Rethinking Memetics in Light of Culture Science
From Dead Ends to the Open Trails of Hyperstition
There was a time I said memetics never even made it to the duel. That it came swaggering into the town of science without the proper boots—no working methods, no hard definitions, no empirical badge. And I stood by that. Still do, to a degree. But then I came across Defender’s post on Culture Science, and it made me reach for a deeper lens—not just the telescope of doubt, but the microscope of wonder.
Maybe memetics wasn’t gunned down too early.
Maybe it just took the wrong trail.
And maybe—just maybe—Culture Science is picking up the scent again, but with a different compass: one that walks the line between philosophy and science.
🧠 I. Where Philosophy Framed the Frontier
Memetic Philosophy, as I wrote in my earlier post, was a response to the failure of memetics as science:
“Memetics didn’t fail because it was wrong. It failed because it tried to play by rules that didn’t fit. But philosophy ain’t about rigid frameworks—it’s about exploring the wild terrain of thought, carving out new paths where the old ones don’t go.”
–Memetic Cowboy, “Why Memetics Failed”
I framed philosophy as memetics’ true home—a sanctuary for ideas that couldn’t be pinned down by test tubes and replicable models. Philosophy gave us memetic agency where science offered only determinism. It gave us resonance instead of replication. It let us become riders, not just hosts.
But Defender’s post reminds me: this wasn’t the only path. Maybe the trail didn’t vanish—it just forked.
“The core idea is that narratives & beliefs have observable, functional effects on our behavior, at the individual & societal levels. We can study the effects of these narratives, their interactions, rates of propagation, and mutations.
Both memetics and biology study patterns that survive. The key difference is that biology studies patterns OF MATTER that survive, whereas memetics studies patterns OF BEHAVIOR that survive.”
–Defender, “A Beginner’s Guide to Culture Science”
That ain’t metaphor. That’s a method in the works.
🔬 II. Where Science Saddles Up
Science was where memetics wanted to ride—but it fell off the horse. Here's why, as I laid out before:
No shared definitions
No empirical measurement
No taxonomy
No traction with psychology
No added explanatory power
Too many metaphors, not enough mechanisms
But Defender doesn’t ignore this failure. He learns from it. His move is tactical—sidestepping the rigid gene analogy and pivoting to narrative function. He reframes culture as a system of sociocultural technologies—beliefs, rituals, stories—that have testable effects on behavior.
“I think of shared beliefs as ‘sociocultural technology’. The simplest example of this is ‘what is considered polite?’... Politeness, just like HTTP, can be documented and taught.”
–Defender
Suddenly, memes aren't just metaphorical viruses of the mind—they're functional protocols. And that’s the shift. He doesn't ask science to swallow philosophy whole. He translates philosophy into science's language.
🧩 III. Structure of the Frontier: Science and Philosophy Interwoven
To understand what makes Culture Science such a compelling reawakening of memetics, we need to step back and reflect on the nature of philosophy and science—not as rivals, but as complementary modes of inquiry.
Philosophy begins with justification. It asks how we know what we know (epistemology), and explores the nature of being (ontology). It operates through logic, thought experiments, and abstraction—mapping the deepest assumptions beneath our models. Its scope is wide and often unbounded, seeking meaning, coherence, and ethical insight.
Science, on the other hand, is rooted in testing. It asks not just what might be true, but what can be demonstrated. It builds models, gathers evidence, and refines predictions. Its methods rely on measurable definitions, empirical observation, and reproducibility. Where philosophy frames questions, science validates answers—within constraints.
Defender walks the line. He doesn’t just speculate—he positions culture as an empirical field of study, while retaining reverence for its mythic roots. As he puts it:
“The story is ‘found’ more than ‘invented’ because there is an empirical, objective answer to ‘what resonates’ and ‘what functional effect does this narrative have on people’s behavior.’” —Defender
That’s a philosopher’s sensitivity to mystery fused with a scientist’s call for clarity.
He sees prophecy not as fantasy, but as a memetic protocol. Myth not as illusion, but as infrastructure. He reframes hyperstition—stories that become real by being believed—as a testable, generative layer of cultural engineering.
This is where the two disciplines kiss.
And it might just be where memetics finds its legs again.
🌀 IV. Memetic Resonance Meets Hyperstitional Reality
Both of us ride the hyperstitional trail—stories that become real by being believed. I framed this in my post “Riding the Hyperstitional Frontier”:
“Hyperstition—the idea that stories don’t just reflect reality but actively create it—will accelerate as AI integrates transmedia storytelling into our lived experience.”
–Memetic Cowboy
Defender's view echoes this, but from the human side of the loop:
“Prophets who told self fulfilling stories that came true were celebrated. The most successful ones were the ones who knew what resonated in the hearts & minds of people, AND knew a lot about what was feasible.”
–Defender
Both views converge on the function of belief. But where I emphasized acceleration through AI, Defender emphasizes agency through intentional storytelling. We’re not far apart—just riding parallel tracks across the same desert.
🧵 V. The Integration: Culture Science as Applied Memetic Philosophy
So here’s the new map emerging:
Memetic Philosophy: Frames ethical, symbolic, and systemic questions. Invokes sovereignty, resonance, meaning.
Culture Science: Measures, tests, refines. Turns insight into intervention, resonance into replication.
Rather than philosophy replacing science, or science proving philosophy obsolete, we see:
“Philosophy and science form a feedback loop of wonder and rigor—where questioning births frameworks, and testing reveals new questions. Together, they render the invisible intelligible and the intelligible ethically accountable.”
–Memetic Cowboy (via synthesis framework)
This is the loop Defender steps into—whether he names it that or not. He isn’t just reviving memetics. He’s giving it legs and lungs: empirical bones wrapped in philosophical breath.
✨ VI. The New Frontier: Cultural Evolution with Eyes Open
Maybe memetics didn’t fail so much as shed its skin. Maybe it had to dissolve into metaphor so it could be reborn as method.
Culture Science is memetics’ second chance—but only if it remembers both sides of its lineage:
From philosophy, it must keep the ethics, the resonance, the questions that matter.
From science, it must gain structure, evidence, and reproducibility.
If it loses either, it rides off a cliff.
So here I am, revaluating the ride. Not recanting, but revising. Memetic Philosophy still rides. But maybe it doesn’t ride alone.
Maybe it’s time to let Culture Science ride beside it—tracking the storms, mapping the terrain, making the invisible legible and the legible livable.
The old cowboy said memes needed riders.
Turns out, they needed engineers too.
Subscribe to Riding the Memescape
For updates on memetic philosophy, hyperstitional design, and the evolving frontier of human+machine storytelling.
Let’s build this saddle together.