Greg, yes, I agree when I wrote that line I was departing from Vermeulen and van den Akker, in that I’m no longer talking just about affect but about thinking styles more generally — which I gather is something they didn’t want to get into. But to go down that road a bit, I confess that metamodernism only makes sense to me if it juxtaposes full-on postmodernism with full-on sincerity. If we’re stopping short of the full implications of either, then I’d say we’re splitting the difference or seeking a compromise rather than actually oscillating. In other words, I think being “meta” requires totally accepting the most relativistic and nihilistic implications of postmodernism, but then completely embracing a naively sincere and deeply felt viewpoint anyhow.
I’m probably adding my own interpretation here, but those are my thoughts for the moment. Thanks for the great conversation!