The Reign of Hackers, Hipsters & Hippies – Metamoderna https://t.co/PJSfYdSlbD
recommended piece of ‘class analysis’ by hanzi freinacht
” It’s not that they are better than normal folks, but they are the ones to invent all the things to save the world.”
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/mbauwens/status/1255438350724616192
A hacker ..produce digital solutions and software that reduce the complexity of society and make it manageable.. this group is growing in importance because it offers us the software solutions that can only come from great creativity combined with cultural capital and digital know-how.
Hipsters .. produce the many symbols that help us to orientate ourselves in, make sense of, and find meaning in the global, digital age. . becoming more powerful because it is becoming increasingly difficult for most of us to grasp and navigate the society of the present age – and they offer us the tools for doing so.
The hippies are the people who produce new lifestyles, habits and practices that make life in postindustrial society happier, healthier and, perhaps, more enchanted. The hippies here are not quite the same as the hippies of old: the starry-eyed New Agers who looked to astrology, crystals, transpersonal psychologies and gurus, but rather people with highly developed skills in meditation, contemplation, bodily practices, psychedelics, diets and physical training, profound forms of intimate communication and sexuality and simple life wisdoms that apply to our day and age. You will find more rational and research based approaches to psychedelics, communities for self-development and eco-village living, science-driven meditation and stress release practices, coaches of all kinds, and elaborate forms of practices for achieving higher mental states and spiritual experiences. An important hub for all this is the Burning Man festival community of “burners” ..
Somewhat strange bed-fellows, these three. What, then, unites the triple-H population?
1\ all three groups share an alternative relationship to work and the market: they are all driven by what psychologists of work call intrinsic motivation and self-realization, rather than extrinsic motivation, such as monetary rewards, consumption and security.
2\ most significant – thing that unites them is the fact that they all rely more upon cultural capital (and to some extent social capital) and less upon economic capital. As such, they form a complex but united front against the capitalist society in which they take part, a subtle revolution of cultural capital.
3\ their common vested interest as a postindustrial class. In this sense, these people are the real “creative class”. When the American sociologist Richard Florida tried to describe the creative class he relied upon classical occupational statistics, but that is, needless to say, a very clumsy tool. If you want to spot this new class and their interests, you must first understand them qualitatively, and then analyze their socio-economic DNA, like we are doing now.
For these people, the wage labor treadmill (and conventional work life) hinders the lives that they want to live, rather than being a source of security and empowerment. Each aspiring triple-H person of course has relatively low chances of achieving financial success. She must win the trust and attention of other people in order to be able to perform her “real” work, her labor of love, fulltime. So she must make many attempts, which often leaves her back at square one, where she must again tweak her ideas and modes of work…
Hence, there is a revolving door between “the creative class”, which the triple-H population largely constitutes, and the precariat – people in economically and socially precarious situations, at the fringes or outside of the conventional labor market. Oftentimes, it is up to the family or the state to support this growing reserve army of “failed” triple-H folks. And once these people must give up their intrinsic motivation to stand in line for menial work, reporting in to the rigid control structures for the unemployed, or adapt to the demands of not-so-postmaterialist supporting family members, they become miserable and often dysfunctional.
i’d say that’s all of us.. some just numb/cope themselves in a more (seemingly) efficient way
For them, there is no clear line between fun and work. Even reading a novel or watching a TV series or playing a computer game is part and parcel of their work to change the world. If their higher aspirations fail, life seems to offer them very little and they are prone to falling into escapism and depression – which decreases their chances of holding on to a job on the conventional labor marker and thus increases the risk of entering the growing ranks of the precariat.
For this reason, the triple-H population generally supports ideas of basic income: this would insulate them against falling into precarious situations and emancipate them in the face of demeaning bureaucratic control. ..What the triple-H people often don’t understand, however, is that most people do not function like them and do indeed still find meaning and security in the conventional work life – even the ones who don’t like their jobs find structure and context to their lives and earn a much valued paycheck.
The triple-H populations suffer from a number of things that aren’t an issue to most people. These are:
1\ “Uncertainty of expectations” has to do with the extreme differences of responses that can be produced by their work. If you work hard and put your stuff out there almost anything can happen: you can become a star, get a solid international upper middle class career, or you can be completely ignored for whatever reason. ..Will your app help save a million lives or will you have wasted ten years of your life? Will people scorn you or adore you, or both? Should you continue, follow your dreams, change plans and pivot, or maybe go back to the security and humility of a conventional life and career? This is the revolving door between the creative class and the precariat; there can be great distance between expectations, strivings, hopes and realities in these non-conventional lifestyles. At least since the classical sociologist Émile Durkheim’s work at the turn of the last century, it has been known that expectations minus realities is how you calculate a major factor of ill mental health and human misery (what Durkheim famously called anomie).
2\ “Bullshit” means that there needs to be a lot of big talk when you deal with bigger and more abstract issues and matters. ..Because there is so much understanding and context needed to all these projects, they may be difficult to explain, and sometimes you may need to find ways to package and sell them. In plain English, you need to wrestle the doubts and accusations that it’s all just bullshit. And, needless to say, the majority of the work of the triple-H population is undeniably so. The reason that it’s so valuable to society is just that some of it isn’t bullshit and even a small percentage of genuine innovations of software, culture or lifestyle can have a huge impact. Still, you never quite know if you are the bullshitter or the hero, or if you are being sold utter bullshit.
3\ “Empty networking” is a wasteful activity that most triple-H people know all too well: those many coffees and lunches had, Skype conferences held and evenings attended that never really led anywhere. ..The people they meet are friendly, like-minded and always interesting. But the productive relationships that are mutually reinforcing and become stronger over time are rare: because it’s so complex; so many expectations and assumptions and so much shared knowledge that must be in place.
In short, the progressive and postmaterialist values of the triple-H people generally make them more concerned with the transition to an ecologically and socially sustainable society than making a buck to buy nice things. It’s not that they are better than normal folks, but they are the ones to invent all the things to save the world. Because of that we should see to it that they get the optimal conditions to do so.
taking him in more here:
Quite a GREAT interview by @jim_rutt with @HFreinacht https://t.co/D7NhaD1rpi I believe this interview gives a good contribution to explaining #metamodernism from a very practical and tangible perspective. It helped me shed some light on this phenomena. Good job Jim!
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/meedabyte/status/1219931654044766208
notes/quotes from transcript: https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-36-hanzi-freinacht-on-metamodernism/
The postmodern values then, they try to create something better than the mainstream capitalist society. They believe that modernity and this story of progress isn’t necessarily true, and that you can critique it by shifting perspectives. *By including the excluded voices, and so on, or playing with new perspectives in the arts or whatever. That there is some kind of emancipation or liberation or a redefinition of everyday life that is possible.
It’s a kind of religion, the religion of critique or the religion of criticism that has grown through intellectual practice of modern society. In a way, it’s like the priesthood of traditional society. .. it perpetually puts us in cul de sacs and in dead ends. This produces reactionary neoreactions that we are today seeing on a wide massive scale, taking over pretty much all of the major governments in the world.
yeah.. critique.. response.. react.. sucking our energy
That postmodern people will feel deeply insulted if you, for instance, talk about growth hierarchies. Which are nevertheless empirically observable and logically definable. If you look at the influence of these postmodern values, they are huge. There’s a great wall or a kind of gravity of these postmodern ideas and values that will prevent people from trying to go beyond them.
Instead, we have the intellectuals. We have academia, we have the guilty conscience of let’s say the intellectual left of the critique of society. Which has real methods and real methodologies. Which are internally consistent and produce very real results, which cannot be produced by any other mode of thought than the postmodern thought. .. What we have today is a kind of priesthood which views modernity as the heathens. All the normal modern people, they still have to learn, they still have to study. They still have to read their Foucault or understand the gender gaps and so on. But when they do encounter people like us or people like myself at least … When they come across somebody who speaks their language …
red flag we’re doing it wrong
ie: no train
I have a PhD in sociology, I can quote Foucault all day long if you want. I intuitively understand what Derrida was talking about, and I understand Chomsky’s critique of US hegemony and so on. I know these methods as a craft, I know the postmodern methods as a craft. I know the postmodern irony and I know the culture and I understand the arts and the aesthetics. I’m a hipster, I suppose you could say. I still talk about hierarchies. I don’t appear as a heathen, no. I appear as a heretic. And then-
It says in the beginning of Listening Society, academic heresy. Yes, this is what it is. Because if we try to play by their rules, we will be stuck for years and years and we’ll never get to the actual change that needs to take place. That change is built upon the idea of growth hierarchies. For us to have any idea about where the world is going or should be going, we have to logically see what would make sense for it to go. To do that we have to see the world more hierarchically, and that is forbidden within the postmodern sensibility.
j: This is why I like it. It’s what attracted me to metamodernism. ..to your point, the postmodernists at least I don’t see them with anything constructive. It’s essentially wishful thinking.
But these values are insufficient then for our populations to self-organize around these bigger and deeper and more complex and more universal issues. This is why we need a deliberate institutional change that would work as a conveyor belt, much as education has done in modern society, to get everybody up to the modern value meme.
more whales in sea world?
We have to get people up to the postmodern value meme, a lot more. We have to get people up to the metamodern value meme. Today, none of our societal systems or institutions are built to do that. They’re not constructed to do that. We have a battle between these value memes. This is a cosmic battle for the human soul, for the world’s soul. It’s also a battle for survival. If the more complex values win, humanity wins and the biosphere wins. If the less complex values win and they rule us in an increasingly complex surrounding and society, we all lose and we all die.
j: That’s the dream at least. Let’s drill into that a little bit. Probably the most interesting part for me in The Listening Society was you then decompose the effective value meme into four parts. A model of hierarchical complexity, code or symbol stage, emotional state, and emotional depth. Let’s particularly drill into the first two of those and they’re related in my mind at least. Which is model of hierarchical complexity and your stages or code concept. Could you jump into those?
The model of hierarchical complexity is basically a mathematization of … Which means just clearly formulated the key elements of the different stages of cognitive complexity. We all know that children think less complex thoughts than adults.
yeah i don’t know
not yet scrambled ness et al
They can still think interesting thoughts or intelligent thoughts. But it just never happened ever in the history of the world that a four year old came up with a new theory of physics. There’s a reason for that. The brain of the four year old does not perform thoughts of the corresponding level of complexity.
hmm.. so our schooled physics is our higher complexity..?
i think missing something big time here..
It’s not that you can’t teach a four year old physics, you can. It’s just it’s going to have to be simple physics. This goes back to Piaget who was a Swiss classic theorist on this and researcher. And it goes back to Kohlberg. My own mentor then Michael Commons was a student of Kohlberg. Kohlberg created adult stages of development above a normal adulthood with his moral reasoning tests. Michael, he studied algebra for a while and he realized that he could use this or apply this to developmental theory.
ok.. that explains your tie to keeping the whales in sea world
Using abstract algebra he could then see that there’s a mathematical pattern to it here. You can actually formulate what all of the stages are. This goes even down to amoeba level and all the way up to Einstein level. Then there are 17 such stages of adult development that have been discovered. You could argue that there are higher stages, but the arguments growth in there. You can argue that there are lower stages, but the model starts to break down there. It’s kind of like, even within physics, of course theories have a certain reach. Different scales within physics use different models and they actually aren’t compatible. This developmental psychology is like that as well. You have a strict behavioral empirical science of studying the complexity of behaviors. It just so happens different adult human beings are going to have or display behaviors and thought patterns of different stages of complexity. We are not all of us at the same stage of complexity in terms of our thought processes.
oh my.. of math and men
Which means that most academics will tend to be systematic stage thinkers. But above that stage, at only about 1.8% of the population, you have metasystematic reasoning. Metasystematic reasoning corresponds more to, in mathematics, topology, for instance. That you can see that there are patterns within these systems.
wow.. so exclusive
People who are at metasystematic tend to get less well along with people who are, let’s say, at abstract. Because the people who are at abstract will think that the people are metasystematic just talk a lot and that they aren’t very concrete about what they do, et cetera. People who are at metasystematic will think people at abstract are bit shallow. That they never really give them any aha’s when they speak to them and so on. But this is just one out of four fundamental ways of growing as a human being that-
A lot of the high stage people today are becoming Nazis. A lot of those who are high stage because of their depth and state, but are low on complexity, are becoming hippies who believe in magic. This is very counter-intuitive. Highly developed people are more likely to believe crazy things than average developed people. You have among the highly developed people, highly, highly dangerous groups of new Nazis coming up or fascist of different brands. You have magic beliefs because people have such strong spiritual and psychedelic experiences they can’t incorporate intellectually, and you have beliefs in aliens. I mean, these things are growing. If you challenge the people on their ideas about aliens and the UFOs, they will answer, “Please take a DMT trip and then you will know.”
If you take the modern person and his or her sensibilities, he or she does not in their core believe that everyday life is fucked up. He or she does not in their core feel that life is not sustainable, it is alienating and harmful to the human soul everyday life.
The postmodernist just have you go to the university and writing the critique of the critique of the critique, and that’s it.
the reason a lot of people hate postmodernism so much is that, it’s relatively sophisticated. Is not about yelling at men for them making a little bit more money, or shaming somebody for writing hi girls instead of high vagina bearers or so on. It’s actually about structural critiques which requires systematic stage thinking to be done properly. You have to actually see systems, you have to see cultures as objects, and you have to look at them dispassionate and so on. Which is difficult to do and not a lot of adult people can do it. Well, a lot of people can do it, but just about 20% of the population. Then following the research by Commons, if you look at how many people that reason at the metasystematic stage, it’s about 1.8%. Then if you go down to paradigmatic, we don’t know.
But they’re not actually going to work. They’re going to produce lots of pathologies. For instance, people will say, “Okay, The Listening Society. So it’s good to take in the perspectives of others.” *Then they’ll spend a lifetime just taking in the perspectives of crazy people andnot being able to coordinate them, for instance. Or they will think, “There are growth hierarchies between human beings and I’m of course of the higher stage.” So those of us who are at higher stages have moral privileges and we can decide for the others because we’re better than them. You can think of any number of perversions of this code. Or you could say, “Wait a minute, so this is a holistic vision of society in which things are brought together to resonate as one whole and small groups of people have to get together and conspire against society to do this.”
I wouldn’t over emphasize the need for popularization. Most of all, we need to find the right people and we need to affect the knowledge generation trajectories of let’s say actually just a few hundred people around the world at this point. Meaning that for us to make serious change happen, we need people who seriously work over the long time and commit their lives to some kind of metamodern/call it whatever, game change. And seriously will consider plans and take risks with their own lives to play parts in these plans.
? find the right people? a few hundred..?
Who are prepared to learn a million new things while doing this and to do it in a coordinated manner with other people. Because without these core groups … I mean, we can have all the popular demands for a listening society we want, new forms of politics or whatever. The things suggested in my books. But without some people who are actually doing the hard work and carrying the brunt of it and coordinating and resonating with one another, it’s just not going to happen.
You asked me before, 2% of the population roughly have metasystematic reasoning and this appears to be at least partly genetically determined.
Probably you can increase these percentages but we don’t really know. When I see and hear people reasoning about these things without complex minds, I see them drawing not so good conclusions. I actually prefer and I feel reassured when people are a little bit more conservative and don’t try on all of these crazy ideas and just stay with more common sense stuff. Because things get really crazy really fast. Even in highly intelligent people. You also need to have all your tools in the shack, so to speak. I mean, there are also all of the emotional and psychological pathologies that you can have. Today we’re seeing the emergence of early metamodernists and a lot of us are relatively crazy, unfortunately. Are highly dysfunctional people and have a lot of diagnoses and so on and then take a lot of medications. Because it’s unusual people and sensitive people.
crazywise.. but that’s all of us it’s about awakeness.. not intellect
if you look deep enough inside there will be very, very, very, very strong experiences of some kind of wholeness or love or connection. These experiences are very, very, very, very important for the rest of your life once you’ve had them. And you can’t unsee them. I mean you can, but usually it’s a developmental thing.
huge.. and what i’m banking on.. the stuff that’s already in each person.. the sutff that matters most
What he says is that the red thread or I mean, what connects the dots here is that, when we are in the high states of awareness or I mean those blissful open states of the psychedelic states and so on, all the neurons fire. I mean, there’s like connections are made in a much, much wider sense. Then it’s like a reset button for the brain so that the structures can change radically in these moments.
I mean, this is really at the core of a lot of my thinking and what I do. It’s difficult for me to answer briefly, but I’m going to have to try to. Basically, I would say there are two positions which are both sins here. One position is essentialism. It’s the ascribing of depth onto a surface.
To be a class that turns against modern society and organizes to consciously change its structures. Its informational architecture as we mentioned, their structures of the internet, its political structures and its culture. That’s what needs to be done.
Also, I suppose emotional capital in the sense that there’s a lot of energy. People are energized. But there is not enough cultural capital. They don’t quite see the world. This is actually what they might lack them from the pomos, from the postmodernists. A little bit more critique, a little bit more of seeing the society as society. Of seeing things sociologically might be exactly what this part of the world needs.
27.05.Hanzi Freinacht and the Metamodern View on Global Governance
Youtube Premiere and Online-Discussion: Future Cooking with Daniel Görtz (Co-Founder of Metamoderna)
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/mbauwens/status/1262699793983451136
we have to create a society which has the generative conditions for the best possible developmental properties of human beings as we are socialized and as we grow up.. as we gain a sense of self and create our values/ideologies.. and that becomes the metamodern political project.. t
ie: cure ios city
we have to actually go out and have visions and do something
just skimmed transcript
Jim Rutt (@jim_rutt) tweeted at 8:03 AM on Sat, May 16, 2020:
Like my first conservation with @HFreinacht this one goes deep.
deep? or hubrisish
What is very actionable like you said, again, I can’t say it better myself, is the code system. Meaning that given that there is a large subpopulation of high complexity, relatively high state and a higher depth than usual, than the norm, then these people can be armed with or equipped, or cultivate a higher stage of complexity in terms of their code.
Meaning that the base suppositions about reality, about society, about where we’re going, about our own place in it, about how we define ourselves, about how we define relationships. All of these things can change relatively easily. All you need to do is to get and grok some new ideas and then you can start using them.
That being said, those ideas are only really usable to that sub-portion of the population which have the corresponding complexity. So we’re left with a challenge to develop all of these dimensions because just ideas, just code with no brains to run them, and no hearts to feel it, and so on is of course, meaningless.
People should stop fighting about this stuff and see that we got different parts of the elephant.
not only stop fighting.. but stop talking.. let’s focus on the whole elephant.. and so something.. right?
let’s try ie: cure ios city
That would be a core definition of a metamodern society. A society that goes beyond and looks through modern society and in which, if modern society before used to be a box taken for granted. Now we can look inside the box and we can see all of its constituent elements, we can see how its norms are formed, how people’s sense of self develop, how psychology is developed. How interactions are shaped through everything from architecture to interior design, to institutions to language, and so on. And we start reworking nature, so this becomes like one of those strange loop things.
Let’s grasp that deep environment and restructure it, and that’s a humongous task. It’s tremendous in its immensity. How do we even start doing so?
by letting go of control
That’s an important theme that, it’s not that we can just make one topic in politics and we would cover all of those issues.
maybe we can.. ie: deep enough
if we org around a rock rather than all the flowers
Because the more complex and the more intimate issues we grapple with, and I guess we’ll get there later in the interview when we talk about the six dimensions of politics I suggest. The reason we don’t already have these as political topics, is that they are inherently difficult. They’re inherently difficult. They’re inherently multidimensional, inherently relational, contextual. Hard to see, hard to grasp even for the individual. Sometimes you find yourself in life and you ask yourself, am I happy? Is this working out? And during the same day, you can have wildly different interpretations. Well, there’s that nagging doubt and actually I’ve always known that. And then you can see a bit later, no, actually these things work out in this way, and it’s all been part of a bigger narrative where I’m going in this direction, and I’m learning and I’m growing and I’m happy
Protopia then is another term, it’s not then a *utopian static vision about what society can and should be like, and then everybody will be happy. Rather, it’s a relative place, which is obviously preferable for most people than the current state of affairs. So protopia is just somewhere you want to move, which is still *qualitatively different from where we’re at today. And that’s also what I mean with the relative utopia vision.
who said utopia is static.. revolution: instigating utopia everyday
**will that be enough?
not the word.. what we’d do
find/follow Hanzi (daniel?):
Philosopher. Metamodernist. Author of The Listening Society and Nordic Ideology.
his metamoderna site: https://metamoderna.org/hanzi-freinacht/
Hanzi Freinacht is a political philosopher, historian and sociologist, author of ‘The Listening Society’, ‘Nordic Ideology’and the upcoming books ‘The 6 Hidden Patterns of History’ and ‘Outcompeting Capitalism’. Much of his time is spent alone in the Swiss Alps.
As a writer, Hanzi combines in-depth knowledge of several sciences and disciplines and offers maps of our time and the human condition with his characteristically accessible, poetic and humorous writing style – challenging the reader’s perspective of herself and the world.
Hanzi Freinacht epitomizes much of the metamodern philosophy and can be considered a personification of this strand of thought. He has produced a wide array of original, relevant and useful ideas for people in all walks of life. These ideas help you gain an upper hand in the new political, economic and cultural landscape of digital, postindustrial society.
You can follow Hanzi on his facebook profile here,
In 2017, Daniel Görtz and Emil Friis, writing under the pen name Hanzi Freinacht published The Listening Society in which they construe metamodernism as an active intellectual, social, and political movement emerging to meet crises that potentially arise from globalization. In September 2018, Görtz conducted a TEDx talk in Berlin outlining the development of “value memes” claiming that the metamodern value meme constitutes the highest form yet