Abramson's first point as a tenet of metamodernism is "metamodernism as a negotiation between modernism and post-modernism". This is certainly one view. Both precursors can be viewed as maintained for consideration... to somehow find a happy meduium. Personally, It seems a bit far-fetched and overly complicated to keep the previous narratives. Better would be to recognize that both modernism and postmodernism have fundamental flaws that prevent them from being seriously maintained. This is not to say that they are without their merits. It is saying, however, that to define metamodernism in terms of its predecssors is to preserve their trajectories. It is not to be independent of them.

Abramson's second descriptive point is 'dialogue over dialectics.' The basic argument is that a dialectic is not a contest wherein one of two opposing forces wins and rules. The metamodernist view is that dialectics are battles of attrition where both lose and that if one force would win over heart and minds, it would not have the stamina to command control. The dialectic assumes that power is raw. Metamodernist thinking steers toward dialogical consensus where buy-in in the logical end.

The third point of description is 'paradox'. I recognize that metamodernism's predessors are diametrically opposed on some subjects but it's useful to be non-committal on them. It's like DeBono's concept of reserved judgement that allow paradoxical contradictions to exist if for no other reason than to explore possibilities.

Similarly, the fourth point, "juxtaposition", allows for the existence of seemingly conflicting concepts to be kept in place. Sincerity and irony are raised as examples where the one may be exaggerated to the degree that it appears to others that the opposite is intended. And perhaps this is the crux of this point: what is intended by one actor is not what is seen by another. This does not mean that one is wrong and the other is right. It means that both words and actions, however precise they might appear to be, remain essentially ambiguous.