All written symbols --visual, resounding, and sensual stimulation-- are memetic ideals that attempt to corrupt/persuade you of a propaganda.
In other words, whenever somebody attempts to communicate anything to you, they are attempting to convince you of their distorted reality that they erroneously and subconsciously-believe to be absolute. This is a “memetic compulsion” that involves translation and transmutation of given realities. It also applies to everyone “equally”. Even the words that I type now are meant to convince you of my own points & ideas. And they will convince you that I am ‘right’, ‘correct’, ‘true’, or ‘factual’ where & when my symbols reflect a more clear & precise description and explanation of inter-realities, otherwise known as “actuality”. When one person is ‘smarter’ or more ‘intelligent’ than another, then a “memetic shift” occurs, which distorts the mind of the lesser-reality. This event happens when you are convinced by my symbols or when I am convinced by your symbols. Failure to understand and systematically-accept this memetic process is known as “compartmentalization”, whereas a particular person subcedes and surrenders to the inherent force connotated while displaying a meager or superficial resistance to the persuasion-process.
For example, if you read what I said and fail to respond to me, then this is compartmentalization. I can then track this memetic dominance by how your particular posts morph and cohere with my predisposed “memetic constitution”, and then I can capitulate a sustained dominance over your arguments in a future reference-frame whereas you have come to either a) reject or b) accept my basic premises and points. And furthermore, if I am extremely-adept at observing this “memetic divergence”, then I can even predict to higher & higher degrees not only the success rates of my own memetic influence, but that of yours and others within confined biological-social structures. If you resist me, and argue against me in this thread, then it only exposes that I am right where & when you did not argue against me. If you are silent, then I may either declare-by-decree or assume that I am correct, re-posit the said-“memetic structures” according to my will, favor, and pleasure, and make further “memetic accusations”. Namely, I can freely-assume that not only do you know lesser things than I, but I can also freely-assume that “I am right” and “you are wrong”, until a competition occurs.
This conclusion postulates to me that a “memetic dominance” can and does occur where symbology is devoid of any formal structure. But, reality does not operate in this way. The world-itself constantly-seeks to reassure me of its existence in the objective-stance. Even alone in my apartment, ‘warmth’ convinces me that I am warm, ‘light’ convinces me that I see, and ‘loneliness’ convinces me that I am alone. And Actuality is the most dominating memetic structure of all possible realities. In other words, it is not even necessarily-you that is going to convince me of a propaganda that you innately attempt to spew at me. It is going to to be the formal-symbolic structure of a line of words & reasoning that will either convince me of said-statements, or not. And I imagine that they will mostly-probably not convince me, because I actively seek out arguments wherever I go. I constantly seek out a higher source of memetic dominance like Christians seek out “God”. And you do the same. You want to be mastered in the same way I do. You do not want to think, because to think implies an underlying responsibility towards the end processes which make thinking possible to begin with. You are here. You think. To what end was this ability designed for … except memetic dominance?
According to these definitions lined up by myself, my reality, and Actuality-in-general, nothing you or I can say beyond this point in space-time-reality cannot be anything except a more heightened propaganda system, a “memetic ideal”. In other words, I convince you or I do not. If I convince you, then you become dominated by my thoughts, and me-myself. I own your words, literally and metaphorically-speaking. If I do not convince you, then there only a few alternatives left to ponder: 1) You are in denial, 2) You are forming a counterargument, or 3) You and I are both wrong. Now, I will avoid points #1 and #2, because #3 is the most common occurrence of a “memetic exchange”. If you and I are both wrong, then things become strictly-nonsensical. And neither ‘reality’ nor ‘actuality’ was ever set up to be this way. It is not a matter of Perspectivism: “oohhhh golly-gee-wiz, you are entitled to your ‘opinion’ and I am entitled to my ‘opinion’, and let us all be happy, merry, gay, and dance together in the garden!” This is the mind of a woman or a child. This is not how things work in the minds of men. (due to the memetic structures involved). In other words, the male-memetic-linguistic-system-of-reality always exists in a competition. Because this is true, #3 cannot ever be true, because the nature of competition subsists the “memetic format” of all language-structures. This implies that all men are always in a constant state of argument, dominance, assertive stance, and rhetorical battle. That these battles can take place physically (i.e. genetically) only further proves the point that the memetic structure is necessitated to begin with! All that we are then left with, as men, is a fluctuating system of propaganda: me v you.
So, with all of this said, what can I assume? If nobody posts, then I can freely assume that I am right, except where Actuality proves me wrong. But Actuality is not a person nor a particular reality. It is an Absolute reality. It is my ‘computer’ telling me that I compute. It is the sound of my music telling me that I listen. You are not necessarily involved, which allows for a validity of Solipsism. I need not even concern myself with you, except where point #3 is blatantly wrong! Once point #3 is conceded, then I am right by definition, and this is an even more complex case, because then it means that you must react to an apparent domination. How can you do so? I would guess that you then cannot. The domination then becomes more absolute, and cannot even become compartmentalized lest you go insane. Isn’t it quaint?
So, if you are going to compartmentalize all of this, allow me to dominate you, ignore me (through active “memetic ignorance”), and move on, then just remember that I can, and probably will, follow you around when it comes to a “Philosophy Forum”. This place is not so ‘big’ after all. There are only a few active speakers present. And even after that, there are even fewer active speakers who are actually-interesting (unfortunately). Thus, my advice to you is this: study some formology, if you are physically-able to. If you are not, then perhaps you should rethink and question why you came here (to a Philosophy website) to begin with. Why are men here? Why are women here? Who are the students? Who are the teachers?