I'm joined by Integral thinker, theorist, teacher, writer, and community elder Bruce Alderman to talk about the ongoing love/hate relationship between metamodernism and Integral Theory, especially as the debate has been stirred up anew by the publication of my new book Metamodernism: Or, The Cultural Logic of Cultural Logics. Here we tackle some of the ongoing controversies that continue to swirl in some parts of the metamodern discourse, especially around the degree to which Ken Wilber and his formulation of the post-postmodern does/does not, should/should not inform our understanding of theories of the metamodern. Given the relationship that does exist, how do we best acknowledge and utilize it in pragmatic and integrous ways? How do we properly parse and distinguish these post-postmodern paradigms? What are the genuine fault lines and distinguishing characteristics of each framework, and what's just meme fluff?

0:00 Introduction (1:16, 3:30 Bruce card)

1:55 Bruce's Integral Context/Background

5:06 Brendan's Metamodern Context/Background

8:07 Did Hanzi Just Rip Off Wilber?

13:03 Did Hanzi Just Steal the Term "Metamodern" for an Integral Framework?

25:26 Has the Ship Sailed? Could Metamodernism Be the Future of Integral?

42:48 Did Brendan Just Excise/Ignore Wilber?

51:33 Does Metamodernism Offer a Workable Social Science Where Integral Doesn't?

1:01:03 The "Woo" Factor

1:14:15 Conclusion