As already explained under all “meme” tags and especially in this post, memes form THE unique human environment that follow same replication and evolution principles as genes within genetic evolution. That memes follow more lamarckian (inheritance of acquired characteristics) rules and genes more darwinian (genetic inheritance and selection) rules does not change the fact that memes are specific human replicators, second replicators, that differentiate humans from the rest of environment.
As already explained memes behave like brands and brands behave like memes. The only difference is that brands exist only as meme-complexes. As explained in Brandlife and in many posts in this blog, one can explain brand identity with brand identity formula, that consists of 9 elements. Each of 9 brand identity elements can consist of at least one and up to couple of memes. We can then come up to 20 or even more than 30 memes that interrelate within each brand. What is important is to understand, that memes within a brand should not be understand as listed, but as interrelated. That means that a meme “x” within a brand “BRAND1” has different value as meme “x” in “BRAND2” for the reason that meme environment in each brand is different.
Different value for each meme within different identity environment explain us why a meme “sunny” has different value if it is interrelated within “SUNBURN PROTECTION CREME” or within “SOLAR CELL”.
This leads also to simple explanation why words have ambiguous meanings and why all dictionaries are imperfect. It also explains us why Thesaurus with a list logic helps, but does not explain a word in full detail.
Memes, meme-complexes and brands have identities that can be explained, but can only be understood in interrelation. That means that they can never be objectively understood. They are relational. They are never the same, but at the same time they have explicable identity. This fact proves to be the hardest for all those (especially managers) that have no experience in philosophy or at least in complexity theory.
Any human activity, including medicine, management or science can not but be holistic. While each human activity has to analyze its field as deep as possible (the extent is limited by present tools available), those elements described by analytic tools can be understood only through their dynamic internal and external environment.
While analysis is driven by deduction, holistic interpretation is driven by induction.
Each human activity is (should be) objective in deduction and subjective in induction. Only seamless cohabitation of both (holism) can be understood as Human Action (Von Mises).
Science and western medicine both have strong inclination to forget on 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 mean that they avoid to make it explicit. In fact those that those that do not accept necessity of holism, they perform their actions irrational (not explicit, thought over..) much more than those that accept necessity of double nature of each human action.
While medicine and science often reject subjective nature of their actions, management and so called “social sciences” often reject objective, deductive level of their human actions. They fail to recognize physical reality.
Human action that fully accepts double nature of human life is called homonism.
Double nature of human life is homogenous, monistic (Spinoza) as much as identity is possible only as one.