Reason for downvote: I’m unable to parse your english syntax into structured understanding of your meaning, which I’d guesstimate is due to excessively passive voice and highly text-referential meaning, that is, heavy use of highly specific names the reader must already know, without giving definition in an easily understood order; if meaning is derived socially, you have failed to derive much of it, and if meaning is derived absolutely, then the absolute from which meaning must be built is too shattered to cohere in my mind as I read. Many claims are made that are unsupported by the context by my understanding of the meaning of the words. If I understand it, postmodernism asks me to assemble meaning from the fragments of each argument, but if I understand it, metamodernism allows me to reply that meanings do vary in coherence even when speaking entirely by use of common language; some phrasing uses sturdy linguistic consilience, but experiences differ, which leads to different background assumptions. If your philosophy mathematizes, I don’t see how to do it.
edit: downvote removed because downvote below −17 seems cruel. it’s a badly written article on an interesting topic by someone who has a very philosophy writing style; several of those properties would lead me to upvote without the “badly written” prefix. my own posts barely scrape by on the metric I’m downvoting for anyhow.
Reason for downvote: I’m unable to parse your english syntax into structured understanding of your meaning, which I’d guesstimate is due to excessively passive voice and highly text-referential meaning, that is, heavy use of highly specific names the reader must already know, without giving definition in an easily understood order; if meaning is derived socially, you have failed to derive much of it, and if meaning is derived absolutely, then the absolute from which meaning must be built is too shattered to cohere in my mind as I read. Many claims are made that are unsupported by the context by my understanding of the meaning of the words. If I understand it, postmodernism asks me to assemble meaning from the fragments of each argument, but if I understand it, metamodernism allows me to reply that meanings do vary in coherence even when speaking entirely by use of common language; some phrasing uses sturdy linguistic consilience, but experiences differ, which leads to different background assumptions. If your philosophy mathematizes, I don’t see how to do it.
edit: downvote removed because downvote below −17 seems cruel. it’s a badly written article on an interesting topic by someone who has a very philosophy writing style; several of those properties would lead me to upvote without the “badly written” prefix. my own posts barely scrape by on the metric I’m downvoting for anyhow.