
lol yeah that’s true about Meta and Alphabet
I'm in favor of words meaning things, yes. I'd also prefer those definitions do not change.
Hence my paste from etymonline, which is far superior to any dictionary.
Words often evolve to mean their complete opposites. It's disturbing to me, but then again, I'm a mathematician.
True they do, but to be fair, when someone speaks about Modern or modernism or modernity, they’re usually clearly distinct from “modern times” and such.
I know, I just don't like it.
Very enjoyable read!
Thank you!
This was great! To many things to talk to in a comment.
I loved the points connected to the prison systems and witch trials.
This hits a lot of the personal struggle when teaching/ talking about Pre-mod, mod, post-mod into meta (or whatever fill in the blank name) is. In order to communicate things in a way the average person would understand(and not take the time to read or study people) you have to summarize or 'dumb down' views or people. It's why the book I am writing, where I summarize portions of history in single chapters from Christendom to what I say is Meta-modernism, makes me feel bleh. I know I am not 'accurately' portraying things exactly, but it is not possible to summarize 'post-modernism' in 100 chapters let alone 1. Or to be honest even to fully summarize just the main four or five voices of the movement.
Everything is more complex than duality. Is it free will or election?... Yes and—is the answer like with most things.
I do think what makes our current moment so complex to name and idenitfy is that we have no central voices to focus on? When we look back at this moment in 50 years there are literally 100,000s of people speaking into the topics and large levels of 'notaritiy' or 'fame' due to technology connected to those people both with good and poor educations on the subjects. When we talk about post, mod or pre-mod we have specfici voices that have lasted the test of time and spoken to the heart of things and survived.
I do not know if we will have something similar in our time again. Sure we have the Jordan Petersons and such, but its still different than the figures we had and that you are talking about in this article. It is an interesting waters to navigate. Add in the media's ability to similate our experinece that you reference and gaining a larger cohesive view of what to call movements of thought groups is escalated.
Great stuff man. I am rambleing now lol.
Thank you!
Yes, with the summaries it's sort of an inevitable thing, and I appreciate them in most contexts--teaching and so on. It's really only in theory formation that's wholly relying on the definitions as a major part that it seems to become problematic.
I love and agree with the "yes, and" approach for sure.
You also raise a point that I've been thinking about for a while. I remember hearing a story about a professor who asked about a Kpop band. About 75% of the students had 0 knowledge whatsoever of the band. The 25% that did were either die-hard fans or knew die-hard fans. The professor then notified the class of their overall sales and stuff, and it turns out they were bigger than N'Sync, and not just in Eastern markets!
The point was: how could millions on millions find this band, invest time and money into them, have them become a global, identity-defining phenomenon bigger than N'Sync... and others have 0 awareness of them at all. We've got a system where the public square is so good at maintaining niches that you have to transcend millions and enter into tens of millions or more to escape niches.
Which, as you say, makes me wonder about the future. Will Jordan Peterson be remembered as one of the most influential intellectuals of the 21st century, or will he only exist as such in a very particular niche... maybe the beginnings of some "new traditionalist" movement.
so true. It fits the same pattern as the LitRPG books we talked about the other day. It is currently my favorite genre to read and I have been reading them for close to a decade and yet I know of exactly one other in person relationship friend who reads or listens to them. Yet I know hundreds who play videos games/ D&D and it is a direct link to them.
So even in genres, there are niche genres within them that that genre isn't even aware of, which only adds to the layers.
That's a great example. And I imagine that within that genre, there's probably a robust, dedicated fanbase. It's all just so weird to think about.