Good catch, and thanks for introducing me to the ‘conceptual rounding error’.
I think there would be more overlap with a memeplex with the ‘remainder’ (in my conception of the term) being one of loose personification, like in the case of Moloch or Trump, where the dividual entity seems to have some central motivation, but is otherwise entirely multifarious.
I guess my inclination is that individuals have always been permeable to some extent, but exposure to many varied memeplexes (like religions, political ideologies or algorithms) can make that permeability pathological. The difficulty of defining what side of the equation ‘the dividual’ is, the cause (the memeplexes) or the resulting hyper-permeable individual, is reflective of the dividual’s own paradoxical nature.
If I compared ‘the dividual’ to ‘memes’ would that be a conceptual rounding error?
Good catch, and thanks for introducing me to the ‘conceptual rounding error’.
I think there would be more overlap with a memeplex with the ‘remainder’ (in my conception of the term) being one of loose personification, like in the case of Moloch or Trump, where the dividual entity seems to have some central motivation, but is otherwise entirely multifarious.
I guess my inclination is that individuals have always been permeable to some extent, but exposure to many varied memeplexes (like religions, political ideologies or algorithms) can make that permeability pathological. The difficulty of defining what side of the equation ‘the dividual’ is, the cause (the memeplexes) or the resulting hyper-permeable individual, is reflective of the dividual’s own paradoxical nature.