Some brainstorming here trying to predict the future by understanding the past and present.
Modernism was largely about rationality, empiricism, and cutting away unnecessary elements of things to leave the most meaningful whole. It thrived on building and perpetuating grand narratives and was immersed in objective facts. The first major problem it had was that it was highly successful, building grand narratives such as Marxism, Fascism, National Socialism, and Liberalism which captured the entire world, but each of those narratives were inherently flawed, because as the bible tells us, man cannot live on bread alone, and something claiming to be a "purely rational" world view is not, and the inherent contradictions of something believing it is rational when the whole of it required an underlying basis of irrationality
Postmodernism was largely a reaction to Modernism, and as a result questions grand narratives and objective facts strongly. Postmodern society has 2 major problems imo. First, what it sets out to do -- it mostly sets out to deconstruct and eliminate grand narratives or objective facts. Second, what it does in the hands of the people who get it. It is essentially the self-conscious level of Loevinger's ego development personified. People below that level can use the questioning and self-conscious nature of postmodernism to give them excuses not to follow rules. People at that level still lack good models of people who aren't like them, especially people at a much lower level of ego development and so allow the philosophy to be used to harm, and people above that level of ego development end up discussing things at a level that postmodernism and therefore its establishment adherents are incapable of discussing things. As a rule, people at a lower level of ego development can't comprehend the way of thinking of people at a higher level of ego development than themselves, and it's still a special skill to recognize people at a lower level of development because most people assume others are basically like themselves.
So that would lead to a post-metamodernism (I don't think the oscillation of Metamodernism itself is a good foundation to rest a society, so I'm imagining a superposition model where different elements are laid on top of each other and not necessarily coalesced into a solid synthesis) whose primary purpose would be to find shared frameworks destroyed by postmodernism, while avoiding the negative final outcomes of modernism's absolutism.
This worldview would probably live at either the autonomous level of ego development or begins transitioning towards the integrated level of ego development, which is construct aware and thus would be inherently aware of the limitations of assuming everyone else is at the same level of ego development as you, and so would tolerate people at different levels but would also try to accommodate (but also find ways to regulate) those at lower levels of ego development. I tend to believe that a core goal of the ideology would be trying to get individuals to the very highest level of development they can so they can become part of the "ubermensch" class that can actually process post-metamodernism, because as people rise in ego development level and rise closer to using "true post-metamodernism" the more likely they're perceived to be reaching personal fulfilment of self-actualization or beyond. It does mean that people who are seen as at a lower level (this doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly like "oh you're at level 6 of Loevinger's model", instead it's just an understanding that the people can't yet carry superpositions of paradoxical ideas yet) are treated somewhat paternalistically, they're not seen as fully human because they can't comprehend how to think in the contemporary way.
Modernism was largely about rationality, empiricism, and cutting away unnecessary elements of things to leave the most meaningful whole. It thrived on building and perpetuating grand narratives and was immersed in objective facts. The first major problem it had was that it was highly successful, building grand narratives such as Marxism, Fascism, National Socialism, and Liberalism which captured the entire world, but each of those narratives were inherently flawed, because as the bible tells us, man cannot live on bread alone, and something claiming to be a "purely rational" world view is not, and the inherent contradictions of something believing it is rational when the whole of it required an underlying basis of irrationality
Postmodernism was largely a reaction to Modernism, and as a result questions grand narratives and objective facts strongly. Postmodern society has 2 major problems imo. First, what it sets out to do -- it mostly sets out to deconstruct and eliminate grand narratives or objective facts. Second, what it does in the hands of the people who get it. It is essentially the self-conscious level of Loevinger's ego development personified. People below that level can use the questioning and self-conscious nature of postmodernism to give them excuses not to follow rules. People at that level still lack good models of people who aren't like them, especially people at a much lower level of ego development and so allow the philosophy to be used to harm, and people above that level of ego development end up discussing things at a level that postmodernism and therefore its establishment adherents are incapable of discussing things. As a rule, people at a lower level of ego development can't comprehend the way of thinking of people at a higher level of ego development than themselves, and it's still a special skill to recognize people at a lower level of development because most people assume others are basically like themselves.
So that would lead to a post-metamodernism (I don't think the oscillation of Metamodernism itself is a good foundation to rest a society, so I'm imagining a superposition model where different elements are laid on top of each other and not necessarily coalesced into a solid synthesis) whose primary purpose would be to find shared frameworks destroyed by postmodernism, while avoiding the negative final outcomes of modernism's absolutism.
This worldview would probably live at either the autonomous level of ego development or begins transitioning towards the integrated level of ego development, which is construct aware and thus would be inherently aware of the limitations of assuming everyone else is at the same level of ego development as you, and so would tolerate people at different levels but would also try to accommodate (but also find ways to regulate) those at lower levels of ego development. I tend to believe that a core goal of the ideology would be trying to get individuals to the very highest level of development they can so they can become part of the "ubermensch" class that can actually process post-metamodernism, because as people rise in ego development level and rise closer to using "true post-metamodernism" the more likely they're perceived to be reaching personal fulfilment of self-actualization or beyond. It does mean that people who are seen as at a lower level (this doesn't necessarily have to be explicitly like "oh you're at level 6 of Loevinger's model", instead it's just an understanding that the people can't yet carry superpositions of paradoxical ideas yet) are treated somewhat paternalistically, they're not seen as fully human because they can't comprehend how to think in the contemporary way.
You lost me once you started quoting the book of lies
I don't think I quoted any books. I did borrow Nietzsche's phrase "ubermensch", but I wasn't really even using it in the typical sense.
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
Wether all men are capable of higher level understanding does not account for those who do not desire to
Psychology is a flawed science because it intends to define our inherent difference with subjective terminology
Nietzsche was a fiend and self absorbed