“People think in memes”
An instance black-box thinking or doing where the signifiers being used to think with, or through, are memes, and their compounds. Some people exclusively think like this. It’s why Memetic warfare is a thing.
It can be used both pedagogically (Two truths doctrine or To induce in mistake.
E.g.: “What Would Jesus Do?”, “Abril águas mil”, slogans, “Black Lives Matter” → “Blues Lives Matter” → “White Lives Matter” → “All lives matter”
Wisdom-think
The Non-doing X, aka Not-doing X, Merely doing X, Allowing X, X version of thinking. The proper finding the referent of “thinking”.. Thoughts where a thinker isn’t obviously present, but that instead ‘naturally’ or ‘spontaneously’ occur. Not intentionally willed into being. Often surprising, riveting, exciting, shocking, profane, different. Seem to have ‘their own agency’ and to ‘play themselves out’ of their own accord. Will explore paths you usually don’t and drag you along, change you. Often generates language that’s fresh, poetic, or uncommon.
Think “Eureka!” vs “The Thinker” - Spontaneous vs deliberately willed.
Virtualism
A state in which things (objects, people) are parsed primarily as Icons. Be it for their political implications, or as props/background for content.
Use or Mention Abuse
Exploiting the common tendency to conflate the name of a thing with what that thing is.
An instance of using fluency or disfluency to lead thought down some path and not others.
E.g.: Calling certain institutions “Non-Governmental Organizations” to make the questions like “Are Non-Governmental Organizations connected to Governments?” harder to generate and to parse.
E.g.: “Love is just a word”. (No: the word “love” is just a word)
E.g.: “Meat-free burger”
Unmasking a concept
To refuse to engage with a concept on its own terms - as to its validity or lack thereof - but to instead inquire about its nature, its origin, its function, and its purpose.
Is this concept natural or engineered? Where did it originate? Towards what end? Who is it being deployed by? Why? How does it coordinate action or exploit Russell Conjugation? Etc.
E.g.: “Microaggressions” exploit Use or Mention Abuse to include in the concept that [what “microaggressions”] refer to are aggressions and thus should be treated the same way. That is, of course, precisely the point under debate but it makes asking the question “Are microaggressions aggressions?” seemingly nonsensical when it is anything but.
E.g.: “Hate speech” is an engineered concept, used as Memetic warfare so that people who want to censor but have to pay tribute to American freedom of speech norms can do both. “We’re not censoring, we’re just ‘combating hate speech’”
Two truths doctrine
The expression of a belief that is wrong in an ultimate sense but correct in a local sense. Doing with the intention of leading people to a view that is more right or less wrong than what they had before, even if it’s not perfectly accurate, or precise.
E.g.: Believing, in a country where people drive left, that driving left is ultimately right. This belief is ultimately wrong in that there is no such thing as the ultimately right way of driving, but it is locally right: it gets you to work without crashing into someone else.