This excellent post deeply resonates with me, as it reflects how I was raised and what we are witnessing today. Here are my thoughts on some of the quotes you shared:
1. "The only truly countercultural act left is to think your thoughts."
The Royal Society’s motto, “Nullius in verba” (“Take nobody’s word for it”), was originally a call to reject blind reliance on tradition or authority in favor of evidence and experimentation. However, it also addresses a broader human challenge: resisting the tendency to accept authority at face value. René Girard expands on this by highlighting how much of our thinking is shaped by mimetic cycles, where we unconsciously imitate the desires and values of others, particularly those in positions of influence. Today, social media and influencer culture amplify this effect, creating feedback loops that encourage conformity over individuality.
While imitation has driven human progress, it becomes dangerous when it stifles critical thinking and self-reflection. Both “Nullius in verba” and Girard’s insight emphasize the need to resist passive acceptance of ideas, whether from tradition, authority, or cultural trends. This motto could evolve today: “Take no influencer’s desire as your own.” The goal is not to reject all inspiration but to critically evaluate which influences align with your authentic values and purpose. True freedom lies in choosing intentionally, not imitating unquestioningly.
2. “Imitation is our species’ defining trait.”
Imitation is one of humanity’s greatest strengths—it has allowed us to learn from others and build on shared knowledge. However, it’s also why we must be cautious about where we’re headed. As Girard suggests, the challenge lies in harnessing imitation without being enslaved by it. Progress happens when we balance tradition with transformation, learning with leading. Reflection and critical thinking elevate imitation into innovation.
Imitation brought us here, but reflection will take us further:
Imitation + Reflection = Progress
3. “The crowd tends to be completely on the ‘right’ or the ‘left.’ An intellectual must avoid such dichotomies.”
While there’s nothing inherently wrong with leaning left or right on specific issues, the most valuable perspective lies in the middle, where you can critically consider both sides without taking either at face value.
Unfortunately, this balance is sorely lacking in the US today. Our political system is increasingly polarized, and the media and the internet are biased toward one extreme or the other. Most outlets operate under a tribal mentality: “My side can do no wrong, and the other side can do no right.” This creates echo chambers where individuals are rarely exposed to counterarguments or nuanced perspectives.
We must actively seek diverse viewpoints and recognize our biases to get a complete picture. Media, culture, and technology are not neutral forces—they’re designed to influence us, often prioritizing compliance or engagement over truth. Now more than ever, it’s essential to reflect deeply, question everything we consume, and resist the pull of tribalism. The middle ground isn’t about indecision but valuing truth, intellectual rigor, and nuance over blind loyalty to any side.
4. “The antimemetic stance restores an endangered skill: living on purpose. In an age obsessed with virality, the most radical thing you can do is live a life that can’t be copied.”
This reminds me of a childhood conversation I had with my father. One day, he pointed to a herd of sheep and asked me, “Do you know why they always have a goat leading the herd?” I was 7 or 8 at the time and had no idea. He explained, “If a herd is only made of sheep and one sheep falls into a ditch, the rest will blindly follow. Sheep are instinctual followers. But the goat is cautious and smart—it doesn’t blindly follow others. If the goat is in a herd, it will not only try to avoid falling into the ditch but also save the herd by not being a blind follower.”
He said, “I want you to be the goat as you live your life.”
That lesson has stayed with me ever since. It’s easy to fall into the trap of following the crowd—whether it’s trends, opinions, or behaviors—but the goat symbolizes caution, self-awareness, and the courage to lead by example rather than mimic. In today’s world, where imitation dominates culture, being the goat—living a life that can’t be copied—is perhaps the most radical act. It’s about stepping away from the herd mentality and choosing a path guided by your values and purpose.
The solution is not to reject left or right perspectives outright but to adopt a mindset of critical reflection. We must critique ideas from all sides, seek diverse sources of information, and resist the pull of tribalism. Only by doing so can we break free from the manipulation of polarized narratives and reclaim our ability to think independently. True freedom lies in reflection, intellectual rigor, and the courage to forge a path that’s authentically your own.
Brilliant and wow, thank you for this incredibly rich and thoughtful rcomment! I'm so glad the post connected with you on such a deep level, and I truly appreciate you sharing how these ideas link with your upbringing and your observations of the world today.
The parallel you draw between the Royal Society's motto and Girard's work, especially in the context of modern influencer culture, is brilliant. "Take no influencer’s desire as your own" is a fantastic distillation for our times.
I completely agree with your take on imitation, its dual nature as a tool for progress and a potential pitfall. Your equation "Imitation + Reflection = Progress" is a very insightful way to frame the challenge and the opportunity.
Your observations about political polarization and the need to seek diverse viewpoints are so crucial. The "middle ground" as a space for intellectual rigor and nuance, rather than indecision, is a vital distinction.
The story of the goat and the sheep is a powerful and memorable analogy for living an examined, purposeful life. It beautifully captures the essence of the antimemetic stance.
Thank you also for sharing and reminding me about "The Road Not Taken," it is such a fitting poetic companion to these themes of choosing intentionally and forging one's own path.
It's clear you've thought deeply about these issues, and your comment adds significant value to the discussion. I'm grateful to you for this thought provoking comment.
On another note, and I found the following in one of the Substacks last night, I forgot the author:
Earlier this semester, an NYU professor told me he had Al-proofed his assignments, only to have the students complain that the work was too hard. When he told them those were standard assignments, just worded so current Al would fail to answer them, they said he was interfering with their "learning styles." A student asked for an extension, on the grounds that ChatGPT was down the day the assignment was due. Another said, about work on a problem set, "You're asking me to go from point A to point B, why wouldn't I use a car to get there?" And another, when asked about their largely Al-written work, replied, "Everyone is doing it." Those are stories from a 15-minute conversation with a single professor.
The above highlights a growing problem in education today: the over-reliance on AI tools like ChatGPT erodes critical thinking and intellectual effort. The professor’s experience, where students complained that AI-proofed assignments were “too hard” or justified their AI usage with excuses like “everyone is doing it,” perfectly illustrates this shift. The analogy of using a car to go from point A to point B reflects how technology is used as a shortcut to bypass learning rather than a tool to enhance it.
This mindset is deeply troubling at a school costing over $93K annually. College should be more than just a credential—it’s a chance to develop critical thinking, resilience, and the ability to solve complex problems independently. If students graduate knowing only how to outsource their thinking to AI, they’ve missed the point of education entirely. Yes, college encompasses more than academics, but failing to learn these foundational skills wastes time, money, and opportunity. If we continue down this path, replacing intellectual effort with shortcuts, we’ll truly deserve to be replaced by AI.
wow - terrifying, but not isolated. My students admit to using LLMs when confronted. I much prefer projects, all assignments in groups / teams of 4 to 5 people, changing lectures to workshops, it is rare I 'lecture and set essay style assignments' but I have known student groups present LLM output without thoroughly reading it.
The key is we need students and professors to use LLMs - they will use it in the workplace, but we need responsible use, so that the users are building critical thinking skills.
I gave some more thought to the following quote by Andrea Clarke that I posted a few days back: “IQ got us the job, and EQ helped us work well with others. But it’s AQ – our adaptive quotient – that gives us staying power across our careers. Adaptability allows us to recognize signals of change, adjust to new conditions, and apply innovative thinking to solve problems.
Adding CQ—the curiosity quotient—takes this even further and makes you successful. Curiosity drives our desire to learn, think critically, and explore new possibilities. It ensures we’re not just reacting to change but thriving by constantly seeking and creating better solutions.
However, when we outsource our thinking to tools, we risk losing the skills that make us irreplaceable: adaptability, curiosity, and critical thought. By relying too heavily on shortcuts, we create the conditions for our replacement.
As one insightful recent post puts it:
‘The future belongs not to those who predict it perfectly, but to those who read the horizon, position themselves accordingly, and maintain balance as conditions shift.’
In a world of rapid change, it’s not just about adapting to the present—about staying curious, thoughtful, and prepared for what comes next.”
I completely agree that curiosity (CQ) is a vital driver, pushing us beyond mere adaptation (AQ) to actively seek, learn, and innovate.
Your point about the danger of outsourcing our thinking to tools, thereby risking these irreplaceable skills, is incredibly pertinent and resonates deeply with the need to "stay curious" and actively engage our minds. It's this active, thoughtful engagement that truly prepares us for whatever comes next.
By the way are you familiar with Friedman's claim that Curiosity quotient (CQ) plus Passion quotient (PQ) is greater than Intelligence Quotient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_quotient
It is excellent connecting these ideas so clearly. CQ is something we should highlight at all stages of life.
He wrote “The winners won’t just be those with more I.Q. It will also be those with more P.Q. (passion quotient) and C.Q. (curiosity quotient) to leverage all the new digital tools to not just find a job, but to invent one or reinvent one, and to not just learn but to relearn for a lifetime.”
I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of jobs, and I believe we’re heading toward a world where traditional employment—working for others—becomes far less common. With the rise of AI tools, it’s becoming easier for individuals to operate as highly efficient, single-person organizations. These tools allow people to automate repetitive tasks, scale their output, and focus on creativity and strategy, effectively replacing the need for large teams.
In this future, entrepreneurship could become the primary way people find purpose and work, much like how jobs currently serve that role. AI is democratizing access to resources and capabilities, enabling individuals to achieve what once required entire companies. I’m waiting for the first billion-dollar company with only one employee. It’s coming—or maybe it already exists quietly—but it hasn’t yet made headlines.
This shift opens up incredible opportunities: people can focus on what they’re passionate about, reach global audiences, and avoid the overhead of large organizations. However, it also presents challenges, such as ensuring everyone has access to AI tools, avoiding monopolization, and helping people adapt to this new way of working.
Great article, thank you. "You are in the world, but not of it" ... the human condition ... and the human challenge. Memetics (or rather cultivating an anti-memetic perspective) is a great way of framing it.
Stepping out of the church (aged 30) was my first major anti-memetic experience. My entire world collapsed (including job/marriage/finances and a plague of fear/guilt/shame) -- and it seems the radical nature of 'dememeticising' oneself (engaging the path of metaxy?) is a path that requires courage, patience, determination, some kind of faith-conviction, and a serious stepping into one's edges, or void, (even though I say it myself). It's also bloody hard work; perhaps that's why it's not so popular.
The experience of stepping away from such an all-encompassing memetic structure is one of the most profound shifts a person can make, and the consequences you mention illustrate the immense existential stakes involved.
Your question about whether this process is "engaging the path of metaxy" is the right one. I believe so, absolutely. The 'void' you so powerfully describe, that unprotected space after the old framework collapses but before a new one is fully formed, is a raw and potent experience of the metaxy. It's that unnerving "in-between" that one must inhabit when the old certainties have dissolved. It is the very definition of a tensional existence.
The fortitude and conviction required to navigate that space highlights why a truly antimemetic life asks for so much more than simple intellectual dissent. Your final point about why this path is less traveled because it is such arduous work is deeply true. It is a testament to your own strength that you navigated such a profound transformation.
Brilliant article. I've often though that Millennials seem to be sharing a co-existence of life. What I mean is that they are moving through the seasons of life as a group as it seems. When some new avenue of life comes, there is almost this desire to inform "the rest" about how interesting and strange it is. There seems to be a set out point of view, expectation, and reaction to life that while not 100% always agreed upon, seems to be a shared experience.
I dont know if other generations had this, but when you break free of it, it is both isolating and liberating.
"Metaxy" is such an interesting concept that I have never heard of or thought about previously, but it perfectly describes the naturally inconsistent nature of the human condition. I'm going to have to read this one a few times and keep chewing on it. Thank you for writing! I hope more and more people find out about your Substack.
Thank you Ryker. I appreciate that a lot. Yes, Metaxy is such an important concept towards life and meaning, yet under appreciated. I will write more in due course.
Wonderful post, as always, Colin. I wonder if you will accept a friendly amendment or clarification (or it may just be a suggestion about emphasis). You stress the importance of reflection a lot and rightly worry that AI might do a way with this vital piece of being human. Indeed AI seemingly offers the chance to solve problems so quickly that reflection can seem as pointless as checking the outputs of a calculator. I would argue that reflection is actually a sub-category of dialogue, that is, when I reflect (at least as I normally perceive myself) I am engaging in a simulated dialogue with someone else or may a past version of myself, e.g., "I used to think X and now I think Y, so which one of us is correct?". It's probably a feature of the loneliness/solitude in modern life that we more often think of serious thought as taking place on our own, removed from others who are not trying to be in dialogue with us but rather trying to sell us something, as you rightly point out, by playing on our imitative nature.
But imitation has a place in dialogue. I would say a primary place. In real life dialogue, just like in jazz, you need to be able to accurately capture the thoughts and feelings of your interlocutor; otherwise you run the risk of just imposing your own narrow world view onto them and everything else. But once you have accurately imitated them, then you can critique what you are imitating by trying out new thoughts. It may be that in some cases imitation is all you need. If you ask your doctor a few pointed questions about how a treatment is supposed to work, and you understand the explanation, you probably don't need to innovate anything in medicine to get healthy. Imitation, as best you can, of everything your doctor says and thinks is probably a much more efficient and therefore sensible course of action.
The trick, then, is to be really good at dialogue and also to develop the judgment for when it makes sense to imitate and when not. For example, I decided years ago that there was no real point for me to learn anything about beer or wine because, being among academics all the time, I would always be in the company of people who knew way more than me about these things. I could just ask them what paired well with whatever and if I was interested in an explanation for why that was, they could usually provide a reasonable one. This method of imitation has never failed me, and it has even brought me closer to others because people usually feel flattered and gratified to share this kind of information with a curious and grateful interlocutor.
I will end with a passage from Graeber and Wengrew on the dialogic nature of human thought, which I have always really liked. My takeaway is that we just need more and better dialogues in our lives and, again, a worry with AI is that while it can simulate dialogues, I'm not sure they will ultimately be as edifying, socially or intellectually as the best human dialogues (but, again, many of us may have so lost the appreciation for human dialogue that we don't realize what we're missing).
"When we are capable of self-awareness, it’s usually for very brief periods of time: the ‘window of consciousness’, during which we can hold a thought or work out a problem, tends to be open on average for roughly seven seconds. What neuroscientists (and it must be said, most contemporary philosophers) almost never notice, however, is that the great exception to this is when we’re talking to someone else. In conversation, we can hold thoughts and reflect on problems sometimes for hours on end. This is of course why so often, even if we’re trying to figure something out by ourselves, we imagine arguing with or explaining it to someone else. Human thought is inherently dialogic. Ancient philosophers tended to be keenly aware of all this: that’s why, whether they were in China, India or Greece, they tended to write their books in the form of dialogues. Humans were only fully self-conscious when arguing with one another, trying to sway each other’s views, or working out a common problem. True individual self-consciousness, meanwhile, was imagined as something that a few wise sages could perhaps achieve through long study, exercise, discipline and meditation" (The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity 94).
Thank YOU Norman, for such an insightful comment that offers a valuable "friendly amendment."
You raise excellent points, and I think the concept of metaxy, as explored in my post, offers a powerful framework for understanding and integrating your observations. Here’s how I see it connecting:
Your idea that reflection is a "sub-category of dialogue" (with oneself, a past self, or a simulated other) connects strongly (also with my previous post). The metaxy, as Voegelin describes it, is the "in-between" space where consciousness exists in tension, between ignorance and knowledge, immanence and transcendence, the "is" and the "ought." This inherent tension is dialogic. When we reflect, we are often navigating these poles within ourselves, "arguing" or reasoning our way through the tensional field of the metaxy. The solitude of modern life might indeed push this dialogue inwards, but the structure of consciousness in the metaxy explains why it still feels like an engagement, a back-and-forth.
Your point about imitation having a primary place in real-life dialogue (like jazz, capturing the interlocutor's thoughts/feelings before responding) is crucial. To navigate the metaxy effectively, especially in relation with others, one must first understand the "other poles" or perspectives. This requires a form of accurate "imitation" or empathetic representation.
However, as you rightly point out, the "trick" is judgment, knowing when to imitate (like with your doctor or the wine expert, where you trust informed authority or tradition within its proper domain) and when to critique or innovate (which is central to the "antimemetic" stance when facing unexamined norms or potentially harmful mimetic desires).
The metaxy doesn't provide a simple rule for this judgment, but it is the space where this judgment must be exercised. An "antimemetic" orientation, developed through reflection (dialogue) within the metaxy, aims to cultivate this very discernment. It’s about understanding which "shore" (or whose voice) offers temporary stability or wisdom, and when one must push off into the "in-between" to forge a more authentic understanding or path. Your beer/wine example is perfect, it's a conscious choice to "imitate" based on a rational assessment of expertise and efficiency, freeing up your reflective energy for other domains.
The Graeber and Wengrow quote is fantastic and powerfully underscores your point. The idea that "Human thought is inherently dialogic" and that we are "only fully self-conscious when arguing with one another" aligns beautifully with the concept of consciousness being "forged in that in-between" of the metaxy. True dialogue, in this sense, is a dynamic participation in the metaxy, a mutual exploration of its tensions.
This connects with your (and my) valid concern about AI. If AI simulates dialogue without being grounded in the existential, tensional reality of the metaxy, without the genuine human experience of being between ignorance and the search for truth, or between individual impulse and communal meaning, then the dialogues it generates, while potentially useful, might lack that deeper, socially and intellectually edifying quality. They might operate on the surface of language and ideas without participating in the underlying metaxic quest for meaning that animates the best human dialogues.
So, while "metaxy" might not "solve" the question in the sense of providing a definitive answer to how every dialogue should unfold, it offers a profound philosophical context that affirms and deepens your points. I think it suggests that the dialogic nature of reflection and thought, the necessity of both understanding (imitating) and critically engaging (innovating), and the cultivation of judgment are all fundamental aspects of navigating our human condition within this "in-between."
Does that make sense?
Thank you again for this incredibly stimulating comment and for pushing these ideas further.
Thanks so much, Colin, for your detailed reply. I think I understand you and we are in perfect agreement, though I'm still getting used to the concept of "metaxy", which I understand is not a widely used ancient Greek word in this way, but something associated with Plotinus, whom I've never read. It reminds me of concepts like "liminality" and "nuance" and "breaking down binaries," which the humanities prides itself on doing everywhere. Also, it reminds me of the concept of Eros that Socrates lays out in the Symposium, that love is wanting to know but not knowing. I will continue to think on it. In general I resist neologism, though I know that is hypocritical of me since I introduce at least half a dozen new words in my book, derived from ancient Greek but not actually in ancient Greek. Regardless of which word we use, I think we are in agreement that one of our fundamental challenges as humans these days is which forms of "in between" or "Eros" we want to live in and which forms we just want to surrender to (e.g., picking wines or following our doctor's recommendations even though we really have no idea what they're talking about). I think that the world is so complex that we really have to do both to some extent. In a hunter-gatherer society it likely would have been possible for a person to live in doubt of everything and work daily toward more knowledge in every field associated with hunting and gathering and parenting. But no more.
Moreover, online life provides such a fascinating dichotomy between these two worlds of resignation to expertise (authentic or false) and remaining in a state of Eros/metaxy. Most of what is directed *at* you on the internet, even on supposedly dialogic spaces like Substack is "here is an unquestionably truthful think about X and now here are five things you can do to live your life accordingly" ("also, please pay me"). Yet, if you are curious and you want to learn things in a nuanced way, you may "search" for them all over the internet and usually be rewarded handsomely.
"If AI simulates dialogue without being grounded in the existential, tensional reality of the metaxy, without the genuine human experience of being between ignorance and the search for truth, or between individual impulse and communal meaning, then the dialogues it generates, while potentially useful, might lack that deeper, socially and intellectually edifying quality. They might operate on the surface of language and ideas without participating in the underlying metaxic quest for meaning that animates the best human dialogues."
I am currently reading Zena Hitz' _Lost in Thought_ which features fond reminiscences of all night dialogues with classmates at St. John's that remind me of my own college days. I am thus wondering what the differences would be between such an experience and an all night dialogue with Claude on whatever the topic happened to be. On the plus side Claude would never get tired and his factual command of any subject would likely be broader, if not deeper, than most other people. And Claude will also ask you questions to keep you thinking, so that the information flow is not just one way. Two things that stand out for me right now that Claude might be deficient in are (1) that the dialogue might not be as memorable because Claude cannot tie his statements to a real, embodied personality in the way that, say, Plato can attach his statements to the personalities and professions of the characters in his dialogues (though I suppose you could ask Claude to answer all of the questions according to a certain personality type or historical figure?) and (2) the dialogue would not achieve any kind of social bond or create social capital that someone might be able to draw on down the road (I am still friends with a lot of my partners in dialogue over the years). A third distinction that I continue to wonder about a lot is whether an AI dialogic partner can ever really _challenge_ us to modify our beliefs the way that a real person can. When you dialogue with a real person, you get to see their reactions to your good or bad ideas. If your ideas are outlandish enough, they may even call you out on them and create a real social pressure for you to chance. This pressure can of course be good or bad depending on whether your idea is really harmful to yourself or others. I think this third element may be crucial to your emphasis on metaxy. It's important for our friends to remind us to love the right things sometimes.
Thanks so much for this continued rich and thoughtful engagement, it is definitely helping my own thinking re. metaxy.
You are absolutely right to connect "metaxy" with concepts like liminality and, very powerfully with Eros.
I asked Gemini to elaborate on this, here is its main reply
"Eros, in the Socratic sense, is a profound experience of the metaxy. Eros is that "in-between" state – not pure ignorance, nor complete wisdom, but the desire for wisdom, beauty, and the good that arises precisely from the tensional awareness of not yet possessing them. It's the daemonic spirit, as Plato describes it, bridging the human and the divine, the mortal and the immortal. This is the very dynamism of the metaxy: the pull between what is and what ought to be, what is known and what is yearned for."
So, when you say, "one of our fundamental challenges as humans these days is which forms of 'in between' or 'Eros' we want to live in and which forms we just want to surrender to," you are articulating a central aspect of navigating the metaxy.
The surrender to expertise (your wine or doctor examples) can be a conscious, pragmatic choice within the metaxy. It's a recognition of our finitude and the vastness of knowledge, allowing us to conserve our "erotic" or "metaxic" energy for domains where our passionate inquiry is most needed or fruitful. In a complex world, as you note, this discernment is essential.
I have not read Zena Hitz's Lost in Thought, but will.
I really like that you bring in Social Bonds / Social Capital. Eros, as Plato shows, is also deeply connected to philia (friendship) and the bonds formed in shared pursuit of the good or the true. These bonds are forged in the shared vulnerability and striving inherent in the metaxy. An AI, not existing in this tensional, relational space, cannot participate in this kind of bond-creation, as you illustrate with 'dialogue' with LLMs.
A real person, operating from their own metaxic experience and (ideally) oriented by their own "eros" towards truth and goodness, can challenge us in a way that carries existential weight. Their reactions, their "calling you out," stem from a shared human ground of striving and fallibility. This "social pressure" isn't just about conformity; at its best, it's a mutual orientation within the metaxy, helping each other discern the "better pull," as you say, "to love the right things." An AI, lacking this grounding in lived, tensional existence and an intrinsic "eros" for the good, can present counterarguments, but can it truly challenge our fundamental orientations with the same kind of transformative potential? It's a critical question.
This excellent post deeply resonates with me, as it reflects how I was raised and what we are witnessing today. Here are my thoughts on some of the quotes you shared:
1. "The only truly countercultural act left is to think your thoughts."
The Royal Society’s motto, “Nullius in verba” (“Take nobody’s word for it”), was originally a call to reject blind reliance on tradition or authority in favor of evidence and experimentation. However, it also addresses a broader human challenge: resisting the tendency to accept authority at face value. René Girard expands on this by highlighting how much of our thinking is shaped by mimetic cycles, where we unconsciously imitate the desires and values of others, particularly those in positions of influence. Today, social media and influencer culture amplify this effect, creating feedback loops that encourage conformity over individuality.
While imitation has driven human progress, it becomes dangerous when it stifles critical thinking and self-reflection. Both “Nullius in verba” and Girard’s insight emphasize the need to resist passive acceptance of ideas, whether from tradition, authority, or cultural trends. This motto could evolve today: “Take no influencer’s desire as your own.” The goal is not to reject all inspiration but to critically evaluate which influences align with your authentic values and purpose. True freedom lies in choosing intentionally, not imitating unquestioningly.
2. “Imitation is our species’ defining trait.”
Imitation is one of humanity’s greatest strengths—it has allowed us to learn from others and build on shared knowledge. However, it’s also why we must be cautious about where we’re headed. As Girard suggests, the challenge lies in harnessing imitation without being enslaved by it. Progress happens when we balance tradition with transformation, learning with leading. Reflection and critical thinking elevate imitation into innovation.
Imitation brought us here, but reflection will take us further:
Imitation + Reflection = Progress
3. “The crowd tends to be completely on the ‘right’ or the ‘left.’ An intellectual must avoid such dichotomies.”
While there’s nothing inherently wrong with leaning left or right on specific issues, the most valuable perspective lies in the middle, where you can critically consider both sides without taking either at face value.
Unfortunately, this balance is sorely lacking in the US today. Our political system is increasingly polarized, and the media and the internet are biased toward one extreme or the other. Most outlets operate under a tribal mentality: “My side can do no wrong, and the other side can do no right.” This creates echo chambers where individuals are rarely exposed to counterarguments or nuanced perspectives.
We must actively seek diverse viewpoints and recognize our biases to get a complete picture. Media, culture, and technology are not neutral forces—they’re designed to influence us, often prioritizing compliance or engagement over truth. Now more than ever, it’s essential to reflect deeply, question everything we consume, and resist the pull of tribalism. The middle ground isn’t about indecision but valuing truth, intellectual rigor, and nuance over blind loyalty to any side.
4. “The antimemetic stance restores an endangered skill: living on purpose. In an age obsessed with virality, the most radical thing you can do is live a life that can’t be copied.”
This reminds me of a childhood conversation I had with my father. One day, he pointed to a herd of sheep and asked me, “Do you know why they always have a goat leading the herd?” I was 7 or 8 at the time and had no idea. He explained, “If a herd is only made of sheep and one sheep falls into a ditch, the rest will blindly follow. Sheep are instinctual followers. But the goat is cautious and smart—it doesn’t blindly follow others. If the goat is in a herd, it will not only try to avoid falling into the ditch but also save the herd by not being a blind follower.”
He said, “I want you to be the goat as you live your life.”
That lesson has stayed with me ever since. It’s easy to fall into the trap of following the crowd—whether it’s trends, opinions, or behaviors—but the goat symbolizes caution, self-awareness, and the courage to lead by example rather than mimic. In today’s world, where imitation dominates culture, being the goat—living a life that can’t be copied—is perhaps the most radical act. It’s about stepping away from the herd mentality and choosing a path guided by your values and purpose.
The solution is not to reject left or right perspectives outright but to adopt a mindset of critical reflection. We must critique ideas from all sides, seek diverse sources of information, and resist the pull of tribalism. Only by doing so can we break free from the manipulation of polarized narratives and reclaim our ability to think independently. True freedom lies in reflection, intellectual rigor, and the courage to forge a path that’s authentically your own.
I will end with one of my favorite poems:
"The Road Not Taken"
by Robert Frost
“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down on one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”
Brilliant and wow, thank you for this incredibly rich and thoughtful rcomment! I'm so glad the post connected with you on such a deep level, and I truly appreciate you sharing how these ideas link with your upbringing and your observations of the world today.
The parallel you draw between the Royal Society's motto and Girard's work, especially in the context of modern influencer culture, is brilliant. "Take no influencer’s desire as your own" is a fantastic distillation for our times.
I completely agree with your take on imitation, its dual nature as a tool for progress and a potential pitfall. Your equation "Imitation + Reflection = Progress" is a very insightful way to frame the challenge and the opportunity.
Your observations about political polarization and the need to seek diverse viewpoints are so crucial. The "middle ground" as a space for intellectual rigor and nuance, rather than indecision, is a vital distinction.
The story of the goat and the sheep is a powerful and memorable analogy for living an examined, purposeful life. It beautifully captures the essence of the antimemetic stance.
Thank you also for sharing and reminding me about "The Road Not Taken," it is such a fitting poetic companion to these themes of choosing intentionally and forging one's own path.
It's clear you've thought deeply about these issues, and your comment adds significant value to the discussion. I'm grateful to you for this thought provoking comment.
On another note, and I found the following in one of the Substacks last night, I forgot the author:
Earlier this semester, an NYU professor told me he had Al-proofed his assignments, only to have the students complain that the work was too hard. When he told them those were standard assignments, just worded so current Al would fail to answer them, they said he was interfering with their "learning styles." A student asked for an extension, on the grounds that ChatGPT was down the day the assignment was due. Another said, about work on a problem set, "You're asking me to go from point A to point B, why wouldn't I use a car to get there?" And another, when asked about their largely Al-written work, replied, "Everyone is doing it." Those are stories from a 15-minute conversation with a single professor.
The above highlights a growing problem in education today: the over-reliance on AI tools like ChatGPT erodes critical thinking and intellectual effort. The professor’s experience, where students complained that AI-proofed assignments were “too hard” or justified their AI usage with excuses like “everyone is doing it,” perfectly illustrates this shift. The analogy of using a car to go from point A to point B reflects how technology is used as a shortcut to bypass learning rather than a tool to enhance it.
This mindset is deeply troubling at a school costing over $93K annually. College should be more than just a credential—it’s a chance to develop critical thinking, resilience, and the ability to solve complex problems independently. If students graduate knowing only how to outsource their thinking to AI, they’ve missed the point of education entirely. Yes, college encompasses more than academics, but failing to learn these foundational skills wastes time, money, and opportunity. If we continue down this path, replacing intellectual effort with shortcuts, we’ll truly deserve to be replaced by AI.
wow - terrifying, but not isolated. My students admit to using LLMs when confronted. I much prefer projects, all assignments in groups / teams of 4 to 5 people, changing lectures to workshops, it is rare I 'lecture and set essay style assignments' but I have known student groups present LLM output without thoroughly reading it.
The key is we need students and professors to use LLMs - they will use it in the workplace, but we need responsible use, so that the users are building critical thinking skills.
I gave some more thought to the following quote by Andrea Clarke that I posted a few days back: “IQ got us the job, and EQ helped us work well with others. But it’s AQ – our adaptive quotient – that gives us staying power across our careers. Adaptability allows us to recognize signals of change, adjust to new conditions, and apply innovative thinking to solve problems.
Adding CQ—the curiosity quotient—takes this even further and makes you successful. Curiosity drives our desire to learn, think critically, and explore new possibilities. It ensures we’re not just reacting to change but thriving by constantly seeking and creating better solutions.
However, when we outsource our thinking to tools, we risk losing the skills that make us irreplaceable: adaptability, curiosity, and critical thought. By relying too heavily on shortcuts, we create the conditions for our replacement.
As one insightful recent post puts it:
‘The future belongs not to those who predict it perfectly, but to those who read the horizon, position themselves accordingly, and maintain balance as conditions shift.’
In a world of rapid change, it’s not just about adapting to the present—about staying curious, thoughtful, and prepared for what comes next.”
I completely agree that curiosity (CQ) is a vital driver, pushing us beyond mere adaptation (AQ) to actively seek, learn, and innovate.
Your point about the danger of outsourcing our thinking to tools, thereby risking these irreplaceable skills, is incredibly pertinent and resonates deeply with the need to "stay curious" and actively engage our minds. It's this active, thoughtful engagement that truly prepares us for whatever comes next.
By the way are you familiar with Friedman's claim that Curiosity quotient (CQ) plus Passion quotient (PQ) is greater than Intelligence Quotient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_quotient
It is excellent connecting these ideas so clearly. CQ is something we should highlight at all stages of life.
I have not heard of CQ + PQ > IQ but I agree with it. I see it all around me.
He wrote “The winners won’t just be those with more I.Q. It will also be those with more P.Q. (passion quotient) and C.Q. (curiosity quotient) to leverage all the new digital tools to not just find a job, but to invent one or reinvent one, and to not just learn but to relearn for a lifetime.”
I’ve been thinking a lot about the future of jobs, and I believe we’re heading toward a world where traditional employment—working for others—becomes far less common. With the rise of AI tools, it’s becoming easier for individuals to operate as highly efficient, single-person organizations. These tools allow people to automate repetitive tasks, scale their output, and focus on creativity and strategy, effectively replacing the need for large teams.
In this future, entrepreneurship could become the primary way people find purpose and work, much like how jobs currently serve that role. AI is democratizing access to resources and capabilities, enabling individuals to achieve what once required entire companies. I’m waiting for the first billion-dollar company with only one employee. It’s coming—or maybe it already exists quietly—but it hasn’t yet made headlines.
This shift opens up incredible opportunities: people can focus on what they’re passionate about, reach global audiences, and avoid the overhead of large organizations. However, it also presents challenges, such as ensuring everyone has access to AI tools, avoiding monopolization, and helping people adapt to this new way of working.
Great article, thank you. "You are in the world, but not of it" ... the human condition ... and the human challenge. Memetics (or rather cultivating an anti-memetic perspective) is a great way of framing it.
Stepping out of the church (aged 30) was my first major anti-memetic experience. My entire world collapsed (including job/marriage/finances and a plague of fear/guilt/shame) -- and it seems the radical nature of 'dememeticising' oneself (engaging the path of metaxy?) is a path that requires courage, patience, determination, some kind of faith-conviction, and a serious stepping into one's edges, or void, (even though I say it myself). It's also bloody hard work; perhaps that's why it's not so popular.
The experience of stepping away from such an all-encompassing memetic structure is one of the most profound shifts a person can make, and the consequences you mention illustrate the immense existential stakes involved.
Your question about whether this process is "engaging the path of metaxy" is the right one. I believe so, absolutely. The 'void' you so powerfully describe, that unprotected space after the old framework collapses but before a new one is fully formed, is a raw and potent experience of the metaxy. It's that unnerving "in-between" that one must inhabit when the old certainties have dissolved. It is the very definition of a tensional existence.
The fortitude and conviction required to navigate that space highlights why a truly antimemetic life asks for so much more than simple intellectual dissent. Your final point about why this path is less traveled because it is such arduous work is deeply true. It is a testament to your own strength that you navigated such a profound transformation.
Thank you.
Brilliant article. I've often though that Millennials seem to be sharing a co-existence of life. What I mean is that they are moving through the seasons of life as a group as it seems. When some new avenue of life comes, there is almost this desire to inform "the rest" about how interesting and strange it is. There seems to be a set out point of view, expectation, and reaction to life that while not 100% always agreed upon, seems to be a shared experience.
I dont know if other generations had this, but when you break free of it, it is both isolating and liberating.
"Metaxy" is such an interesting concept that I have never heard of or thought about previously, but it perfectly describes the naturally inconsistent nature of the human condition. I'm going to have to read this one a few times and keep chewing on it. Thank you for writing! I hope more and more people find out about your Substack.
Thank you Ryker. I appreciate that a lot. Yes, Metaxy is such an important concept towards life and meaning, yet under appreciated. I will write more in due course.
Wonderful post, as always, Colin. I wonder if you will accept a friendly amendment or clarification (or it may just be a suggestion about emphasis). You stress the importance of reflection a lot and rightly worry that AI might do a way with this vital piece of being human. Indeed AI seemingly offers the chance to solve problems so quickly that reflection can seem as pointless as checking the outputs of a calculator. I would argue that reflection is actually a sub-category of dialogue, that is, when I reflect (at least as I normally perceive myself) I am engaging in a simulated dialogue with someone else or may a past version of myself, e.g., "I used to think X and now I think Y, so which one of us is correct?". It's probably a feature of the loneliness/solitude in modern life that we more often think of serious thought as taking place on our own, removed from others who are not trying to be in dialogue with us but rather trying to sell us something, as you rightly point out, by playing on our imitative nature.
But imitation has a place in dialogue. I would say a primary place. In real life dialogue, just like in jazz, you need to be able to accurately capture the thoughts and feelings of your interlocutor; otherwise you run the risk of just imposing your own narrow world view onto them and everything else. But once you have accurately imitated them, then you can critique what you are imitating by trying out new thoughts. It may be that in some cases imitation is all you need. If you ask your doctor a few pointed questions about how a treatment is supposed to work, and you understand the explanation, you probably don't need to innovate anything in medicine to get healthy. Imitation, as best you can, of everything your doctor says and thinks is probably a much more efficient and therefore sensible course of action.
The trick, then, is to be really good at dialogue and also to develop the judgment for when it makes sense to imitate and when not. For example, I decided years ago that there was no real point for me to learn anything about beer or wine because, being among academics all the time, I would always be in the company of people who knew way more than me about these things. I could just ask them what paired well with whatever and if I was interested in an explanation for why that was, they could usually provide a reasonable one. This method of imitation has never failed me, and it has even brought me closer to others because people usually feel flattered and gratified to share this kind of information with a curious and grateful interlocutor.
I will end with a passage from Graeber and Wengrew on the dialogic nature of human thought, which I have always really liked. My takeaway is that we just need more and better dialogues in our lives and, again, a worry with AI is that while it can simulate dialogues, I'm not sure they will ultimately be as edifying, socially or intellectually as the best human dialogues (but, again, many of us may have so lost the appreciation for human dialogue that we don't realize what we're missing).
"When we are capable of self-awareness, it’s usually for very brief periods of time: the ‘window of consciousness’, during which we can hold a thought or work out a problem, tends to be open on average for roughly seven seconds. What neuroscientists (and it must be said, most contemporary philosophers) almost never notice, however, is that the great exception to this is when we’re talking to someone else. In conversation, we can hold thoughts and reflect on problems sometimes for hours on end. This is of course why so often, even if we’re trying to figure something out by ourselves, we imagine arguing with or explaining it to someone else. Human thought is inherently dialogic. Ancient philosophers tended to be keenly aware of all this: that’s why, whether they were in China, India or Greece, they tended to write their books in the form of dialogues. Humans were only fully self-conscious when arguing with one another, trying to sway each other’s views, or working out a common problem. True individual self-consciousness, meanwhile, was imagined as something that a few wise sages could perhaps achieve through long study, exercise, discipline and meditation" (The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity 94).
Thank YOU Norman, for such an insightful comment that offers a valuable "friendly amendment."
You raise excellent points, and I think the concept of metaxy, as explored in my post, offers a powerful framework for understanding and integrating your observations. Here’s how I see it connecting:
Your idea that reflection is a "sub-category of dialogue" (with oneself, a past self, or a simulated other) connects strongly (also with my previous post). The metaxy, as Voegelin describes it, is the "in-between" space where consciousness exists in tension, between ignorance and knowledge, immanence and transcendence, the "is" and the "ought." This inherent tension is dialogic. When we reflect, we are often navigating these poles within ourselves, "arguing" or reasoning our way through the tensional field of the metaxy. The solitude of modern life might indeed push this dialogue inwards, but the structure of consciousness in the metaxy explains why it still feels like an engagement, a back-and-forth.
Your point about imitation having a primary place in real-life dialogue (like jazz, capturing the interlocutor's thoughts/feelings before responding) is crucial. To navigate the metaxy effectively, especially in relation with others, one must first understand the "other poles" or perspectives. This requires a form of accurate "imitation" or empathetic representation.
However, as you rightly point out, the "trick" is judgment, knowing when to imitate (like with your doctor or the wine expert, where you trust informed authority or tradition within its proper domain) and when to critique or innovate (which is central to the "antimemetic" stance when facing unexamined norms or potentially harmful mimetic desires).
The metaxy doesn't provide a simple rule for this judgment, but it is the space where this judgment must be exercised. An "antimemetic" orientation, developed through reflection (dialogue) within the metaxy, aims to cultivate this very discernment. It’s about understanding which "shore" (or whose voice) offers temporary stability or wisdom, and when one must push off into the "in-between" to forge a more authentic understanding or path. Your beer/wine example is perfect, it's a conscious choice to "imitate" based on a rational assessment of expertise and efficiency, freeing up your reflective energy for other domains.
The Graeber and Wengrow quote is fantastic and powerfully underscores your point. The idea that "Human thought is inherently dialogic" and that we are "only fully self-conscious when arguing with one another" aligns beautifully with the concept of consciousness being "forged in that in-between" of the metaxy. True dialogue, in this sense, is a dynamic participation in the metaxy, a mutual exploration of its tensions.
This connects with your (and my) valid concern about AI. If AI simulates dialogue without being grounded in the existential, tensional reality of the metaxy, without the genuine human experience of being between ignorance and the search for truth, or between individual impulse and communal meaning, then the dialogues it generates, while potentially useful, might lack that deeper, socially and intellectually edifying quality. They might operate on the surface of language and ideas without participating in the underlying metaxic quest for meaning that animates the best human dialogues.
So, while "metaxy" might not "solve" the question in the sense of providing a definitive answer to how every dialogue should unfold, it offers a profound philosophical context that affirms and deepens your points. I think it suggests that the dialogic nature of reflection and thought, the necessity of both understanding (imitating) and critically engaging (innovating), and the cultivation of judgment are all fundamental aspects of navigating our human condition within this "in-between."
Does that make sense?
Thank you again for this incredibly stimulating comment and for pushing these ideas further.
Thanks so much, Colin, for your detailed reply. I think I understand you and we are in perfect agreement, though I'm still getting used to the concept of "metaxy", which I understand is not a widely used ancient Greek word in this way, but something associated with Plotinus, whom I've never read. It reminds me of concepts like "liminality" and "nuance" and "breaking down binaries," which the humanities prides itself on doing everywhere. Also, it reminds me of the concept of Eros that Socrates lays out in the Symposium, that love is wanting to know but not knowing. I will continue to think on it. In general I resist neologism, though I know that is hypocritical of me since I introduce at least half a dozen new words in my book, derived from ancient Greek but not actually in ancient Greek. Regardless of which word we use, I think we are in agreement that one of our fundamental challenges as humans these days is which forms of "in between" or "Eros" we want to live in and which forms we just want to surrender to (e.g., picking wines or following our doctor's recommendations even though we really have no idea what they're talking about). I think that the world is so complex that we really have to do both to some extent. In a hunter-gatherer society it likely would have been possible for a person to live in doubt of everything and work daily toward more knowledge in every field associated with hunting and gathering and parenting. But no more.
Moreover, online life provides such a fascinating dichotomy between these two worlds of resignation to expertise (authentic or false) and remaining in a state of Eros/metaxy. Most of what is directed *at* you on the internet, even on supposedly dialogic spaces like Substack is "here is an unquestionably truthful think about X and now here are five things you can do to live your life accordingly" ("also, please pay me"). Yet, if you are curious and you want to learn things in a nuanced way, you may "search" for them all over the internet and usually be rewarded handsomely.
I really appreciate this from your comment:
"If AI simulates dialogue without being grounded in the existential, tensional reality of the metaxy, without the genuine human experience of being between ignorance and the search for truth, or between individual impulse and communal meaning, then the dialogues it generates, while potentially useful, might lack that deeper, socially and intellectually edifying quality. They might operate on the surface of language and ideas without participating in the underlying metaxic quest for meaning that animates the best human dialogues."
I am currently reading Zena Hitz' _Lost in Thought_ which features fond reminiscences of all night dialogues with classmates at St. John's that remind me of my own college days. I am thus wondering what the differences would be between such an experience and an all night dialogue with Claude on whatever the topic happened to be. On the plus side Claude would never get tired and his factual command of any subject would likely be broader, if not deeper, than most other people. And Claude will also ask you questions to keep you thinking, so that the information flow is not just one way. Two things that stand out for me right now that Claude might be deficient in are (1) that the dialogue might not be as memorable because Claude cannot tie his statements to a real, embodied personality in the way that, say, Plato can attach his statements to the personalities and professions of the characters in his dialogues (though I suppose you could ask Claude to answer all of the questions according to a certain personality type or historical figure?) and (2) the dialogue would not achieve any kind of social bond or create social capital that someone might be able to draw on down the road (I am still friends with a lot of my partners in dialogue over the years). A third distinction that I continue to wonder about a lot is whether an AI dialogic partner can ever really _challenge_ us to modify our beliefs the way that a real person can. When you dialogue with a real person, you get to see their reactions to your good or bad ideas. If your ideas are outlandish enough, they may even call you out on them and create a real social pressure for you to chance. This pressure can of course be good or bad depending on whether your idea is really harmful to yourself or others. I think this third element may be crucial to your emphasis on metaxy. It's important for our friends to remind us to love the right things sometimes.
Thanks so much for this continued rich and thoughtful engagement, it is definitely helping my own thinking re. metaxy.
You are absolutely right to connect "metaxy" with concepts like liminality and, very powerfully with Eros.
I asked Gemini to elaborate on this, here is its main reply
"Eros, in the Socratic sense, is a profound experience of the metaxy. Eros is that "in-between" state – not pure ignorance, nor complete wisdom, but the desire for wisdom, beauty, and the good that arises precisely from the tensional awareness of not yet possessing them. It's the daemonic spirit, as Plato describes it, bridging the human and the divine, the mortal and the immortal. This is the very dynamism of the metaxy: the pull between what is and what ought to be, what is known and what is yearned for."
So, when you say, "one of our fundamental challenges as humans these days is which forms of 'in between' or 'Eros' we want to live in and which forms we just want to surrender to," you are articulating a central aspect of navigating the metaxy.
The surrender to expertise (your wine or doctor examples) can be a conscious, pragmatic choice within the metaxy. It's a recognition of our finitude and the vastness of knowledge, allowing us to conserve our "erotic" or "metaxic" energy for domains where our passionate inquiry is most needed or fruitful. In a complex world, as you note, this discernment is essential.
I have not read Zena Hitz's Lost in Thought, but will.
I really like that you bring in Social Bonds / Social Capital. Eros, as Plato shows, is also deeply connected to philia (friendship) and the bonds formed in shared pursuit of the good or the true. These bonds are forged in the shared vulnerability and striving inherent in the metaxy. An AI, not existing in this tensional, relational space, cannot participate in this kind of bond-creation, as you illustrate with 'dialogue' with LLMs.
A real person, operating from their own metaxic experience and (ideally) oriented by their own "eros" towards truth and goodness, can challenge us in a way that carries existential weight. Their reactions, their "calling you out," stem from a shared human ground of striving and fallibility. This "social pressure" isn't just about conformity; at its best, it's a mutual orientation within the metaxy, helping each other discern the "better pull," as you say, "to love the right things." An AI, lacking this grounding in lived, tensional existence and an intrinsic "eros" for the good, can present counterarguments, but can it truly challenge our fundamental orientations with the same kind of transformative potential? It's a critical question.