This article connects branding to life and defines human life in its memetic dimension.

First thesis:

As already explained under all “meme” tags and especially in this post, memes form a unique human environment that follows the identical replication and evolution principles as genes within genetic evolution. That meme’s ontology/physicality (1) is different from the gene’s ontology, which explanation started with the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA and later solidified with the human genome project, does not spoil the thesis that memes are specific human replicators, second replicators, that differentiate humans from the rest of environment.

Second thesis:

As already explained, memes behave like brands and behave like memes (2). The only difference is that brands exist only as memetic fields. As said in Brandlife and many posts in this blog, one can explain brand identity with a brand identity formula that consists of 9 elements. Each of the nine brand identity elements can consist of at least one and up to a couple of memes. We can then develop 20 or more than 30 memes interrelating within each brand, thus forming a memetic field. It is essential to understand that memes within a brand should not be interpreted as stand-alone but as interrelated. That means that a meme “x” within a brand “BRAND1” has a different value than meme “x” in “BRAND2” for the reason that the meme environment in each brand is different.

Conclusion 1:

The different values for each meme within a different identity environment explain why a meme like “sunny” has a different value if it is interrelated within “SUNBURN PROTECTION CREME” than when it is related to “SOLAR PANNEL.”

Conclusion 2:

Conclusion 1 also leads to a simple explanation of why words have ambiguous meanings and why all dictionaries are imperfect. It also explains why a thesaurus, with its linear logic, helps but does not define a term in its full richness.

Conclusion 3:

Memes, memetic fields, and brands have identities that can be explained but can only be understood through interrelation. That means that they can never be objectively understood. They are relational. They are never the same, but at the same time, they always have an understandable identity. This fact proves to be the hardest for all those (especially managers) without experience in philosophy or at least in complexity theory.

Conclusion 4:

Any human activity, including medicine, management, or science, can only be holistic. While each human activity has to analyze its field as profoundly as possible (the available tools limit the extent), the elements described by analytic tools can be understood only through their dynamic/complex/non-linear internal and external environment relations.

Corollary 1:

While deduction drives analysis, induction drives holistic interpretation.

Conclusion 5:

Each human activity is (should be) objective in deduction and subjective in induction. Only the seamless cohabitation of both (holism) can be understood as Human Action (Von Mises).

Corollary 2:

Science and Western medicine both have a strong inclination to forget the subjective (holistic) part of human action. But that does not mean that they do not perform this subjective action. Human action can not be but a unity of deduction and induction. That science and Western medicine do not want to see themselves in the realm of subjective (holistic) only means that they avoid making it explicit. Those who do not accept the necessity of holism perform their actions irrationally much more than those who take the necessity of the dual nature of each human action.

Corollary 3:

While medicine and science, by definition, reject the subjective nature of their actions, management and the so-called “social sciences” often reject the objective, deductive level of their human actions and later fail to recognize physical reality.

Conclusion:

Human action that fully accepts the dual nature of human life is called homonism.

END:

The dual nature of human life is homogenous and monistic in its profound duality (Spinoza), as much as identity is possible only as one.

 

(1) This blog is naturally evolving. That means that the newest developments of my research are not necessarily represented in all articles. This refers mainly to memetics. My 2024 thesis on memetics substantially upgraded the ontology and phenomenology of memetics. So, let me express one hint at this point. Why I previously thought memes would be biological entities, the new findings position them as quantum-like (strategic memes) and fractal-like (material memes). Yet, more on that in my future articles.

(2) This proposition still holds to a certain degree. Yet, it does not consider brands as memetic fields, while memes are their underlying “structure.” Both have a certain degree of agency and are thus alive, yet their ontology differs slightly.