• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Integral Theory is Not a Grand Narrative in the Postmodern Sense

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

• What was the infamous Sokal hoax about?
• It was followed up by a book looking back on this episode.
• How did the exposed postmodernists respond?
• Ken Wilber too criticized "extreme" postmodernism, how?
• How did Wilber formulate the virtues of postmodernism?
• How did Jeff Meyerhoff defend postmodernism against Wilber?
• How did Wilber (not) respond to Meyerhoff?
• How did postmodernist Gregory Desilet criticize Wilber?
• How could Wilber respond to this postmodernist challenge?
• How valid is the performative contradiction argument Wilber frequently uses?
• Does metamodernism bring fresh perspectives to this discussion?

What was the infamous Sokal hoax about?

The Sokal Hoax was a famous academic prank carried out by physicist Alan Sokal in 1996 to expose what he saw as the intellectual shallowness of certain strands of postmodern thought.

Sokal, a professor of physics, submitted a deliberately nonsensical paper titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" to the journal Social Text, a postmodern cultural studies journal. The paper was filled with absurd claims, misused scientific terminology, and over-the-top postmodern jargon, yet it was accepted and published in the journal's Spring/Summer 1996 issue.

Shortly after publication, Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the paper was a hoax. His goal was to critique the way certain postmodern scholars misused scientific concepts and argued that some parts of academia had become more interested in fashionable jargon than intellectual rigor.

The hoax sparked intense debate about academic standards, the role of postmodernism in the humanities, and the relationship between science and cultural studies. It remains one of the most famous examples of an academic sting operation.

It was followed up by a book looking back on this episode.

Yes, Alan Sokal followed up on the hoax with the 1998 book Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science (published as Intellectual Impostures in the UK), co-written with physicist Jean Bricmont.

The book expanded on the themes of the hoax, systematically critiquing postmodern thinkers like Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray, Bruno Latour, and Jean Baudrillard for their misuse of scientific and mathematical concepts. Sokal and Bricmont argued that these intellectuals often invoked scientific terminology in ways that were meaningless or misleading, giving their work an illusion of depth without real substance.

The book reignited debates about postmodernism, the role of science in the humanities, and academic rigor, with supporters praising its exposure of intellectual pretension, while critics accused Sokal and Bricmont of misunderstanding or oversimplifying the thinkers they attacked.

How did the exposed postmodernists respond?

The response from the postmodernists Sokal and Bricmont criticized was mixed. Some dismissed the hoax and the book outright, while others attempted to defend themselves or downplay the significance of the critique. Here are a few notable reactions:

Jacques Derrida (who was not directly targeted in Fashionable Nonsense but was associated with postmodernism) suggested that Sokal's prank was amusing but ultimately trivial, accusing him of failing to understand the broader aims of poststructuralist thought.

Bruno Latour, one of the figures critiqued, later admitted in a 2004 essay that the Sokal Affair had some validity, recognizing that parts of social science had sometimes overused scientific metaphors without proper rigor.

Jean Baudrillard reportedly dismissed the hoax as irrelevant, viewing it as a stunt rather than a serious engagement with postmodern thought.

Julia Kristeva and Luce Irigaray, both criticized for misusing mathematical and scientific concepts, largely avoided direct engagement with Sokal and Bricmont's arguments.

More broadly, defenders of postmodernism accused Sokal and Bricmont of scientism—the idea that scientific reasoning is the only valid form of knowledge. They argued that Fashionable Nonsense misrepresented postmodernist theories, taking passages out of context or applying overly literal interpretations to works that were meant to be metaphorical or playful.

However, the hoax and its aftermath reinforced skepticism toward postmodernism in many academic and scientific circles. It remains one of the most famous academic controversies of the late 20th century.

Ken Wilber too criticized “extreme” postmodernism, how?

Yes, Ken Wilber has been a strong critic of "extreme" postmodernism, particularly its relativism, rejection of hierarchy, and skepticism toward objective truth. While he acknowledges postmodernism's contributions—such as exposing cultural biases and expanding perspectives—he argues that its more radical forms undermine genuine knowledge and progress.

Key Criticisms Wilber Makes of Extreme Postmodernism:

Hyper-relativism and the Denial of Truth

Wilber criticizes postmodernists for claiming that all truth is socially constructed and that there are no objective truths, only perspectives. He sees this as self-contradictory because the claim that “all truth is relative” is itself presented as an absolute truth.

Flattening of Hierarchy (or "Dominator" vs. "Growth" Hierarchies)

He distinguishes between "dominator hierarchies" (oppressive power structures) and "growth hierarchies" (natural developmental progressions, like child to adult or simple to complex thinking).

He argues that extreme postmodernists reject all hierarchies, even those that reflect real development (e.g., cognitive, moral, or spiritual growth).

The "Mean Green Meme" (Wilber's Critique of Postmodern Culture)

In his Integral Theory, Wilber describes a stage of development called the "Mean Green Meme" (MGM)—a radical postmodern mindset that is overly egalitarian, aggressively anti-hierarchy, and dismissive of objective truth.

He sees it as an overreaction to modernist and traditionalist worldviews, one that undermines its own values by being intolerant of other perspectives.

The Failure to Integrate Pre-modern, Modern, and Postmodern Insights

Wilber argues that postmodernists correctly deconstruct traditional and modern worldviews but fail to reconstruct anything meaningful in their place.

He advocates for an integral approach that synthesizes pre-modern spirituality, modern scientific rationality, and postmodern pluralism rather than just rejecting everything that came before.

Overall Impact of His Critique

Wilber's criticism of postmodernism has made him controversial in some progressive academic circles, but it has also resonated with those who feel that postmodern deconstructionism often lacks a constructive alternative. His Integral Theory is, in part, an attempt to move beyond postmodernism while preserving its valid insights.

How did Wilber formulate the virtues of postmodernism?

Ken Wilber acknowledges that postmodernism has valuable contributions, even though he critiques its excesses. He often describes postmodernism as an important but limited stage of development—useful for deconstructing outdated worldviews but inadequate for constructing a new, integrative vision.

The Virtues of Postmodernism According to Wilber:

Cultural Relativity and Perspective-Taking

Postmodernism exposed the biases of previous worldviews, especially ethnocentrism, Eurocentrism, and sexism.

It emphasized multiple perspectives, showing how different cultures and social positions shape knowledge.

This aligns with Wilber's "aperspectival" (or integral) thinking, which seeks to include and integrate multiple perspectives rather than privileging just one.

Deconstruction of Power Structures

Thinkers like Foucault and Derrida revealed how power shapes knowledge, uncovering hidden assumptions in science, politics, and culture.

Wilber appreciates this insight but argues that postmodernists go too far when they claim that all knowledge is merely a product of power.

Pluralism and the Inclusion of Marginalized Voices

Postmodernism expanded who gets to participate in knowledge creation—including voices from diverse ethnic, gender, and social backgrounds.

Wilber sees this as a necessary corrective to previous exclusionary systems.

Critique of Grand Narratives

Postmodernists challenged totalizing worldviews (like religious dogma, Marxism, or Enlightenment rationalism).

Wilber agrees that previous "one-size-fits-all" explanations were problematic but argues that an integral, evolutionary metanarrative is still valid—one that includes postmodernism itself rather than rejecting all big-picture frameworks.

Wilber's Key Distinction: Healthy vs. Unhealthy Postmodernism

Healthy postmodernism (what Wilber supports):

Recognizes multiple perspectives without denying that some truths are more valid than others.

Deconstructs oppressive narratives but allows for constructive integration.

Sees reality as partially socially constructed but not entirely relative.

Unhealthy postmodernism (what Wilber critiques):

Rejects hierarchy, even when it reflects legitimate developmental progress.

Insists that all truth is relative, leading to nihilism or cynicism.

Deconstructs without offering a higher synthesis.

Wilber's Conclusion

Postmodernism is a necessary but transitional stage—it exposes limitations of older worldviews but fails to provide a new, integrative vision. His Integral Theory aims to include the best of postmodernism while moving beyond its limitations.

How did Jeff Meyerhoff defend postmodernism against Wilber?

Jeff Meyerhoff, in his book Bald Ambition: A Critique of Ken Wilber's Theory of Everything (2006), offers one of the most detailed critiques of Wilber's work, including his attack on postmodernism. Meyerhoff challenges Wilber on several fronts, arguing that his representation of postmodernism is oversimplified and misleading.

Meyerhoff's Main Defenses of Postmodernism Against Wilber's Critique:

Wilber Misrepresents Postmodernism

Meyerhoff argues that Wilber caricatures postmodern thought, lumping all postmodern thinkers into an extreme relativist position.

While some postmodernists are radical relativists, others (such as Foucault or Derrida) are more nuanced, engaging in careful critiques of power, language, and knowledge without outright denying reality.

Postmodernism Does Not Reject Truth—It Critiques How Truth is Constructed

Meyerhoff contends that postmodernism does not deny all truth, but rather examines how claims to truth are shaped by historical, social, and political forces.

He argues that Wilber falsely accuses postmodernists of rejecting science and reason, when in fact, many of them engage critically with these domains rather than dismissing them outright.

Wilber's “Hierarchy” is Just Another Imposed Structure

Wilber defends “growth hierarchies” as natural progressions of human development (e.g., moving from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric consciousness).

Meyerhoff argues that these hierarchies are Wilber's own constructs, not objectively existing realities. He believes Wilber's claims of hierarchical development are ideological rather than scientific.

The “Mean Green Meme” is an Overgeneralization

Wilber's concept of the “Mean Green Meme” (MGM) portrays postmodernists as aggressively egalitarian, anti-hierarchy, and intolerant of other views.

Meyerhoff argues that this is a straw man, used by Wilber to dismiss postmodern insights without engaging with them seriously.

Wilber's Integral Theory is Another Grand Narrative

Postmodernists critique “grand narratives”—big, overarching stories that claim to explain everything (e.g., Marxism, religious dogma, Enlightenment rationalism).

Meyerhoff sees Wilber's “Theory of Everything” as just another grand narrative, one that claims superiority over all others but is itself based on selective readings and subjective interpretations.

Conclusion:

Meyerhoff's defense of postmodernism argues that Wilber misreads postmodern thinkers, overstates their relativism, and replaces their critiques with his own ideological system. Rather than being a truly “integral” synthesis, Meyerhoff sees Wilber's work as another hierarchical worldview that dismisses postmodernism without fairly engaging with it.

His critique has been influential among those skeptical of Wilber's claims, though Wilber's supporters argue that Meyerhoff himself misinterprets Integral Theory.

How did Wilber (not) respond to Meyerhoff?

Ken Wilber never directly responded to Jeff Meyerhoff's Bald Ambition in any formal way—he largely ignored it. Unlike his responses to some other critics, such as Frank Visser (who runs Integral World), Wilber never wrote a rebuttal or engaged in a public debate with Meyerhoff.

Possible Reasons for Wilber's Non-Response:

Meyerhoff Wasn't a Big Enough Name

Meyerhoff was not a well-known academic or public intellectual, which may have made Wilber feel that engaging with him wasn't necessary.

Wilber tends to focus on high-profile critics, like mainstream philosophers or scientists.

Wilber's General Attitude Toward Critics

Wilber has a history of dismissing critics without engaging their arguments in depth.

His famous “Wyatt Earp” blog rant (2006) mocked critics for misunderstanding him, calling them “Boomeritis” intellectuals and implying they weren't worth his time.

Meyerhoff's Critique Was Too Fundamental

Bald Ambition didn't just criticize small aspects of Wilber's work—it challenged the entire foundation of his Integral Theory, arguing that it was more ideological than scientific.

Wilber may have found it easier to ignore the critique rather than defend his grand theory point by point.

Wilber's Focus Shifted Elsewhere

By the mid-2000s, Wilber was focusing on his Integral Life Practice (ILP) and building his Integral Institute, moving away from deep philosophical debates.

He seemed more interested in practical applications of his model than responding to critics.

Impact of Wilber's Silence

Some saw it as an admission that Meyerhoff's critiques had merit.

Others believed Wilber simply didn't take Meyerhoff seriously enough to engage.

Meyerhoff's book remains one of the most thorough critiques of Wilber's work, and many critics of Integral Theory cite it as a key resource.

Overall, Wilber's non-response to Meyerhoff fits his pattern—he tends to engage selectively with critics, often dismissing them rather than debating in depth.

How did postmodernist Gregory Desilet criticize Wilber?

Gregory Desilet, a scholar influenced by postmodernism, has critically engaged with Ken Wilber's work, particularly in his essay "Misunderstanding Derrida and Postmodernism". His main argument is that Wilber misrepresents postmodernism and fails to escape the very dualisms he claims to integrate.

Desilet's Main Critiques of Wilber:

Wilber Misunderstands Derrida and Postmodernism

Wilber often portrays Derrida and postmodernists as radical relativists who reject truth altogether.

Desilet argues that Derrida does not deny truth but rather shows how language always mediates our access to it—meaning truth is never absolute but always context-dependent and evolving.

Wilber, according to Desilet, caricatures postmodernism as purely deconstructive, when in fact, it offers subtle and nuanced critiques of meaning and power.

Wilber's “Hierarchy” Reinforces Metaphysical Dualism

Wilber's developmental hierarchy (pre-rational → rational → trans-rational) suggests a linear progression of consciousness.

Desilet argues that this framework still relies on metaphysical dualisms, such as:

Higher vs. Lower (spiritual vs. material)

Integration vs. Fragmentation

Transcendence vs. Immanence

From a postmodern perspective, Wilber's model simply replaces old hierarchies with new ones, rather than truly integrating multiplicity and difference.

Wilber's Integral Theory is Another Grand Narrative

Postmodernists like Lyotard critique "grand narratives"—large, overarching explanations that claim to unify everything (e.g., religious cosmologies, Enlightenment rationalism, Marxism).

Desilet sees Wilber's Integral Theory as just another grand narrative, claiming to synthesize all knowledge but ultimately imposing its own hierarchical structure.

He argues that Wilber hasn't escaped modernist thinking, despite his attempt to integrate postmodern insights.

Wilber's Framing of Postmodernism as a “Phase” is Reductionist

Wilber often describes postmodernism as an evolutionary stage that is necessary but ultimately limited (i.e., it “deconstructs” but doesn't “reconstruct”).

Desilet sees this as a misrepresentation—postmodernism does not just deconstruct; it engages in a continuous questioning that prevents rigid, totalizing structures from forming.

By framing postmodernism as a temporary stage to be transcended, Wilber downplays its ongoing value in preventing dogmatism.

Desilet's Alternative View:

Instead of a hierarchical developmental model, Desilet advocates a more fluid and dynamic understanding of meaning, truth, and consciousness—one that embraces ambiguity, paradox, and continuous revision rather than moving toward a fixed synthesis.

He suggests that Wilber's approach is too rigidly structured, while postmodernism allows for more open-ended inquiry.

Conclusion:

Desilet challenges Wilber's portrayal of postmodernism as merely a stepping stone and argues that postmodern critique remains essential in preventing totalizing systems (like Wilber's own model) from becoming dominant. His critique aligns with other postmodern defenses against Wilber's “Mean Green Meme” argument, suggesting that Wilber misreads thinkers like Derrida and fails to truly integrate postmodern insights.

How could Wilber respond to this postmodernist challenge?

If Ken Wilber were to respond to Gregory Desilet's postmodernist critique, he could argue along the following lines:

1. Postmodernism is Valuable but Not Enough

Wilber might agree with Desilet that postmodernism has important insights—especially its critique of grand narratives, cultural biases, and linguistic mediation of truth. However, he would argue that postmodernism ultimately deconstructs without offering a higher integration.

While Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard show the limits of rigid, totalizing structures, they do not provide a constructive vision for human development.

Wilber's Integral Theory attempts to include postmodern insights but also recognizes the need for a coherent framework that moves beyond endless deconstruction.

2. Reality is Not Just a Language Game

Desilet, following Derrida, emphasizes that truth is always mediated by language and context. Wilber might counter that:

While language shapes perception, it does not mean that reality itself is purely a linguistic construct.

Postmodernism sometimes overstates the role of language and underestimates direct experience, embodiment, and non-symbolic forms of knowing (e.g., meditation, mystical experience, and deep introspection).

This aligns with Wilber's trans-rational approach—not rejecting reason or language, but also recognizing direct experiential truths beyond them.

3. Hierarchy is Natural, Not Just Imposed

Desilet criticizes Wilber's developmental hierarchy, arguing that it imposes rigid dualisms (e.g., higher vs. lower consciousness). Wilber could reply:

Not all hierarchies are oppressive—some reflect natural developmental progressions (e.g., cognitive growth from childhood to adulthood, ethical development from egocentric to worldcentric).

Wilber distinguishes between:

Dominator hierarchies (oppressive power structures)

Growth hierarchies (genuine developmental progress, like moving from survival needs to self-actualization).

Postmodernists, he might argue, collapse all hierarchy into power dynamics, failing to recognize that some structures actually foster growth rather than oppression.

4. Integral Theory is Not a Grand Narrative in the Postmodern Sense

Desilet sees Wilber's Integral Theory as another “grand narrative”, imposing a universal framework on reality. Wilber could respond:

His model is not a rigid ideology but a meta-theory that seeks to integrate multiple perspectives, including postmodernism itself.

Unlike older grand narratives (which claim to have the one and only truth), Integral Theory explicitly includes pluralism, context, and evolving perspectives.

Instead of rejecting postmodernism, he sees it as one stage in an evolutionary process—important but not the final word.

5. Postmodernism's Own Blind Spot: It Deconstructs Itself

Wilber often argues that radical postmodernism ultimately undermines itself:

If all truth claims are socially constructed, then postmodernism's own claims are also socially constructed—which means it cannot claim absolute validity for itself.

This self-referential paradox suggests that postmodernism alone is insufficient—we need a framework that acknowledges construction but also recognizes developmental structures that transcend it.

Wilber's AQAL model (All Quadrants, All Levels) attempts to preserve postmodern critiques while moving beyond their limitations.

How Wilber Could Sum It Up:

Postmodernism is a necessary but partial truth—it deconstructs old rigid structures, but without integration, it leads to fragmentation, relativism, and nihilism.

Integral Theory does not reject postmodernism but transcends and includes it—keeping its insights while restoring a meaningful developmental framework.

Postmodernists like Desilet focus too much on difference and ambiguity, while Wilber offers a way to integrate differences into a coherent vision for human evolution.

Final Thought

Wilber might ultimately say: “Postmodernism helped us tear down oppressive walls. But at some point, we need to build something new.” His Integral Theory is his attempt at that construction.

How valid is the performative contradiction argument Wilber frequently uses?

The performative contradiction argument, which Wilber frequently employs against postmodernism, is a strong but not unassailable critique. It has been widely used in philosophy to challenge radical relativism and skepticism. However, its validity depends on how postmodernism is interpreted and whether it actually makes the claims Wilber attributes to it.

Wilber's Use of the Performative Contradiction Argument

Wilber argues that postmodernists, particularly extreme relativists, contradict themselves in practice when they make sweeping claims like:

“All truth is relative.” (Is that statement itself relative?)

“All knowledge is socially constructed.” (Is that knowledge claim itself socially constructed?)

“There are no objective truths.” (Is that an objectively true statement?)

Wilber claims that such statements undermine themselves because if they are true, they must also be false under their own logic. This is called a performative contradiction—where the act of making a statement contradicts what the statement asserts.

Strengths of the Argument

Effective Against Extreme Relativism

The argument is very effective when postmodernists appear to claim absolute relativism, which is self-defeating.

If someone says, “There is no universal truth,” and asserts it as universally true, they contradict themselves.

Philosophically Sound Against Strong Constructivism

If all knowledge is socially constructed with no access to reality, then that claim itself must be socially constructed—meaning it can't claim universal validity.

This is a common critique of radical postmodernists like Richard Rorty or Jean Baudrillard.

Used by Other Thinkers, Not Just Wilber

Other philosophers—such as Jürgen Habermas, Karl Popper, and even early critics of skepticism like Aristotle—have used similar arguments against radical relativism.

It is a well-established philosophical tool, not just something Wilber invented.

Weaknesses and Counterarguments

Postmodernists Don't Necessarily Claim Absolutes

Postmodernists rarely make absolute statements like “all truth is relative.” Instead, they argue that truth is context-dependent or that our access to truth is mediated by language and power structures.

If postmodernism is seen as a method of critique rather than an absolute doctrine, then the performative contradiction argument may not apply.

Truth as a Pragmatic Concept

Some postmodernists (like Richard Rorty) argue that truth is not about absolute certainty but about usefulness in a given context.

If truth is seen as a working hypothesis rather than a fixed, objective reality, then accusations of performative contradiction lose their force.

Postmodernism Often Deals in Paradox, Not Contradiction

Thinkers like Derrida embrace paradox and undecidability rather than making firm logical claims.

The performative contradiction argument assumes that postmodernists are trying to establish universal rules, but many of them are intentionally exposing the limits of rigid logical structures.

Wilber's Own Integral Theory Could Be Accused of a Similar Issue

If Wilber argues that all perspectives must be included, does that include perspectives that reject hierarchy and integration?

If he says postmodernism must be “transcended and included”, but postmodernism resists being integrated into a grand system, then isn't Wilber imposing his own meta-narrative despite claiming to integrate all perspectives?

Conclusion: Is the Argument Valid?

Against extreme relativism? Yes, it is a strong argument.

Against nuanced postmodernists like Derrida or Foucault? Less so.

If postmodernism is framed as an ongoing critique rather than a fixed position, then the contradiction argument is weaker.

Wilber's argument works best when postmodernists overstate their case but is less effective against more careful and nuanced postmodern thinkers who avoid absolute claims in the first place.

Does metamodernism bring fresh perspectives to this discussion?

Yes, metamodernism brings fresh perspectives to the debate between Ken Wilber's Integral Theory and postmodernism by attempting to synthesize their insights while avoiding their extremes. It offers a middle path between Wilber's hierarchical developmentalism and postmodernism's endless deconstruction, making it highly relevant to this discussion.

How Metamodernism Engages with Postmodernism and Wilber

Balancing Sincerity and Irony

Postmodernism often engages in irony, skepticism, and deconstruction, questioning absolute truths and stable identities.

Wilber's Integral Theory, by contrast, seeks integration, coherence, and hierarchical development.

Metamodernism oscillates between these two poles, embracing both skepticism and deep meaning, both irony and sincerity—a kind of “both/and” thinking rather than “either/or.”

Moving Beyond Postmodern Nihilism Without Returning to Grand Narratives

One of Wilber's key criticisms of postmodernism is that it leads to relativism and nihilism.

Metamodernists acknowledge this critique but do not retreat into rigid hierarchical systems like Wilber's AQAL model.

Instead, they propose a playful, provisional approach to meaning, where we can believe deeply while knowing our beliefs are contingent and fallible.

A More Flexible Developmental Model

Wilber's stage-based model (pre-rational → rational → trans-rational) suggests a linear evolution of consciousness.

Postmodernism rejects linear progress, arguing that all truths are contextual and power-driven.

Metamodernism offers a non-linear, dynamic view of development, where different perspectives and stages coexist, interact, and oscillate rather than simply being transcended.

Paradox as a Strength, Not a Contradiction

Wilber accuses postmodernists of performative contradictions (e.g., “there are no universal truths” being stated as a universal truth).

Metamodernists embrace paradox rather than seeing it as a flaw, recognizing that humans can hold contradictory ideas simultaneously (e.g., we can both deconstruct and reconstruct meaning).

This aligns more with Gregory Desilet's critique of Wilber, arguing that truth is never final but always evolving within dynamic tensions.

Subjectivity, Meaning, and the Return of the Mythic

Wilber's Integral Theory seeks to synthesize science, philosophy, and spirituality.

Postmodernism often reduces spirituality to social construction or power dynamics.

Metamodernism reintroduces the mythic, symbolic, and spiritual, not as fixed dogma, but as playful, deeply meaningful, and ever-evolving narratives.

How Would Metamodernism Critique Wilber?

Wilber's hierarchies might be seen as too rigid—metamodernists would suggest a more fluid, evolving model of development.

His “transcend and include” approach could be too totalizing, absorbing everything into a grand synthesis rather than allowing contradictions to stand.

While Wilber criticizes postmodernism for being overly skeptical, metamodernism would argue that skepticism isn't just a phase to be transcended but an ongoing, necessary part of meaning-making.

Conclusion: A Fresh Perspective?

Yes, metamodernism offers a fresh, dialectical approach that neither rejects postmodern critique nor imposes rigid hierarchies like Wilber's model. Instead, it oscillates between perspectives, embracing the fluidity, paradox, and ongoing negotiation of meaning—making it a strong candidate for moving beyond the Wilber-postmodernism divide.