[omg more lit nerds this place, despite possibly being a figment of his imagination, is excellent. His tone is agreeable rather than argumentative, since... yes, debate. He loves debate.]

But 'permanent liminality' is inherently paradoxical. Liminality itself is a state of change and flux, characterized by three specific stages. It's meant to be temporary, and the 'permanency' removes that necessary and characteristic change. Turner explicitly extrapolated that there cannot be a 'liminal state' because the word implies a fixity that is not characteristic of liminal situations, with one exception.

[and so he quotes,]

--'With the increasing specialization of society and culture, with progressive complexity in the social division of labour, what was in tribalsociety principally a set of transitional qualities ‘betwixt and between’ defined states of culture and society has become itself an institutionalized state.'

I don't agree that we're trapped in the final stage of liminality, though, because that would imply we're on the cusp of being returned home or otherwise 'reborn'. I think we're functioning within the secondary stage, possibly even within the parameters of Szakolczai's fixed permanency.