I don’t think there is a ‘necessary difference’ between those two points. In fact, I assume that the ‘next’ viewpoint will hold a significant similarity to postmodernism.

Addressing you’re new question: I think a major difference between the two points is going to be how they address the fundamental question ‘where do we come from?’.

Check out ‘integral philosophy’ to see some of what I’m talking about. These guys seem to have a similar method of thinking about the world, but come to vastly different conclusions. Part of that stems from their underlying assumptions about where humanity has come from. Rather than a cycle or line, they look at history as a spiral moving up from a point of nothingness.

That’s just one example, but highlights the point. ‘Redemption’ vs. ‘Evolution’. Are we going up, or are we broken and scattered?

A couple links to integral thought:

http://www.integralworld.net/index.html?mcintosh2.html
http://www.integralworldgovernment.org
http://www.stevemcintosh.com/blog/index.html

First, is there a necessary difference between the formation of a ‘new’ philosophical viewpoint and the evolving (revolving?) rise out of the postmodernist viewpoint?

Second, your question is helping me define a question of my own: What defines a “redemptionist” viewpoint as being different from any of the more unitarian postmodernist factions?

More on this after I chew on it…

A thought for you (not mine, actually): Would any ‘new’ dynamic in art and culture be a result of a new cyclic perspective or simply be another outworking of postmodernist thought?

I’ve had a couple discussions where this thought has been brought up. Mainly, it is used to defend any ‘evolving’ thought process as merely an outworking of postmodernism rather than a new philosophical viewpoint.