3 ms·
It’s always great to find someone who’s been thinking the same as you have been, but took the time to formalize it. For years I’ve been calling these antimemes
by kouru225 1y ago
It’s always great to find someone who’s been thinking the same as you have been, but took the time to formalize it.
For years I’ve been calling these antimemes “natural barriers” or “lost truth” (lost in that it’s destined to be lost). I’ve bought the book and hope it goes into further depth because I’ve become very confident that this idea is an entry point into a thought train that ends up uncovering a metric shit ton of important ideas. From antimemetics we get a fundamental problem of all brain development, the subconscious in all its iterations and forms, the basis of religion, and the underlying meaning of all forms of storytelling. It’s a fascinating story that I’ve been trying to put together into one package for years now. It’ll be bittersweet if I find out someone did it better than me.
Edit: one way I disagree with the author is that I don’t think memes are bad at all, and the reason why is because I don’t think the barrier between antimemes and memes is as sturdy as you might think. The process of storytelling and art is the process of encoding antimemes as memes, and the reason why the meme culture seems so violent and cynical these days is because our ability to engage with manifest meme content that have latent antimeme content (to use Freudian terms) was undermined by our older generation, who never properly grappled with antimemes and the implication of their existence to begin with, and therefore normalized the process of engaging with manifest meme content without acknowledging the existence of the latent antimeme content it was formed from.
- kouru225 1y agoOh jeez I just started this book and it’s terrible. The author seems like they front-loaded the real reason they’re interested in Antimemes, which is cause they have political opinions that they want to avoid the consequences of having to publicly admit, and then they go about molding the idea of Antimemes to formalize bad politics as a philosophy rather than actually explore the idea. The big schism in their thinking happens when they refuse to label legal contracts or math as Antimemes, which of course ruins the whole idea in the first place. In this authors eyes Antimemes are just normal memes that no one wants to admit to, which means they’re not functionally different from memes in any way besides the fact that the person engaging with them is a coward. In fact, this entire book just seems like a philosophical formalization of being a little scaredy cat, and it’s not even an interesting one like The Americanization Of Emily. You know how people are a product of their culture? Have you ever read a book from someone whose culture is so overpowering and yet so limiting? Thank god I never moved to San Francisco. I’m certainly not reading a book by someone who’s discovered a secret arcane truth underlying communication. I’m reading a book by someone who’s so deep in their safe space secret chat rooms that they’ve never had their ideas challenged or elaborated on once.