I certainly can understand a suspicion of metanarratives. They seem prone to ideological interpretations, though in history a few have tried to be honest... like mine. Still, I would hesitate to consider any idea that rejected traditional belief that logic and reason is the best judge of truth even if it is a very old and traditional metanarrative.

I'm good with pretty much all Renaissance ideas until you get to Existentialism. The Rationalists needed to answer similar questions and came up with far better answers than broad rejection. It's just that Nietzsche's poem was so beautiful and compelling.

Ahhh, the Apeiron Blog. Must follow.

May I offer a thought. There are many metanarratives of course, but what are they based on? Is one more likely to be reliable than another? I do like one based on logic and reason of course, but is there another foundation that could lead to a useful metanarrative? I've been working on one for some decades based on biology. I mean we are alive. I think it's reliable for revealing truth and understanding, particularly because I seem to have a knack for genetics and have even learned how to describe the meanings in instincts. As science has done in the past, it answers some classical philosophical questions ... including providing two of the three answers I know of to Existentialism. It also offers a useful definition of morality as well as shows a nearby existential threat that no one seems to have noticed yet. Might I recommend a glance here? You might find it of minor interest. It claims to be biology, but we all know it's really just morality. https://s3.amazonaws.com/zagwap.com/videos/index.html