Modernism - a comparison

Dan Kimball, in his book The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations, describes modernism as follows:

"Pure modernism held to a single, universal worldview and moral standard, a belief that all knowledge is good and certain, truth is absolute, individualism is valued, and thinking, learning, and beliefs should be determined systematically and logically."

He then contrasts that with postmodernism:

"Postmodernism, then, holds there is no single universal worldview.  All truth is not absolute, community is valued over individualism, and thinking, learning, and beliefs can be determined nonlinearly."

To summarize -- modernism is concrete, certain and logical; postmodernism is flexible, uncertain and is more feeling or experience oriented.

I finished reading Kimball's book about a week ago and have been thinking quite a bit about it ever since.   So when I saw a mention of Modernist authors (such as Joseph Conrad and Henry James) in the Great Courses sale catalog, I took note.  I love the catalogs because they often include long excerpts from various classes.  The lesson I was reading was on "The Year that Changed Literature: Defining Modernism -- Beyond Impressionism" by David Thorburn.  Thorburn summarizes these early modern writers as follows:

"Part of the reason [modern narrators are no longer omniscient as their predecessors had been] is that they live in this skeptical, pessimistic, problematic, disorderly environment.  They are the heirs to uncertainty.  They are the heirs to instability.  They are the heirs to a notion of the fluidity and immense complexity of a world that no longer has the kind of stabilizing coherences that earlier religious, moral, and institutional dispensations created for people. And the beginnings of Modern novels, therefore, reflect this much more problematic, much more fluid, much more uncertain environment. ...In the problematic and uncertain universe of Modern fiction there are other compensations and other virtues, but the certainty and the self-confidence of the older-tradition are gone."

I was taken aback because everything I read sounded almost word for word something that I would have read in Dan Kimball's book -- only he would have been using those phrases to describe Postmodernism, which he finds almost antithetical to organized, fact driven, systematized Modernism.)

What gives?  Is this a case of "what goes around comes around"?  Or is something else at play?

I think the key has far more to do with personality types than defining social movements.