From: jimruttshow8596
Discussions on social change and philosophical frameworks often involve an examination of modernity and postmodernism. Thinker Hansie Frynet and host Jim Rut explore their definitions, widespread influence, inherent critiques, and potential future directions.
Understanding Postmodernism
Hansie Frynet describes postmodernism as a “sensibility pertaining to the times after the 1968 revolution” [00:02:34], which particularly broke through in academia in the 1970s and 80s, and in popular culture in the 1990s and 2000s [00:02:45]. Frynet primarily views it as a “developmental stage” of a person’s ideas or a society’s morality and reasoning [00:02:59]. He estimates that 20% to 25% of the adult population in Western countries are postmodernists, experiencing the world through a postmodern lens and expressing postmodern values in their lives and work [00:04:45].
Frynet suggests that postmodern ideas and values have accompanied modern society for 200 years, growing from a trickle to serious attempts to redefine modernity [00:04:22].
Postmodernism as a “Religion of Critique”
Postmodernists aim to create something better than mainstream capitalist society [00:05:05]. They believe the story of progress in modernity isn’t necessarily true and can be critiqued by shifting perspectives or including excluded voices [00:05:15]. Frynet characterizes this as a “religion of critique” [00:05:34], which has grown through the intellectual practices of modern society [00:05:39], akin to the priesthood of traditional society [00:05:44].
Postmodern ideas are generally “more difficult to download” and require more time to learn and apply [00:08:36]. This means they have significant influence in society, particularly within media and academia [00:08:24]. Postmodern sensibilities are deeply egalitarian, multi-perspectival, and, in a sense, relativistic [00:09:00].
Frynet likens the “priesthood” role of academia in modern society to the historical priesthood, noting that modern intellectuals embody the “guilty conscience of the intellectual left” [00:12:06]. Postmodern thought offers real methods and methodologies, such as discourse analysis and deconstructing power structures, to expose injustice and harm [00:12:12].
Critiques of Postmodernism
Jim Rut expresses a strong personal aversion to postmodernism and postmodernists, finding them “essentially crazy” [00:01:43] and unproductive [00:01:51]. He argues that those who truly embrace it would struggle to function productively in the world [00:01:51]. Rut distinguishes between true postmodernists (a very small percentage) and “as if pomos” in academia who merely utter the words without genuinely believing them [00:02:06]. He considers postmodernism a “heresy of modernism” [00:06:45], similar to communism, seeing it as a “strange and weird dead-end” [00:06:54].
One major point of contention for Rut is postmodernism’s rejection of science as a distinct value [00:06:58]. He finds it difficult to reconcile with an “empirical politics” that bases policies on “best available information and empirically tested knowledge” [00:07:27], a concept that would “cause most postmodernists I know to have a heart attack” [00:07:31].
The “Uselessness” of Postmodernism
Both Rut and Frynet highlight a significant critique of postmodernism: its perceived lack of utility in building a better world.
“I never found anything in postmodernism that would actually let us build a better world reasonably expeditiously. It just seemed to be a swamp in which there was no getting out.” [00:45:17] — Jim Rut
Frynet agrees, noting that postmodernism “always ends in the critique” [00:49:10], providing an “end point” rather than a “to-do list” [00:49:41]. He cites Foucault, who, when asked what he was “for,” famously replied that economists, engineers, and lawyers build things, and he would just “pick it apart” [00:49:05].
While Frynet acknowledges postmodernism’s value in highlighting structural injustices (e.g., in UN development programs [00:46:07]), he contends that it ultimately forbids ranking different forms of usefulness or synthesizing solutions [00:47:47]. This leads to an inability to make decisions, as seen in climate change discussions where postmodern approaches can lead to “all these possible ways of looking at it and no principled way to pick one” [00:48:30].
Critiques of Modernity
Postmodernism emerged as a critique of modernity. Early on, there was a protest against “the callous cold empirical hand of the Enlightenment” [00:03:52] and its striving towards universality [00:03:55]. Postmodern ideas challenge the notion that modernity and its story of progress are necessarily true [00:05:12].
Frynet argues that modern society and its industrial welfare state have generated values adapted to its expansion, but these are insufficient for addressing “yet more complex challenges” such as climate change, global governance, and existential risks from technology [00:22:50].
“Modern life isn’t good enough as the postmoderns perpetually point out and it’s not sustainable either way…” [00:43:42] — Hansie Frynet
He contends that the “modern person” doesn’t fundamentally believe that everyday life is unsustainable, alienating, or harmful to the human soul, nor that society is fundamentally unjust [00:46:28].
Meta-Modernism as a Next Step
Frynet positions meta-modernism as a “next step” that includes postmodernism [00:01:38]. He believes postmodernism “perpetually puts us in…dead ends” [00:05:58], leading to reactionary movements [00:06:03]. Meta-modernism seeks to move beyond these impasses.
For Frynet, the key to progress is a “deliberate institutional change” that acts as a “conveyor belt” to elevate people to meta-modern values [00:24:08]. This requires understanding “growth hierarchies” [00:14:16] – a concept that often deeply insults postmodern people due to their egalitarian sensibilities [00:09:24].
Meta-modernism aims to fulfill the unfulfilled promise of the Enlightenment and address the critiques of postmodern sensibilities [01:07:55]. It seeks to answer complex questions about society, despite the dangers of simplified or “flattened” versions of complex ideas that can lead to pathologies like fascism [00:56:17].
Value Memes and Hierarchical Complexity
Frynet introduces the concept of “effective value memes” as overarching, deeper structures in how values are generated through the development of societies [00:20:52]. These “memes” correspond to different stages of societal and cultural evolution, such as tribal, agricultural, modern, and postmodern [00:21:31].
This framework includes the “model of hierarchical complexity,” which mathematically formulates cognitive complexity stages [00:25:34]. Frynet outlines several stages:
- Abstract: Ability to reason about things not physically present [00:28:26] (most adults reach this).
- Formal Operations: Ability to formulate linear or nonlinear relationships between several abstract variables [00:29:05] (more than half of adults reach this).
- Systemic Reasoning: Ability to create whole systems of formal relations, seeing feedback loops [00:29:59] (about 20% of adults, including most academics).
- Meta-systemic Reasoning: Ability to see patterns and properties within systems, comparing them and switching between different logics, leading to less reductive thought [00:30:35] (about 1.8% of the population).
Frynet suggests that different cultures embed symbols or ideas of varying complexity stages [00:33:09]. People with more complex cognitive abilities are more likely to find cultural “code” that resonates with their mental complexity, and vice versa [00:34:20].
The Role of Spirituality
Frynet contends that modernity neglected certain aspects that religions “got right,” particularly the profound experiences of “wholeness or love or connection” that are transformative and “unseeable” [01:09:49]. He uses “spiritual” to refer to “higher subjective states” of pristine clarity and super presence, where there are no words to describe a sense of beauty and meaning [01:10:26]. These experiences drive philosophy and religions, influencing human actions and relations [01:11:08].
Frynet sees meta-modernism as pushing towards “farther stretches of existential development” beyond everyday consciousness, into unusual or altered states of awareness [01:14:17].
However, he warns against both “essentialism” (ascribing inherent depth to a surface, e.g., believing angels exist just because one saw them) and “reductionism” (always explaining away phenomena by their underlying mechanisms, leading to disenchantment) [01:27:00]. The ideal is to strike a balance, acknowledging that profound experiences can be correlated with physiological processes (e.g., neural fireworks and confabulations) without diminishing their experiential depth [01:26:47].
This balance, between “crude reductionism” and “trembling spirituality” [01:30:07], allows for living a life of faith in a moral project larger than oneself, while maintaining a critical mind [01:28:40].
The “Yoga Bourgeoisie” and the Challenge of Implementation
Frynet identifies the “yoga bourgeoisie” (or “Silicon Valley types”) as a core population of meta-modernists [01:32:44]. These individuals often find their way to spiritual practices after achieving conventional success and feeling miserable, seeking to use their lives for something greater [01:33:02]. While they possess financial, business, and emotional capital, they often lack the “cultural capital” or a proper “map” (meta-modern code) to become a “revolutionary class” that consciously changes society’s structures [01:34:17].
The challenge is to mobilize and radicalize this class, steering them away from endless workshops and platform-building towards coordinated efforts that take real risks and address societal problems like climate change and global governance [01:35:11]. The goal is not for everyone to become a meta-modernist, but to align people’s “agency” with a shared common goal in a complex weave of relations, leading to changes in informational architecture and political structures [01:04:10].