My sense is that short essay does not make Metamodernism clear. But this quote interested me.
In attempting to grapple with the nature of such knowledge, Storm sets up a tri-partite schema: Knowledge produced on the mathematical model is the result of deductive reasoning to a proved conclusion from axiomatic principles. Knowledge produced on the scientific model is the result of inductive reasoning from a set of examples to a general principle. Both approaches have limitations; so Storm argues for a third basis of knowledge, that of ‘abductive reasoning’, or reasoning to the best explanation (as based on a set of pre-defined criteria). Thus, our interactions in the world do not lead to certainty – there may always be a better explanation waiting to be generated – but if we are willing to relinquish certainty, we can hang on to a form of ‘humble knowledge’ (p.211) which Storm labels ‘zetetic’ knowledge, after the Greek term zētētikos – ‘one who seeks by inquiring’. Storm does not intend the knowledge thus gained to be value-neutral, a position he regards as a ‘failed project’ of postmodernism (p.239). Rather, he intends to establish an ambitious (and Kantian) program, in which knowledge would become the basis of conduct. In such a context the goal of the human sciences is to “become a way of life directed toward human flourishing”
So we have this third mode, which is humble and tentative and openly not value neutral. Abduction. And where knowledge is directed towards human flourishing. All sounds nice and vague (and actually not unlike our dear Veritas' ideas, at least at this level of abstraction.
We can only, here, know hints of what the author is thinking, but....
I've also been mulling this the kind of skepticism hurled at beliefs. Beliefs are seen as assertions, and we should look at them and pick at them, from some kind of neutral standpoint (which the author claims postmodernism mistakenly aims for), and determine if the beliefs are true or not.
I'm starting to think that's a very poor framing of what beliefs are and are for.
If we jump to beliefs as tools or 'things' that make possible experiences, it's a different ball game. What happens when we believe X? What experiences are we now capable of having if we believe X?
This could be anything from belief in God, to belief that women are different from men, to the belief that beliefs hold reality together in some way, to beliefs about how to train a dog for certain behavioral outcomes.
I don't think there's any way to get to a neutral viewpoint where we then say 'prove to me X is true and from my neutral viewpoint i will evaluate your justification'. So I think the view of truth most people have includes this ideal neutral viewpoint falsehood. Of course many people will admit that they are fallible, but still judge others as starting from less neutral, less value-free starting points.
One difference is that one can try on beliefs and instead of looking at the beliefs epistemologically, we look at what happens if we take on this belief.
I don't think one can simply choose to belief X. But I think one can wag the dog to some degree. Try it on. Go and get an astrology reading. Or you've read a book on feminism and try to look at the world through the view that women are X, or are more Y than men, or are not Z as much as we have been told.
Ideas as scaffolding for new experiences.
Let's take dreams. You could assume what some consider the neutral postion that really they are mainly just side effects of the brain processing the days events, and generally meaningless phenomena.
Or you could try on the beliefs of one of the many psychologists (or indigenous groups) and treat them as having not only meaning but that certain ways of processing dream content are useful. You try this out. Wag the dog. You find others or one person to process the dreams with - processing might be as non-melodramatic as talking about the dreams from a Freudian or Jungian perspective. Or as dramatic as actively identifying and expressing, vocally with words and sounds, from things in dreams from a Gestalt Therapy perspective in what feels like the various dream persona and even things way of expressing.
This could include beliefs like when I dreamt about person X they literally were in the dream, a part of me I have trouble identifying with, but in the dream state there was some attempt at integration. Some part of me I suppress arose in me in a way I am less likely to notice in my waking state.
The belief allows then a difference experience of this experience and built on that a chance to commit to activities that would be hard to commit to without the belief.
Leading to new experiences.