We're getting back to postmodernism here: if all metanarratives have equal value, none can be judged to be right at the expense of others.

My questions are: (1) What is relativist about "all metanarratives have equal value"? That's an absolute statement if I've ever seen one, and I take it is a statement that ludickid would disagree with. (2) What do you mean by "metanarrative"? The word is not self-explanatory, and it can have different meanings, though people often don't make distinctions in meaning. That is (i) it can mean something like logic or the Kantian division between intuitions and concepts (basically between what's given to consciousness and consciousness itself), and the synthetic-analytic distinction, etc., basically the supposedly transcendent rules of any story, and (ii) something like the Oedipus complex or class conflict or natural selection, which is taken as axiomatic in some stories but isn't considered transcendent in the way that the first sort of metanarrative is. Anyway, it's possible to disbelieve in (i) while having no problem in principle with (ii), since they don't have anything to do with each other.