The acknowledgement of Metamoderism signifies its end for the individual.

Working at the moment on a proposed project for a seating scenario, but the medium doesn’t matter to this post so much. What I’m discussing, articulated here quite well, is Metamodernism (That's a link to the Metamodernist Manifesto online which has Shia Labeouf's name on it, but I'm attaching the original here with Luke Turner sited as author.)(Also called Post-Post-Modernism.) (Pop culture references include Haruki Murakami, Reggie Watts, Die Antwoord, Odd Future, and Spike Jonze.). I’m not playing a role within it though as we can see Shia attempting to do, (see an alternate view here) but intentionally reacting.
What Metamodernism proposes isn’t a manifesto but an acknowledgement of the current state of things. As an idea we can talk about it, no dramas, but once you’re aware of the state being proposed that awareness moves from an intentional state to intentionally reacting to states. Oscillation isn’t a natural reaction, but a forced one. The only way to react then is to copy (Is this what’s going here Shia? hmmm …) which is in line with acting in line with somebody else's ideas, or alternatively, to be contrarian.
My reaction here is to go against what people (Metamodernists and my tutors and lecturers.) are trying to show me (In fact it gives me a clearer understanding of their ideas as well. Win, win.) which involves opposing the human centred design ideas of David Kelley, the infamous company Droog, Eindhoven … and creating in a new (Old?) way. Dumbed down it’s about arrogance to the point of playing God (Why can’t people play God?), which reflects a lot of the infamous changes in design and art history (Warhol, Pollock, Mackintosh, Takeshi ...) , being contrarian to the surroundings.
My general ideas as phrased in my proposal;
Do not create intuitively, or based on inspiration. These notions in particular are based on your conscious mind connecting information, not making decisions. Question everything and make the decisions based on deeper understanding.
Do not look for existing patterns. Seating does not have legs. A seat does not have a back. People do not need or want seating so they can sit, it must be more than an alternative to being on the ground or standing.
Do not build in emotional relevance for others. Phenomenology and responses are personal. Observation of people only leads to assumed answers, conversation only leads to contrived responses.
Do not rely only on one medium of exploration. Spoken and written language is limiting, as we simplify experience based on known words and patterns. Social circumstance and experience is as limiting. Drawing will only give you drawn outcomes.  Light will only give you light outcomes. So,
Do not use the final medium (in this case form) to explore concept. The outcome only becomes relevant in synthesis and creation.
The designer is an artist (God). Titles and boundaries should not influence decision making. The designers responsibility has limitless scope.
The work is personal. The responses are personal. Otherwise the designer has no purpose.
The brief remains (A response to a problem). It may be damaged, stretched, or stained, but never destroyed or altered in such a way that it doesn’t reflect the intention.
Absurdity as diversion is just as valid as resolution.
So more specifically to my proposal;
The issue is overuse of technology, lack of privacy, and lack of quiet, eventuating in impacts on physical and mental health. The outcome doesn’t need to reflect these things directly in any way. What needs to be created is the benefits minus the draw backs, which is a common approach to overcoming habits and addiction. If the benefit of mobile technology is time wasting and comfort, then time wasting and comfort are the starting criteria to work from, with the only solution not available being mobile technology. If the problem is a lack of privacy, and the benefit of privacy is security, then security is the starting point to be explored, and as long as it doesn’t generate a lack of privacy security can be explored in any way.
If a leaning towards irony or sincerity can be seen, remove. The same with relativism and truth, optimism and doubt, naïvety and knowing. The object expresses itself, and is not a statement on anything else.